Author Topic: Resource Prospector  (Read 34390 times)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4858
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #60 on: 01/18/2017 09:18 PM »
So the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2?
'Ride' as in launch isn't the big deal, missing lander is.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #61 on: 01/19/2017 06:50 AM »
So the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2?
'Ride' as in launch isn't the big deal, missing lander is.

Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander. Moon Express or Masten Space are possible suppliers.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4858
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #62 on: 01/19/2017 06:55 AM »
Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander.
This acronym/initative appears to be dead as a doornail
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #63 on: 01/19/2017 07:30 AM »
Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander.
This acronym/initative appears to be dead as a doornail

Someone needs to tell the firms involved. Masten Space has just put a picture of its XL-1 lunar lander on its website.

(Alternatively do not tell them they may finish it.)
http://masten.aero/vehicles-2

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4858
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #64 on: 01/19/2017 05:04 PM »
Masten Space has just put a picture of its XL-1 lunar lander on its website.
Really ? Okay then
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #65 on: 01/24/2017 12:13 AM »
So the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2?
'Ride' as in launch isn't the big deal, missing lander is.

Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander. Moon Express or Masten Space are possible suppliers.
Astrobotic is most likely at 250kg to surface.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #66 on: 01/24/2017 07:39 AM »
It will be interesting to see if anyone terns up for the Annual Reviews in March.

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #67 on: 01/25/2017 07:31 PM »
It appears that one politician is completely into lunar ice utilization:

http://bridenstine.house.gov/blog/?postid=772

this might give RP a boost.

Note: I don't know much about US politics (never been to US), or who this politician is.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2017 09:08 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #68 on: 01/25/2017 11:56 PM »
He is widely rumored to be the nominee for NASA administrator.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #69 on: 01/26/2017 02:15 AM »
With 2 lunar XPrize landers and some rovers available, NASA only needs to develop payloads and pay for missions.  The other plus is lead times can be <2yrs on missions.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #70 on: 04/14/2017 04:29 AM »
It seems that the Trump transition team asked NASA about Resource Prospector among other things:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/trump-transition-nasa-foia-moon

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #71 on: 05/06/2017 03:34 AM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #72 on: 05/07/2017 04:58 PM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/
Quote from above links.
"However, any plans to extract valuable resources from the Moon for commercial purposes would seem to at least bump up against the 1967 Outer Space Treaty signed by the United States, Russia (then USSR), and 90 other countries, which states: "The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."

Actually it's only way to comply with treaty- if talking about commercial lunar water mining. Or commercial mining would/should be done by publicly traded companies- thereby allow all people in the world to have opportunity to be the part owners of the enterprise.  And a private enterprise  [unless restricted by governmental laws] will obviously sell water and/or rocket fuel to any party who wants to pay for it.

So NASA explores the moon and the world chooses whether to be involved with investing the money needed to start mining it. NASA track record indicates it will share the resulting finding of the exploration- with other countries doing the exploration, it might be a matter more in doubt.
Deciding that NASA should mine the Moon, would/could be a mistake AND could be seen as conflicting with the treaty.
NASA should spend less than 10 year doing a lunar exploration program, then start a major Mars exploration program. The purpose of a NASA mars exploration program would be to determine whether [or when] settlements on Mars could be viable. If the the Moon can be commercially mined this could part of answer of whether people of Earth could have settlements on Mars. Though if there isn't minable lunar water, it's still possible that mars settlements could be possible- and it's unrelated to whether one can explore Mars [Or NASA Mars exploration should not depend upon lunar water mining- but if lunar water begins, NASA could decide to buy the lunar water for use in it's Mars exploration- or NASA simply buys water and rocket fuel in space and does have to be concerned about how or where it's from].
Or if get Mars having settlements [a private sector activity] one will have a market for rocket fuel in the space environment- but one should confuse future NASA Mars bases needed for exploration, with future human settlements on Mars. Or many countries have scientific bases at the Antarctic, but don't we don't have settlements in the Antarctic.
 
« Last Edit: 05/07/2017 05:07 PM by gbaikie »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2472
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #73 on: 05/08/2017 10:17 AM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/
Quote from above links.
"However, any plans to extract valuable resources from the Moon for commercial purposes would seem to at least bump up against the 1967 Outer Space Treaty signed by the United States, Russia (then USSR), and 90 other countries, which states: "The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."

Actually it's only way to comply with treaty- if talking about commercial lunar water mining. Or commercial mining would/should be done by publicly traded companies- thereby allow all people in the world to have opportunity to be the part owners of the enterprise.  And a private enterprise  [unless restricted by governmental laws] will obviously sell water and/or rocket fuel to any party who wants to pay for it.

I don't see commercial mining being in conflict with the OST. As long as the mined material can be made available to any country, corporation or individual who wishes to purchase it for legal purposes, I believe that is in the spirit of what the OST is trying to achieve.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Canada
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 404
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #74 on: 05/08/2017 12:03 PM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/
Quote from above links.
....

I don't see commercial mining being in conflict with the OST. As long as the mined material can be made available to any country, corporation or individual who wishes to purchase it for legal purposes, I believe that is in the spirit of what the OST is trying to achieve.
There might be as a legal issue with who gets the taxes & user fees from the mining company. I do not believe that a mining company will get free extraction of resources off Earth from the OST AIUI.

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Canada
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #75 on: 05/08/2017 01:58 PM »
Extracting resources (and maybe doing the manufacturing) in space rather than on Earth reduces the burden of pollution and environmental degradation on Earth, which directly benefits people who have to breathe the air and drink the water, i.e. everybody.   Jeff Bezos has talked about this recently but it's an older idea.  There are more benefits than purely economic ones.  So it's all about how you promote it. 

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #76 on: 05/14/2017 12:12 PM »
And how you go about it. It's hard to argue that burning tonnes of kerosene and solid rocket propellant is good for the environment.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Canada
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #77 on: 05/14/2017 12:16 PM »
Right!  You're not going up and down every time.  You are moving the action off the Earth. 

Offline ELinder

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Cleveland, OH
    • Erich Linder Photography
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #78 on: 05/30/2017 04:04 PM »
Seen a few weeks ago on the NASA Houston Level 9 Tour. The docent described the wheels as being the actual ones going to the moon, but as it was sitting on the shop floor I took it to mean the final design.

Erich

Tags: