Private Moon mission

SpaceNut · 2007-04-18 05:55:58

Lets say for all practical proposes we are capable to design a Private Moon mission.

If we used current launchers of Atlas V, Delta IV and not there derivatives are all we have to work with. There still is the need to develope a man capable capsule with LSS, Service module and docking port. Next would be to create a Lunar lander habitat space large enough for crew to stay. The EDS to push every thing to the moon would be docked to the other pieces which are assembled in orbit. Gee all of this sounds so much like what Nasa is dealing with....

cIclops · 2007-04-18 07:01:38

Exactly

NASA also has one big advantage that a private mission does not, money.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-18 07:43:58

Yes and it still appears that they are struggling with that part when congress wants to keep things at a status quo so to speak.

TwinBeam · 2007-04-22 18:01:41

I'd say one element would be that the private effort would need to be wholly robotic, at least initially. Minimize mass and consumables that need to be sent to the moon. Leverage remote-control of semi-smart robots, to get many of the benefits of having humans on location, with somewhat poorer "interactivity" but present for a much longer span of time.

It's not unlikely that the robots could be built "free" - volunteer workers, with corporate sponsorship - at least during a phase that focuses on scientific research. Since there'd be zero chance of profit, they could go beyond pure research, to look at industrial processing on the moon, experiments with in situ resource exploitation, etc. Team up with universities and maybe also highschools.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-22 19:54:53

Going robotically to create a base or infrastructure I can see a private company doing and if they bring back samples to sell them they offset the cost of each mission.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-22 19:58:12

I don't have faith in any AltSpace outfit to do anything orbital at all, much less Lunar, yet. They just haven't proven that "small cheap simple" works, nor have they proven a small outfit can succeed where only mega-sized aerospace firms have previously.

A line that jumped out at me when I skimmed the first page of the first link:

The one thing the private sector is good at is copying NASA cheaply.

No, no they don't. Not yet.

Josh Cryer · 2007-04-23 11:56:36

GCNRevenger, I respect you even though you rain on our parades all the time (whatever happened to dreaming, damnit).

But. What do you think it would take? What's potentially the driving force for the private sector?

And I'm not talking about fake suborbital flights.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-23 13:15:55

And thats kind of the dilemma, isn't it?

Elon Musk probably has the right idea, if he can pull it off. Otherwise, the best bet for AltSpace would be to build parts for NASA/USAF to get their foot in the door and earn some credibility.

Martian Republic · 2007-04-23 21:19:46

Josh Cryer,

Although the question wasn't addressed to me, I would like to answer the question.

For private enterprise to have a serious chance in space, there would have to be a change in the NASA Charter to build a major base on the moon and/or Mars or some other major government outer space venture that requires a long term commitment of the government to accomplish like in the twenty to thirty years or longer. Where NASA has to develop new technologies like scam jets that might eventually get off loaded to the private sector along with deep space nuclear space ships and such. So private ventures can plug into government built and owned infrastructures like air lines do to city air ports and such. Where Lunar foundries owned by the private sector can plug into the electric power stations owned by NASA and sell there goods to that same NASA because it cheaper to buy it from them, then to ship it in from the Earth.

Basically what I am saying is. The private sector will follow a major government effort into space and won't lead it. The problem with the Private sector leading the way is that there all sellers and they have nobody buying there products. You go to any private enterprise effort only conference and it everybody is trying to find a buyer for there products and there not looking to buy someone else products. It like two drunks trying to hold each other up. It a sad sight!

A re-chartered NASA like described above which the private enterprise can sell to or revolve around would be the space economy that we all desire to see. Baring something like this happening, then there will be no serious space effort from the private sector to speak of.

Larry,

Grypd · 2007-04-24 11:29:51

Honestly looking at private space flight and NASA they cannot compare. NASA does not support the advent of an independent launching culture and even in the utilisation of space is very slow in commercial reasons.

NASA touted the Shuttle as the cheap space launcher and more or less strong armed the other EELVs to be cancelled so that all satelite launches where to be done by the Shuttle.

The result was that satelite launching went to the Arianne programme and then to the newly free Russian Soyuz. THe USA is well behind in the only commercial activity currently being done.

The future for Alt space is a lot happier now but even though the likes of Elon Musk are offering there services to NASA there buisness is not aimed at NASA. Bigelow takes it even further with his plans to have very little to do with NASA at all.

What it would take to get Alt space to the Moon is a change of legislation and allowing the ability to claim parts of the Moon for commercial reasons. If this was done then buisness has an asset that can be financed even though it does not have a product. If we can get platinum group metals then we now have a product.

The one thing in all this is that NASA is not needed and even actually is a major hindrance. It is the equivalent of Soviet central planning when we live in cultures that defeated such planning by our more flexible capitalist views.

Martian Republic · 2007-04-24 16:53:43

Grypd, you don't know what your talking about.

Let take what you through out there in order.

Alt space doesn't have a man rated space ship and they don't appear to be anywhere close to developing one or putting one on the pad any time soon. Now I am talking about a simple orbiting the earth kind of thing and not some moon mission, let along a moon colonization program. Alt space is just not going to do it and it doesn't matter how much you rant and rave about it. They just don't have the capability to do that by themselves or with the rest of the private space companies backing them up.

As for Bigelow, what there doing is great, but there no one to buy there product and if they did buy there product, they have no way to get to there Bigelow habitat with private space ships. Baring a government contract to buy a few of there Bigelow habitats for either the ISS or for a Lunar base or something, Bigelow will crash and burn and whined up with there face in the mud in about five to ten years from now.

If things continue the way there going. This is what will happen. I wish that were not so, but it is and it not going to change. The only thing that will change, will be that we will have a whole new would be private companies that will do it without government help. So they will say. I been hearing this crap for thirty years now of how private venture will do it without government help.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2007-04-24 19:20:16

Bigelow already has the means to get to orbit and to even have tourists via Russian delivery service but none by purchase as of yet by an american company. They are working with Lockheed to man rate Atlas V but what does that really mean. Sign a waiver and walla rocket is man rated, they just need a capsule and space suits.

All would be contenders are a long ways off from moon launches but are coming on fast towards LEO.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-24 19:57:13

I think the truth is somewhere in between

First off, only one AltSpacer' looks like they'll be able to actually fly their own rocket, Elon Musk's SpaceX. In descending order, T/Space, Scaled Composites, and Kistler aren't really up to the task of orbital flight.

The biggest problem with Bigelow is not building his hotels, but rather getting to them. He could perhaps afford a Soyuz or maybe even a Proton to put it up there, but what then? Soyuz, for all its reliability, is an awfully small vehicle with room for only one or two tourists or small amounts of supplies. If it takes one Progress cargo vehicle, three Soyuz capsules and four R-7 rockets for every half dozen tourists its going to be hard to turn a profit.

The situation on the other side of the ocean isn't much better, regardless if a Soyuz-class capsule can be made privately, what would it fly on? Atlas-V, even if man-rated, is too expensive. And probably too is Elon's Falcon-IX, which surely won't cost less than a Russian R-7. And speaking of the capsule, nobody has done more than make a few pretty pictures and a dinky mock up so far. Which does not inspire much confidence, ya know.

Its not impossible for such an orbital tourism scheme to work, but I think it faces an uphill battle.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-24 20:13:15

Nasa its self has not done much more on the capsule but there is slow progess in that we have seen drop tests of the frame, possible air bag deployment for what will be.
It is sort of difficult to build something if you have never done it before.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-25 06:27:46

No, one of these things is not like the other. Comparing NASA's slow progress to... well, whatever AltSpace minus Elon Musk is doing is a bad comparison.

NASA with its contractors, unlike the AltSpace outfits, actually have competence and credibility. Orion is also relatively simple for the agency to pull off. It is not valid to compare NASA's work to date with a cosmetic for-show mockup from T/Space or the perpetually bankrupt Kistlers' warehouse of loose bits that never seem to get any closer to the pad, much less not blowing up.

Grypd · 2007-04-25 09:30:45

According to Bigelow he is not really in the tourism buisness but in providing a place for other countries and corporate buisness to go to in space.

Big plans, low prices

And he has started his own prize for the development of an alt space manned launch capacity.

Larry I never stated that the Alt space had a means to get people to space yet. But the future of alt space has never been as bright as it is at present. And that is even with NASA. The future though is that NASA is no longer an enabling organisation but increasingly becoming one of hindrance.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-25 11:26:54

Reading the article, its clear that whether he is going to be operating space hotels or not is irrelivent, since his company will be largely responsable for flying crews and cargos sufficent to make the space stations practical.

The problem is that no such transportation method will probably be available at an affordable price, because none of the AltSpace outfits will be both cheap and credible enough.

And how is NASA an "impediment?" Simply because they won't drink the AltSpace kool-aid? That can hardly be held against them!

Marsman · 2007-04-26 01:27:17

Perhaps it is a "wrong people" problem for AltSpace. One group I have heard no one mention yet is space advocates. They are the ones with the passion, skill and vision required for a bright future in space, but unfortunately space advocates have failed. Most in the space community view space NGO's (non profits) as a miserable failure at worst or an annoyance at best and for good reason. Maybe it's time space advocacy was recreated into a more citizen based group that had an appeal to more than just space geeks? With large and powerful space NGO's there would finally be a balance in this effort to get humans into space privately instead of just private vs government. There are flaws in AltSpace and they are massive, no doubt about it. NASA also has flaws. Time for a 3rd alternative- the people who actually want space.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-26 08:30:10

There are flaws in AltSpace and they are massive, no doubt about it. NASA also has flaws.

You make it sound like they are equally flawed. They are not. NASA is competant at building space ships, while AltSpace (minus maybe SpaceX) is not.

Marsman · 2007-04-26 10:18:18

You obviously don't know the difference between massive flaws and flaws then. NASA have and will continue to make mistakes as long as they are run by flawed humans like every other organization on earth. You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's wait and see where altspace is when they are spending 17 billion a year and have 50 years of hardware and flight experience under their belts. The simple fact is, the need to make a profit is something NASA will never understand and is a valuable driving force behind not just the private sector but all of society. I stick by what I said though- wrong people is the issue for AltSpace at this point. AltSpace is just starting up. Why do you expect them to be as good as NASA right now when clearly they are a long, long way from that? Anyway, there are other alternatives to private Moon missions than just AltSpace. How about we discuss those for once?

Martian Republic · 2007-04-26 10:42:34

There you go with the what ifs again.

AltSpace had 17 billion dollars a year and 50 years of experience under there belt, then you would see.

The reason that NASA got 17 billion dollars to play with when it comes to space is because it is a government organization and is funded by the government. AltSpace isn't funded so they can't spend money like that and never will be able to spend money like that.

Larry,

Grypd · 2007-04-26 10:55:49

NASA has had a lot of money and a lot of waste. Can we honestly say that the Shuttle or the ISS have proven themselves to be value for money?

That is unfortunatly a problem with all goverment organisations they tend to be conservative and over managed. Alt space though has the problem of no cash flow. Sort that out and alt space would thrive.

One intresting point is that NASA just cancelled the Orion vehicle which was to be the cargo carrier to the ISS. This means that as long as the white elephant is up there then they are going to need that capacity and unless they will leave that completely to the Japanese and Europeans it may well have to be purchased from alt space. Space X dragon maybe?

Marsman · 2007-04-26 12:08:31

Where do government taxes come from? From private citizens and private companies. So actually the private sector does pay for everything one way or the other. Can they do big, expensive and complex projects? Let's take a look shall we? (Just a few examples should be enough here)
Airbus A380- Development cost- 8.8 Billion Euros(about 10 or 11 billion U.S)- all private funds. As far as I know they are a long way from making back that investment.

Betchtel- Is the largest engineering company in the world. It was founded in 1898, is privately owned and has been managed by the same family for the last 4 generations. In 2002, they booked 12.2 Billion in new business on top of their annual average of 11.6 Billion in revenue. This company alone has taken on and completed multiple projects that were larger and more expensive than the ISS. Some of their most notable projects include the privately financed England-France Channel Tunnel which cost- 14.7 Billion. The Hong Kong Airport Core Program which cost 20 billion and was completed ahead of schedule and $1 Billion under budget and the Jubail Industrial City which cost 20 Billion and is recognized as the largest single industria development project in history.

Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Kiewit is the second largest engineering construction company in the world after Betchel. Founded in 1884 it is also privately owned. They take on many projects in many sectors including transportation, telecommunications, power, marine, mining, etc Their 2001 revenues were in the mid 4 Billion range.

Many more examples like this can be found if you google around a bit. BTW, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are private and while the government does pay their contract and is the main customer, they are still private companies and compete in the private sector just like all other private companies. Government agencies(like NASA) have the following problems that hold them back from implementing any program of any sector- They need to be risk averse in order to protect their public image and the support they have from their bosses in congress, their decentralized organizational structure is a hinderance requiring a debilitating bureacracy that causes further delays and increased costs, they are no longer at the forefront of technological innovation and they are constantly struggling to gain support every time a new administration enters the White House.

Private companies can and do have the track record that shows they are cheaper and more efficient than government in large projects that they undertake- because they have to be. I stand by my statement though- AltSpace has the wrong people at the top mostly. Besides Elon Musk and Richard Branson and a couple of others like Jeff Bezos from Amazon, the people leading most of these start ups are NOT world class business people in the above category. Many of them are mavericks with little money and little experience in anything they are doing. Many of them (most in fact) are unrealistic in their business strategies and woeful with their knowledge (or respect) of the extreme difficulties in aerospace, rocket science, etc No one wants to invest in them- and rightly so.

They spend their tiny funds on half assed research and development which they usually fail in because they didn't take in the full scope of what they are trying to accomplish instead of in solving their most foundational problems- lack of knowledge, lack of public interest, lack of professional staff, lack of professional anything...The market is just not there for their services and THAT is their main problem (after rocket science 101). They are spending 95% on useless r&d and 5% on reaching/educating/preparing the public market's mindset to be in their favor and they reap what they sow.

Investors see no market= no profits. This= no investors in AltSpace. They have a lot to learn. Unfortunately many will become bankrupt before that happens. If you dig a bit you will also find AltSpace are mostly not about space at all. So again, I repeat- AltSpace is not the solution for the Moon, Mars or anywhere else. Not for a long while. Space advocates have the numbers, skills and the combined wealth to enact any space project they want. They just need to realize it and do something about it instead of passing the buck all the time. They are the missing factor here.

For example(This a hypothetical example only)- Let's say we(or someone with the professionalism and resources "we" don't have) can get 200,000 space advocates (from the 500,000 or so worldwide) to come together to put a man on the Moon. They could form a co-op of some kind and their investments would entitle them to all profits and benefits of such a mission. What would it cost? I can't give you that, but let's say it is $5 Billion to send 3 people there using the Mars For Less modified mission (at www.marsdrive.com). For $6.85 a day, about an hour or less work for most people, and 10 years of saving and investing they could easily raise the 5 Billion needed, just from their own funds alone, not counting corporate sponsorships and such on the side. With 10 years of development time, 5 to 10 billion in raised or sponsored funds and a massive number of space advocates behind it, it could be done. Humans are capable of amazing things when they put their minds to it. Never forget that. And if you say that space advocates are a joke, remember, you are one of them. A true space advocate is someone who does something about their cause beyond just spectating and armchair criticism.

X · 2007-04-26 18:42:20

^That's a great idea. Shoot just build up $1-2 billion, and the interest will pile up. I bet if you offered to base your launch and support facilities out of say Brazil, Australia, the UK, or somewhere else you could get that government to go in on a major scale for it sort of like DeLorean did when he tried to start his own car company. If technology or events outpace your organization you cna put the money towards paying the way for the gorup members into space.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-26 19:28:45

You obviously don't know the difference between massive flaws and flaws then. NASA have and will continue to make mistakes as long as they are run by flawed humans like every other organization on earth. You are comparing apples with oranges.
I stick by what I said though- wrong people is the issue for AltSpace at this point. AltSpace is just starting up. Why do you expect them to be as good as NASA right now when clearly they are a long, long way from that? Anyway, there are other alternatives to private Moon missions than just AltSpace. How about we discuss those for once?

Let me spell things out more clearly: NASA, and the present way things are done, is pretty much the only way to get things done and will continue to be so for some time to come. Space travel with current and near-term technology requires a large minimum critical mass of scale, infrastructure, and skills that only NASA and its major contractors have (except maybe Elon). And this is beyond the capabilities of "small time" space anythings, be they private or NGO or otherwise. It does not matter what the nature of the organization is, if it is not big, it will not fly.

AltSpace is by definition the "alternative," and the word "private" is largely used to mean "not government led" or "smaller = better" rather than explicitly commercial. But I digress, I expect big things from AltSpace because of the multitude of people who ridicule NASA for not using them and their supposed magic-wand powers to "do more with much less" than has been required in the past.

And what alternatives are there besides small aerospace companies who feign and posture and dream of actually being able to build space ships?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-04-18 05:55:58

Re: Private Moon mission

#2 2007-04-18 07:01:38

Re: Private Moon mission

#3 2007-04-18 07:43:58

Re: Private Moon mission

#4 2007-04-22 18:01:41

Re: Private Moon mission

#5 2007-04-22 19:54:53

Re: Private Moon mission

#6 2007-04-22 19:58:12

Re: Private Moon mission

#7 2007-04-23 11:56:36

Re: Private Moon mission

#8 2007-04-23 13:15:55

Re: Private Moon mission

#9 2007-04-23 21:19:46

Re: Private Moon mission

#10 2007-04-24 11:29:51

Re: Private Moon mission

#11 2007-04-24 16:53:43

Re: Private Moon mission

#12 2007-04-24 19:20:16

Re: Private Moon mission

#13 2007-04-24 19:57:13

Re: Private Moon mission

#14 2007-04-24 20:13:15

Re: Private Moon mission

#15 2007-04-25 06:27:46

Re: Private Moon mission

#16 2007-04-25 09:30:45

Re: Private Moon mission

#17 2007-04-25 11:26:54

Re: Private Moon mission

#18 2007-04-26 01:27:17

Re: Private Moon mission

#19 2007-04-26 08:30:10

Re: Private Moon mission

#20 2007-04-26 10:18:18

Re: Private Moon mission

#21 2007-04-26 10:42:34

Re: Private Moon mission

#22 2007-04-26 10:55:49

Re: Private Moon mission

#23 2007-04-26 12:08:31

Re: Private Moon mission

#24 2007-04-26 18:42:20

Re: Private Moon mission

#25 2007-04-26 19:28:45

Re: Private Moon mission

Board footer