Private Moon Landing in the works?

[sdsds]

In United States history, the Transcontinental Railroad was officially completed in 1869. The event was marked by driving a golden spike at the location where the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads met. The location? Promontory, Utah. We've heard of that location before. Aren't big things made there. In segments. By a little company called ... ATK?

Did someone mention use of "existing or soon to be existing launch vehicles" that cannot die?

[neilh]

And @NASAWatch
"Golden Spike" commercial lunar exploration company includes Wayne Hale, Jerry Griffin, Alan Stern

You've heard of them!

I'm not sure if this was mentioned already, but it's worth noting that Alan Stern is a (present/former?) Blue Origin employee, as well as chief scientist and mission architect of Moon Express (one of the GLXP teams).

[Nelson Bridwell]

A for-profit program could require the folloing components:
(1) An economical reusable LEO launch spacecraft.
(2) A reusable LEO to lunar orbit solar electric cargo transport.
(3) A reusable lunar oribt to lunar surface lander.

For one-way cargo missions to the lunar surface, I have a hunch that you would be able to space-drop rugged payloads to the lunar surface from the SEP tug in low lunar orbit by providing each payload with a small, single-use solid fuel retro rocket and an air bags to cushion the landing impact.  Using this technology, you could deploy dozens of rovers across the face of the Moon from a single spacecraft.

[Nelson Bridwell]

In United States history, the Transcontinental Railroad was officially completed in 1869. The event was marked by driving a golden spike at the location where the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads met. The location? Promontory, Utah. We've heard of that location before. Aren't big things made there. In segments. By a little company called ... ATK?

Did someone mention use of "existing or soon to be existing launch vehicles" that cannot die?

Very interesting connection.  ATK definitey has had a few surprises up their sleeves over the past year, and does not sound exactly ready to give up space without a fight...

[Nelson Bridwell]

OK, I just asked Trina, who is the PR wiz at ATK propulsion, and she has not heard of it, so probably not something from Utah...

[HappyMartian]

Why oh why is a big and silly smile stuck on my face?

 

[Warren Platts]

OK, I just asked Trina, who is the PR wiz at ATK propulsion, and she has not heard of it, so probably not something from Utah...

It's from Boulder Colorado. "Golden Spike Company" was also a gold mining outfit that used to work the mountains northwest of Boulder in the early 20th century.

[Warren Platts]

And @NASAWatch
"Golden Spike" commercial lunar exploration company includes Wayne Hale, Jerry Griffin, Alan Stern

You've heard of them!

I'm not sure if this was mentioned already, but it's worth noting that Alan Stern is ... chief scientist and mission architect of Moon Express (one of the GLXP teams).

I forgot about that. That's very interesting, because Paragon was founded by Peter Diamandis himself! So my prediction that the effort represents a merger of sorts between Planetary Resources and MoonEx was apparently correct....

[MP99]

Helium-3? Why?

Harrison Schmitt Talks Commercial Moon and Mars:-

In the book I wrote on the subject, "Return to the Moon: The Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space," is basically a business plan on how you would do that. And if you believe that business plan and you meet the milestones in the business plan, so investors continue to support you, I think within 15 to 20 years you could have a settlement on the Moon from the time you start your first investment-related activity.

But you need that first step. And actually, the first step has nothing to do with power production. The first step is probably one where you are going to use Helium 3-deuterium reactors, at about the current level of development, to produce medical isotopes. It turns out that the fusion product, the protons, are ideal for radiating certain kinds of elements to produce isotopes that are important to positron emission tomography (PET) - positron emitting isotopes that have short half-lives. Right now, PET diagnostics, which is the diagnostic of choice for a particular stage of cancer, uses a relatively long half-life positron emitter of Fluorine-18 isotope and it decays in a half-life of 110 minutes. And that's great. It doesn't seem too long but it's too long for children and pregnant women to be able to take advantage of that technology because of the residual radiation.

Whereas with proton irradiation, you can produce isotopes that have half-lives of 12 minutes or less so that changes the whole paradigm of how you do cancer diagnostics for children and pregnant women. That is probably the first business opportunity of this technology. It's on the pathway to producing power downstream but it is also a business opportunity that can attract investors.

Current demand is driven by neutron detectors (esp. homeland security applications).

Using alternatives or ramping up He3 production here on earth would probably be easier than scouring lunar regolith for the stuff.

Yeah, you'd have thought so, wouldn't you.

cheers, Martin

[Warren Platts]

Helium-3? Why?

I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.

There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....

I keep telling you guys:

THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THAR CRATERS!!!

[zodiacchris]

After the solar eclipse on Wednesday, this is the second big thing this week that gives me goosebumps. Trying not to get my hopes up to high, we have been disappointed too often over the last 30 years. But wouldn't it be great to go back while one of the last moonwalkers is still alive...

[robertross]

Helium-3? Why?

I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.

There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....

I keep telling you guys:

THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THAR CRATERS!!!

It's not quite commercially viable to bring gold back from the moon, nor Platinum. Now something like Iridium - maybe, but there has to be an absolute use & need for it, perhaps a new technology, that would be worth while.

[A_M_Swallow]

It's not quite commercially viable to bring gold back from the moon, nor Platinum. Now something like Iridium - maybe, but there has to be an absolute use & need for it, perhaps a new technology, that would be worth while.

Iridium is a strong metal with a very high melting point.  Coated to protect from oxygen it should therefore be a good metal to make high efficiency (very hot) engines out of.  So electrical generators, internal combustion engines, furnaces and rocket motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irridium

[JAFO]

OK, I just asked Trina, who is the PR wiz at ATK propulsion, and she has not heard of it, so probably not something from Utah...

Or it's above her paygrade.

[rcoppola]

Two huge factors in spurring on innovative commercial markets were the implementation of the patent system and private property rights.

IMO, what will be the biggest driver, even beyond technology, will be setting the legal precedent of private ownership of off-Earth land and resources.

It is time to re-evaluate and challenge the 1967 Outer-Space Act Treaty. It is outmoded. There is no reason to lock up the solar system as some shared by all utopia. As we do on Earth, there is no reason why we can't  create preserves and protected lands / resources while still allocating private ownership.

I'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...

[Danderman]

Some uninformed speculation:

Since it is well known that NASA is currently developing plans to explore space beyond low earth orbit, is it possible that the subject of this thread is simply an offer by a consortium of private companies to provide an affordable lunar landing mission? In other words, is it possible that the customer is NASA?

[aquanaut99]

Some uninformed speculation:

Since it is well known that NASA is currently developing plans to explore space beyond low earth orbit, is it possible that the subject of this thread is simply an offer by a consortium of private companies to provide an affordable lunar landing mission? In other words, is it possible that the customer is NASA?

That's pretty much my suspicion too. With the following difference: I would say "is it possible that the hoped-for customer is NASA?"

[aquanaut99]

I'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...

Most unlikely to happen. That treaty was signed for one main reason: To save money for the state by removing all incentive to invest in space...

In the current climate of austerity, getting rid of a treaty whose main reason was to save money is the last thing on any politician's mind. And private enterprise does not make or break international treaties.

[Warren Platts]

Helium-3? Why?

I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.

There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....

I keep telling you guys:

THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THAR CRATERS!!!

It's not quite commercially viable to bring gold back from the moon, nor Platinum. Now something like Iridium - maybe, but there has to be an absolute use & need for it, perhaps a new technology, that would be worth while.

Iridium?!?  It's worth less than gold! More importantly, the market for it is miniscule. Meanwhile, the market for gold is around 3000 mT per year. Platinum is only ~200 mT/year. Consider that if Pt is worth $50K/kg, then an entire year's production is worth $10B. Not bad, but you go doubling world production, you're going to crash the price.

Meanwhile, gold is heading into a "peak gold" situation. Yes, world records have been set the last couple of years, but growth in the discovery of new reserves is not keeping pace with growth in production. So a Lunar gold mine would largely be replacing declining Terran production. A 20% share of the world's market would be worth $30B/year. A guy with a monopoly share would be raking in Exxon level revenues. That's the sort of revenues it's going to take to make the world's first trillionaire.

But the main thing you may not realize is that gold in the form of electrostatic placer deposits--if they exist--will be found in the exact same spot as the Lunar water ice, and in fact will be a guaranteed by-product of the Lunar propellant industry. This is in contrast to the asteroid model, where the propellant and the PGM's are found on radically different types of asteroids. Same holds for the old Lunar model where they were hoping to hunt for crashed metallic asteroids. Moreover, these electrostatic placer deposits will be lieing right on the surface, and exist in a powder form, ready to be separated and processed. There will also be tonnes and tonnes of mercury that can be used to soak up every last grain of gold.

As for transporting back to Earth, a substance worth $50K/year is worth it to bring back--even if you were using the Space Shuttle. But especially if you've got tonnes and tonnes of Lunar LH2/LO2 in your back pocket, not to mention a fully functioning cislunar, transcontinental railroad, complete with depots and the whole nine yards at your disposal.

But anyways, you wouldn't even need to take it back. Just refine it to "four nines" purity, pour it into 400 ounce gold bars, stamp a unique serial number on each one, have them inspected, and then set up a Lunar bank. The gold bars can then be "allocated" to people who buy them. If a buyer wants to take delivery, it's up to them to pay the delivery costs, just like it is on Earth--which is expensive, even on Earth, which is why hardly anybody takes delivery of physical gold these days.

[rcoppola]

I'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...

Most unlikely to happen. That treaty was signed for one main reason: To save money for the state by removing all incentive to invest in space...

In the current climate of austerity, getting rid of a treaty whose main reason was to save money is the last thing on any politician's mind. And private enterprise does not make or break international treaties.

Pardon, and maybe I don't completely understand what you are trying to say, but "saving money by removing incentive to invest in space" doesn't make any sense.

What exactly does state austerity have anything to do with allocating private property rights to space resource? Allowing such rights has absolutely no impact on whether a country / state decides to invest in space or not. They are not compelled to do so outside of providing a regulatory entity to enforce and oversight. It is the private investment we are interested in with regards to this. We need to align private investment with private ownership, within a new regulatory framework.