Quote from: Lars_J on 12/27/2012 09:31 pmDo they mean audacious in the doable sense, or audacious in the "what are they smoking" sense? I read the article, and it still isn't clear to me.Well, I think Jeff and I were both singing the same tune to Adam, which is that best of these are 8/10 for technical merit but most are 2/10 for business case(except Falcon Heavy which I agree is real)
Do they mean audacious in the doable sense, or audacious in the "what are they smoking" sense? I read the article, and it still isn't clear to me.
Right, they have to find six customers who are willing to pay 1.5bn for landing two people on the moon. Governments can be ruled out, since spaceflight is about national prestige, not paying an american company to do it. NASA has more ambitious plans, which leaves....private companies in need of a marketing campaign or filthy rich individuals.
Quote from: Rugoz on 12/28/2012 06:35 amRight, they have to find six customers who are willing to pay 1.5bn for landing two people on the moon. Governments can be ruled out, since spaceflight is about national prestige, not paying an american company to do it. NASA has more ambitious plans, which leaves....private companies in need of a marketing campaign or filthy rich individuals.I suspect that there are several countries may be interested - their national airlines use planes built in the USA or Europe. They may want their flag on the fairing and lander. There may also be a few special rules such as the oil used to make the rocket fuel must come from their country.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/28/2012 07:52 pmQuote from: Rugoz on 12/28/2012 06:35 amRight, they have to find six customers who are willing to pay 1.5bn for landing two people on the moon. Governments can be ruled out, since spaceflight is about national prestige, not paying an american company to do it. NASA has more ambitious plans, which leaves....private companies in need of a marketing campaign or filthy rich individuals.I suspect that there are several countries may be interested - their national airlines use planes built in the USA or Europe. They may want their flag on the fairing and lander. There may also be a few special rules such as the oil used to make the rocket fuel must come from their country.This only made sense to me if the american government was the primary customer, but in that case it makes good sense. The way I see it, the company (or set of companies) are promising to take on all the risk and possibly also supply other secondary customers to reduce costs further.If the american government would not value a lunar architecture owned by american companies for a couple of billion a year, pay on delivery, then everything it has ever said about going to the moon was a sick lie to justify pork. Sorry for the emotive language but I think it is justified in that hypothetical case.
I am definitely talking non-US Governments.
What are members' own opinions on the ratings?Mine:Golden Spike Company -- 3/10Planetary Resources, Inc -- 3/10B612 Foundation -- 2/10Mars One -- 0/10SpaceX Falcon Heavy -- 9/10Google Lunar X-Prize -- 2/10Private Space Tourism -- 5/10
QuoteI am definitely talking non-US Governments. American hardware launching on an american rocket from an american spaceport? I'm sorry but even if the whole vehicle were plastered with the national flag the best propaganda ministry couldn't sell it.Your best bet is some rich monarch from a gulf state.
The plan of reaching an asteroid and returning it or large amounts of material from it isn't that far-fetched. We've already done asteroid sample-return, and there are some small asteroids that are actually temporary moons of the Earth. An unmanned spacecraft launched on an Atlas V could return it to the cislunar system, possibly even closer such as LEO (using high-Isp propulsion, as commonly found on comm sats). That is at the end of a decade or three of developing much smaller spacecraft, though, for recon purposes, selling the data and the spacecraft on the market. They are well-heeled with real billionaires putting significant weight behind them, enough that they are building hardware right now. Their plan is more realistic than Golden Spike, who have a sort of all-or-nothing approach and aren't backed as well and have no hardware to speak of. But I think the reason why people rate Planetary so poorly is because it /sounds/ scifi and it isn't just repeating what was done 40 years ago.Planetary is much more realistic, because they can last as long as they need to, by selling their Arkyd spacecraft as a series of Earth imaging sats or doing tech development for NASA. Planetary Resources is taking the only approach you CAN take unless someone signs you a check for like $1 billion before you have anything to show them. I'd rather see Planetary Resources or a Google Lunar X-prize contestant, showing real hardware they're working on, than one big grand approach with just powerpoints and no plans to do anything until a big ol' check comes in. Build as you go is superior to Hail Mary, as far as business plans go.
You are more confident than I am in space tourism. Also, more pessimistic on ventures like Planetary, unless you're considering them on the basis of mining PGMs alone and ignoring the other aspects, in which case I don't really disagree.The Google lunar Xprize folks have a decent chance, actually. They have free flight on a Falcon 9, and mUch the rest can be had from cubesat or legacy components. Not that impossible, considering some teams have at least as much resources as some of the NGLLC folks, plus university backing.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/31/2012 06:28 amYou are more confident than I am in space tourism. Also, more pessimistic on ventures like Planetary, unless you're considering them on the basis of mining PGMs alone and ignoring the other aspects, in which case I don't really disagree.The Google lunar Xprize folks have a decent chance, actually. They have free flight on a Falcon 9, and mUch the rest can be had from cubesat or legacy components. Not that impossible, considering some teams have at least as much resources as some of the NGLLC folks, plus university backing.Speaking of the GLXP, the irony is that the leading team in the race (or at least what I feel from reading the progress of all the teams) is a Spanish team with a medium sized rover (compared with those from other competitors) that will ride a Chinese rocket to the Moon.....
And it looks like Planetary has greater support, more enthusiastic support, in the sense that they are being funded enough to actually build stuff, something that isn't happening with Golden Spike. Also, Planetary is pursuing tech dev grants, which is much more encouraging to me as a sign of a company that can last long enough to do their long-term goals.
This is why the lunar Xprize folks are better positioned, IMHO, than Golden Spike. If you're always waiting for the golden ticket and aren't building out your expertise and client base with real, near-term, revenue-generating projects, you won't be around long enough to do your grand, long-term goals.
I think you are letting your enthusiasm for the Moon get the better of you, here.
