Author Topic: Sponsoring a return to the Moon  (Read 16617 times)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« on: 03/21/2014 08:14 pm »
Ok,

     Let's be honest.  The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

First, Lunar water extraction.  For drinking, air or fuel.  more of a long term project with little immedtaie return.

Second; He3 extraction.  A more immediate profit source, admittedly, but still insufficent to bring much gear up for what might provide an abubance of clean energy.

Third; The 3,700 mile Circumlunar Moon Buggy Races.  The Baja 1,000 is famous world wide and gets millions in sponsorships, where the Lunar 6700 would gain BILLIONS in add revene and sponsership.
First part of the race would simply be getting to the moon and then setting up the various pit stops needed around the moon for replacement parts and maintenance.  Then the racers arrive.  And if there are at least temporary lunar hotels, the multibillionairs who come to watch the run.  The race would take about 67 days, assuming about 100 miles per day.
It would be televised around the world with the final run to the finish line being on Pay per view.

Ok, silly, but I know I would sure be glued to my set trying to find out who wins and who loses, and maybe, if they aren't careful enough, who doesn't come back next year.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2014 09:14 pm by Chris Bergin »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #1 on: 03/21/2014 08:37 pm »
Ok,

     Let's be honest.  The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

If it isn't mentioned elsewhere; just noticed that FoxNews had this week a five part Moon oped series calling for US returning to the Moon.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/17/its-time-to-return-to-moon-former-nasa-chief-says/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/18/chinas-moon-rover-wake-up-call/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/19/how-to-return-to-moon-in-just-four-years/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/20/shoot-for-moon-how-america-can-lead-world-back/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/21/making-moon-base-why-now-is-time/

No He3 or water extracting, just going there to learn to live there, leadership, Boo China (not so bad though even insinuating co-operation as long as US leads) and such.

Quote
Third; The 3,700 mile Circumlunar Moon Buggy Races.  The Baja 1,000 is famous world wide and gets millions in sponsorships, where the Lunar 6700 would gain BILLIONS in add revene and sponsership.

Spaceflight funding is getting the equivalent of Chewbacca defense, the Mars One defense.  ;)
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #2 on: 03/21/2014 08:38 pm »
Ok,

     Let's be honest.  The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...
Sponsoring a return to the Moon.

No, I think US government will return to the Moon. Generally, everything which hopeless idiotic must be tried before it can obviously be seen to not be workable.
I don't think Obama is not going to lead in the direction of lunar exploration, but his days are numbered.
And the fact that Obama opposed to going to the Moon, will advantage because the next President is probably going to want to appear to be different than Obama.
So I think Obama has made less likely we going to some asteroid- which too bad, because Obama has made little effort in doing this, so it has not really been tried, but only appears to have been a direction which has been a failure.

If we had different laws, one could hope private sector would "do it", or one hope some billionaire would do something in which there is no concern for it being profitable.
But what is needed is exploration, first. So if there was a means of making profit from exploration [and there could be if we had different laws]  only then can expect a profit motive effort in regards to the Moon.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2014 10:26 pm by gbaikie »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #3 on: 03/21/2014 08:45 pm »

 Generally, everything which hopeless idiotic must be tried before it can obviously be seen to not be workable.


Not true, pipe launchers won't be tried.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #4 on: 03/21/2014 08:52 pm »
Jim,

     What?  Are you sayinmg that the CircumLunar 6700 race WOULDN'T be a form of exploration?!
     Ok, exploitation, perhaps then...

     Regardless, it'd be a heck of alot of fun and one heck of a ride!
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #5 on: 03/21/2014 09:06 pm »
First thing ya gotta do when starting a new thread is figure out how to spell correctly your title.  :P
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #6 on: 03/21/2014 09:34 pm »
To keep my attention you have to start smaller.

When someone is actually landing robotic payloads and they start talking about humans to the same destination, well that is still a big leap.. but I will seriously consider whether they are serious. Any other scheme I will pretty much dismiss as a kickstarter scam, delusional, or someone speaking ironically :)

This applies to NASA too.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #7 on: 03/22/2014 05:12 am »
If it isn't mentioned elsewhere; just noticed that FoxNews had this week a five part Moon oped series calling for US returning to the Moon.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/17/its-time-to-return-to-moon-former-nasa-chief-says/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/18/chinas-moon-rover-wake-up-call/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/19/how-to-return-to-moon-in-just-four-years/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/20/shoot-for-moon-how-america-can-lead-world-back/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/21/making-moon-base-why-now-is-time/

Nice find! It's noteworthy that these contain more than merely opinion/editorial content. The author (Gene Grush) proposes a specific architecture for Apollo-like human missions to the lunar surface, based on four FH launches per mission. He hopes for a cost of, "An even $1 billion per mission."
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #8 on: 03/22/2014 11:33 am »
@Happy Martian... Maybe you should consider changing you name to more apropos Happy Lunatic? Just sayin...  ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #9 on: 03/25/2014 09:18 am »
To keep my attention you have to start smaller.

When someone is actually landing robotic payloads and they start talking about humans to the same destination, well that is still a big leap.. but I will seriously consider whether they are serious. Any other scheme I will pretty much dismiss as a kickstarter scam, delusional, or someone speaking ironically :)

This applies to NASA too.

Starting small is way to go.
1) Decide to return moon
2) Find partners, there seems to be a lot of countries and private parties/companies interested in moon.
3) Develop a game plan ie list of missions,  I expect most early ones to be robotic. NB results of some missions may cause changes to game plan eg ice harvesting may not be an option.
4) Share the missions around partners.
5) Do the missions as partners / NASA can afford them but most important thing is that each mission achieve something eg gains knowledge or puts some permanent infrastructure in place.
6) The big costs (especially on going ones) will been when we man a lunar base but this 10-20years out. Hopefully advances in spaceflight will reduce this eg reusable LV.

10-20 robotic missions can achieve alot, spread over few partners and few years should make this affordable for all parties.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #10 on: 03/25/2014 08:29 pm »
The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #11 on: 03/27/2014 07:18 pm »
...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy


Randy, to be "honest", you are being childish. Please keep the finger "discussion" in your political hack sandbox. The SLS and Orion are perfectly capable of doing international Lunar missions and you know it.

Grow up.

Honestly I'm making a "joke" and it is no more a "political-hack" than blaming Obama for everything :)

The "capability" of the SLS and Orion was not a point I addressed but if you have been following the appropriate threads on those two systems you will have noted there is a definate "lack" of capability on Orions part and probably with the SLS as well. Those are NOT "engineering" issues but political ones. My point being the same as before: Since there has been NO change in "attitude" of the people who control NASAs budget and direction it is quite clear that the US government has no intention of going BLEO either to the Moon or any other destination with manned missions.

Considering the written, oral, and in fact as you often point out, "law" that those self-same people have passed pretty much DEMAND a different attitude AND clear support for the "supposed" goals. And the fact this is coupled with the clear LACK of respect for those they are speaking too, as well as a clear intention to IGNORE those same written and oral statements and NOT make any serious efforts to allow NASA to acomplish the goals THEY have set implies a direct and caclulated insult towards both NASA and the "goals" those people put into "law" in the first place.

"Capability" does no good without intent. The intent is clearly not there and Congress has no interest in giving NASA the capability to actually carry out their "orders" despite rhetoric to the contrary. It may be crude, but the plain and simple truth is that Congress has continually given the "Finger" to US HSF since before Apollo-11 landed on the Moon and nothing has changed to date except they no longer feel any need to try and "hide" the fact they are doing so.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #12 on: 03/29/2014 03:37 am »
...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy


Randy, to be "honest", you are being childish. Please keep the finger "discussion" in your political hack sandbox. The SLS and Orion are perfectly capable of doing international Lunar missions and you know it.

Grow up.

Honestly I'm making a "joke" and it is no more a "political-hack" than blaming Obama for everything :)

The "capability" of the SLS and Orion was not a point I addressed but if you have been following the appropriate threads on those two systems you will have noted there is a definate "lack" of capability on Orions part and probably with the SLS as well. Those are NOT "engineering" issues but political ones. My point being the same as before: Since there has been NO change in "attitude" of the people who control NASAs budget and direction it is quite clear that the US government has no intention of going BLEO either to the Moon or any other destination with manned missions.

Considering the written, oral, and in fact as you often point out, "law" that those self-same people have passed pretty much DEMAND a different attitude AND clear support for the "supposed" goals. And the fact this is coupled with the clear LACK of respect for those they are speaking too, as well as a clear intention to IGNORE those same written and oral statements and NOT make any serious efforts to allow NASA to acomplish the goals THEY have set implies a direct and caclulated insult towards both NASA and the "goals" those people put into "law" in the first place.

"Capability" does no good without intent. The intent is clearly not there and Congress has no interest in giving NASA the capability to actually carry out their "orders" despite rhetoric to the contrary. It may be crude, but the plain and simple truth is that Congress has continually given the "Finger" to US HSF since before Apollo-11 landed on the Moon and nothing has changed to date except they no longer feel any need to try and "hide" the fact they are doing so.

Randy



Congress has not hidden anything. It is part of both recent history and our current space law that Congress has told NASA to place astronauts on the Moon. The individual who has ignored and failed to implement our current Lunar centric space law is the person NASA Administrator General Charles Bolden legally reports to, the President.

The Democratic Party, my party, may have some election troubles because it has supported a President who is not fully implementing our bipartisan Lunar centric space law. And most folks who are paying attention to NASA's space planning know the President is deliberately not following our space law.

Our Lunar centric space law has minimalistic cis-lunar transportation capabilities and pay as you go parts to it. That means the costly and unneeded L2 space station you and others have supported with great amounts of verbiage is not going to get any real money from Congress because it adds both risks and costs to Lunar surface missions.

But in order to camouflage the obvious failure of our President to devise affordable plans to get NASA and our international partners on the Moon as per our bipartisan Lunar centric space law, you and several others have repeatedly and falsely attacked Congress as the source of the problem.

NASA cannot get humans on the Moon and doing ISRU without the insightful and fully engaged leadership of whoever is elected to the White House.

Or as you said, "'Capability' does no good without intent."

Yep. That one you are correct on. And our current President has made it quite clear he does not intend for NASA to make any serious plans for leading international human missions to the surface of the Moon.

The current President has not been able to effectively lead NASA in a credible and bipartisan direction in implementing our Lunar centric space law. He has loudly proclaimed "BTDT". And yet no one can show us a history book with international crews on the Moon doing ISRU to produce rocket propellant to reduce the risks and costs of developing cis-lunar space and to enhance the trust and technical capabilities needed for sustainable international missions to Mars and Ceres.

"BTDT" is wrong. It is that simple. Support the guy who either lies about or is ignorant of space history and who promotes a highly Partisan Plan of Indecision for NASA's Beyond LEO Human Exploration Architecture if you wish. But do not continue to sow confusion by crudely saying a bipartisan majority of Congress doesn't want NASA to lead international, affordable, and sustainable ISRU missions to the Moon.

Those NASA led international human Lunar ISRU missions may not happen until sometime during the 2026 to 2036 period of time. There will be difficult to solve technical and political problems as we devise our international human Lunar mission plans, but despite the extensive and ongoing negativity from some confused or politically motivated space cadets, the Moon is where we are going.

We should not blame a President for being the person he or she is. Everyone makes some really foolish mistakes. Expecting wisdom and perfection in a President would be silly.

None-the-less, in the tradition of the British Magna Carta of 1215, America was founded as a nation of everyone following the law. Many folks expect a President to carefully and fully implement our space law or explain to Congress and the American people exactly why he or she is refusing to follow our bipartisan Lunar centric space law. A President that doesn't want to follow or implement the law also has the useful option of resigning.

And other than attempting to politically camouflage the President's "BTDT" unwillingness to follow our bipartisan Lunar centric space law, there is little point in your endless campaign of "political-hack" blather to blame Congress for any delays in America leading a world-wide effort to explore and exploit the resources of the Moon with our two new, affordable, and quite useful cis-lunar space transportation systems, the SLS and the international Orion.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2014 04:26 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Sponsering a return to the Moon
« Reply #13 on: 03/29/2014 04:38 am »
Spaceflight funding is getting the equivalent of Chewbacca defense, the Mars One defense.  ;)

May not be as crazy as it sounds.

OK in the specific case of Mars One yes, their plan almost certainly can't provide the amount of money needed, but colonizing Mars is a lot bigger step than returning to the Moon.

I can totally see the media from a manned Moon (or Mars or asteroid, doesn't really matter) thing getting hundreds of millions of viewers/buyers if it is done correctly.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #14 on: 03/29/2014 08:42 am »
Maybe NASA needs to tap into the crowdfunding and sponsorhip money. This would allow people from outside US to contribute to NASA run mission, I'd donate $10 to NASA mission.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #15 on: 03/29/2014 10:17 am »
I don't think they would be allowed to. But if there were a legitimate, honest-to-goodness way for a foreigner like me to contribute to a Real, B.E.O. human manned mission by NASA - or 'Golden Spike' for that matter -  I think I could scrape up $1k dollars this week!!

No; really...
« Last Edit: 03/29/2014 10:18 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #16 on: 03/29/2014 07:32 pm »
Maybe NASA needs to tap into the crowdfunding and sponsorhip money. This would allow people from outside US to contribute to NASA run mission, I'd donate $10 to NASA mission.

Crowd-funding over ~$50,000 tends to hit problems.  However that is sufficient to pay for an experiment that fits in a U2 or U3 cubesat sized box.  If it is attached to the spacecraft the equipment will not need independent propulsion and power.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #17 on: 04/01/2014 02:31 pm »
This is probably going far off-topic for a "joke" and mods feel free to delete.move it if desired however:

Congress has not hidden anything. It is part of both recent history and our current space law that Congress has told NASA to place astronauts on the Moon. The individual who has ignored and failed to implement our current Lunar centric space law is the person NASA Administrator General Charles Bolden legally reports to, the President.

::::sigh:::: You are SO right that Congress has hidden nothing, their contempt, games and budget shinanigens are clear and you seem to be the only one to miss how they "talk" but do nothing to support that talk.

Congress has placed certain wording in the last dozen or so authorization bills that include NASA doing everything from "opening up space to private access," using "commercial" resources and capability to the maximum extent possible, enabling space colonization, to being instructed to ensure mankind becomes a "space-faring" civilization. None of which has any specific timeframe, visible political or financial support, and specifically no visible interest from Congress the moment after they pass the provisions. This is not the first nor will it be the last time that Congress does not follow its own "laws" specifically in an "subject" they feel is neither a priority nor "important" to the average American.

You should really LEARN from history...

Quote
The Democratic Party, my party, may have some election troubles because it has supported a President who is not fully implementing our bipartisan Lunar centric space law. And most folks who are paying attention to NASA's space planning know the President is deliberately not following our space law

The Republican party, my party, (though not for much longer given how little it seems interested in the "moderate" voter and my interests) may be in some serious election trouble because they have NOT supported the President on some issues that, unlike "space," "HSF," and future space exploration plans the average American and voter cares much more about. And which the Republican's have gone to great lengths to prove they are at odds with the "majority" of Americans in viewpoint. In other words, the fact that Congress passed wording that indicated they "wanted" NASA consider focusing on Lunar missions and programs and then didn't support that same document with action and finances won't "register" much on voters except in a few states where the rather deliberate actions by their congress-critters may actually help stir up the voters against the current incumbents. I seriously doubt it will be an issue though as the matter isn't imporant enough to worry the politicians involved enough to take it seriously they feel, (rightly) that neither will the voters.

At every turn when Congress has HAD a chance to enact "bi-partisian" efforts and funding to truely support HSF and exploration they have quite clearly gone out of their way to FAIL to do so. No matter who was in the White House and what party he belonged to. While the current President talks of Mars they will talk of the Moon, if a President proposes the Moon they will talk then of Mars. If a President talks of both they will decry the cost and talk of seeking more international "cooperation" while denying funding for any actual capability. And so on.

Congress has made the "goal" of the SLS very clear; A 130-ton payload vehicle that spends money in all the right places. They do not talk of it going to the Moon but taking American astronauts to the ISS. They groan and complain over the ARMA but provide no funding or support for alternative NASA missions nor for Lunar missions. They "demand" international cooperation in NASA planning and missions but provide no funding or political support for the demands.

And this has been a clear and on-going trend since before Apollo-11 landed on the Moon! And yet you can not seem to understand that Congress often, willingly, and often very publicly does not follow its own "laws" nor do they consider those "laws" and the statements therein to be "binding" to them.

Is this their "fault" alone? Of course not, but considering that they and not any President have the ultimate "say" in setting, supporting, and funding any "space" policy under the law they can not avoid shouldering the major burden.

But they don't, no one cares enough to call them on the issue and they know that no one does. So they continue to spout rhetoric they have no intention of supporting about goals they have no intention of reaching, and giving NASA directions they have no intention of funding while whining about the lack of "direction" in the American space program.

If you can't deal with the reality then simply ignore this and actually comment on the subject of sponsoring a return to the Moon, but understand that I will continue to point out the faults in your argument where you insist on depending on the "US Government" to do what the "US Government" has been refusing to do since 1965.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #18 on: 04/01/2014 02:37 pm »
Maybe NASA needs to tap into the crowdfunding and sponsorhip money. This would allow people from outside US to contribute to NASA run mission, I'd donate $10 to NASA mission.

Crowd-funding over ~$50,000 tends to hit problems.  However that is sufficient to pay for an experiment that fits in a U2 or U3 cubesat sized box.  If it is attached to the spacecraft the equipment will not need independent propulsion and power.

Actually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations. On the other hand IF someone were to set up a way to "crowd-fund" variious missions...

But as noted, crowd-funding over @$50K tends to get dicy at best and I'm pretty sure the legal hassels grow as the money collected does. Still it's been a "dream" of mine to see an open-source, crowd-funded Lunar or other space mission done. Though I have to admit, what I'd REALLY like to see is the various "Face-on-Mars" and other "NASA-is-hiding-ET" groups fund their OWN damn satellites and/or rovers and be done with it :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #19 on: 04/02/2014 06:43 am »
Actually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations.

Uhh.. no. You can send a check to NASA if you want. There's apparently some difficulty in figuring who to make it out to, but it's possible and legal. There's been some calls to make it easier:

http://sheekgeek.org/2012/adamsheekgeek/making-it-easier-to-donate-money-directly-to-nasa

As described in the article, other agencies already receive public donations. There's nothing illegal about it.




Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #20 on: 04/02/2014 08:53 am »
Actually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations.

Uhh.. no. You can send a check to NASA if you want. There's apparently some difficulty in figuring who to make it out to, but it's possible and legal. There's been some calls to make it easier:

http://sheekgeek.org/2012/adamsheekgeek/making-it-easier-to-donate-money-directly-to-nasa

As described in the article, other agencies already receive public donations. There's nothing illegal about it.

I think might more interesting if one could make donations which are conditional and which could be part of a multi-year fund. So that such donations could be directed towards something in particular, so say Manned Mars, depots, prizes, telescopes, or whatever.
This could be described as politicizing NASA in sense that such donation could be conveying a political will- support for Manned Mars or whatever. And I think that would be a good thing.
Because it would something in particular to rally political support regarding, and it indicates to Congress what NASA does is important.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2014 08:54 am by gbaikie »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #21 on: 04/02/2014 01:05 pm »
The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy

Don't grow up.  It's bad for ya.  You are probably correct in your finger analysis.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2014 01:07 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #22 on: 04/02/2014 02:45 pm »
The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy

Don't grow up.  It's bad for ya.  You are probably correct in your finger analysis.

Add to that, said finger has been jammed up a nose while they've been consumed with priorities of personal, political interest.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #23 on: 04/02/2014 05:54 pm »
The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...

Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been ;)

Randy

Don't grow up.  It's bad for ya.  You are probably correct in your finger analysis.

Add to that, said finger has been jammed up a nose while they've been consumed with priorities of personal, political interest.

I came to the conclusion long before the T-Shirt appeared that growing older doesn't mean you have to grow-up :) And I agree redilox, that's been my main point of contention with the governmental process :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #24 on: 04/02/2014 06:16 pm »
Actually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations.

Uhh.. no. You can send a check to NASA if you want. There's apparently some difficulty in figuring who to make it out to, but it's possible and legal. There's been some calls to make it easier:

http://sheekgeek.org/2012/adamsheekgeek/making-it-easier-to-donate-money-directly-to-nasa

As described in the article, other agencies already receive public donations. There's nothing illegal about it.

Yes "illegal" was a bit harher than I should of used :) PITA for everyone involved is a much clearer response. :)

I think might more interesting if one could make donations which are conditional and which could be part of a multi-year fund. So that such donations could be directed towards something in particular, so say Manned Mars, depots, prizes, telescopes, or whatever.
This could be described as politicizing NASA in sense that such donation could be conveying a political will- support for Manned Mars or whatever. And I think that would be a good thing.
Because it would something in particular to rally political support regarding, and it indicates to Congress what NASA does is important.

And have us "unwashed-masses" provide effective proof of what we consider public monies SHOULD be spent on rather than relying on the politicians to do so? Shocking idea! (And one of the main reasons it is and will probably remain a PITA to do so :) )

There have been efforts over the past 40+ years to get "the public" to donate directly to NASA and other agencies for specific projects and the majority have never materialized while those that did were only short-lived and marginally effective. To be effective it HAS to be sustained over a time period and getting and keeping public support is tough.

IIRC there was a campaign at one point to increase the HSF budget by getting the "average-American" to donate the cost of one six-pack of beer a month specifically to NASA for that purpose :)

Might simply be a lot easier in the end to organize a "non-profit" group to collect and organize a fund and distribute the money that way, though reforming the "process" (being kind) would help a lot...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #25 on: 08/20/2014 10:12 am »
Possible private moon base.

Small Sat 2014: Keynote Steve Jurvetson
Steve Jurvetson is one of the commercial space industry's most successful investors. He is a partner of Draper Fisher Jurvetson.
First part is about SpaceX, followed by a little history of PlanetLabs



.
Steve mention another meeting at conference involving PlanetLabs and others about creating a private Lunar base. Given that Larry Page whats to make a difference with his billions (See video) and Google's interest in the moon, this maybe far from a pipe dream.
.

 


Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #26 on: 08/25/2014 08:01 pm »
Well the title is:
"Final Report for Self-Financed, Self-Developed and Self-Supporting Profitable Lunar Colony"
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/support-files/orbitec-steckler-report-2010.pdf

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #27 on: 08/27/2014 02:50 pm »
Crowd-funding over ~$50,000 tends to hit problems.

Planetary Resources managed 1.5 million dollars for an Arkyd telescope.

But that was unusual. And even 1.5 million is a drop in the bucket for returning to the moon.

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #28 on: 08/27/2014 10:01 pm »
Yes. One of the key ingredients in their success was that their pledge rewards were attractive to backers. The space selfies drew in a lot of people. Sending T-shirts or failed PCB's as some cubesat kickstarters have done isn't going to have nearly the same impact.
« Last Edit: 08/27/2014 10:02 pm by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #29 on: 08/27/2014 10:57 pm »
Yes. One of the key ingredients in their success was that their pledge rewards were attractive to backers. The space selfies drew in a lot of people. Sending T-shirts or failed PCB's as some cubesat kickstarters have done isn't going to have nearly the same impact.

Speaking for myself, it's the publicity.

I would have donated to Golden Spike's crowd funding but didn't hear about it until it was over.

In contrast I heard about Arkyd's Kick Starter campaign on the first day. I donated $10.

Likelihood of success is also a factor. Given cost of lunar infrastructure and Golden Spike's assets, I'd give long odds. A donation to Golden Spike is likely to be money down the tubes.

On the other hand, Planetary Resources has some extremely wealthy backers. They also have some near term revenue streams. I give them better than even odds.

Again speaking for myself, I don't give a rat's nalgas about T-shirts, selfies or other "incentives".
« Last Edit: 08/27/2014 10:58 pm by Hop_David »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #30 on: 08/27/2014 11:00 pm »
On the other hand, Planetary Resources has some extremely wealthy backers.

Who? This myth needs to die.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #31 on: 08/28/2014 06:40 am »
Planetary Resources claims as investors:
Eric E. Schmidt
K. Ram Shriram
Charles Simonyi
Larry Page
Ross Perot, Jr.
Richard Branson
Robert Hariri
Rena Shulsky David
Raymie Stata
John C. Whitehead
Bryan Johnson

http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/

Don't more than one of those count as "extremely wealthy?"
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #32 on: 08/28/2014 06:44 am »
Don't more than one of those count as "extremely wealthy?"

Fair enough, but I think the implication is that they're "backing" the company with gigabucks and they're just not.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #33 on: 08/28/2014 11:56 pm »
Don't more than one of those count as "extremely wealthy?"

Fair enough, but I think the implication is that they're "backing" the company with gigabucks and they're just not.

I saw it as they had the "potential" to get "gigabucks" in the future from people that care enough in what they are doing to attach their names to the company.  In addition to using modern ways of raising funds (a Kickstarter campaign that exceeded $1.5M), they appear to be following a lean startup model which many of those backers would want to see the results from before investing significant additional amounts.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Sponsoring a return to the Moon
« Reply #34 on: 08/29/2014 12:01 am »
Yup, the myth I was thinking of was that around the time of their launch the media was reporting they had already received gigabucks in backing.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0