Private Moon mission

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-26 21:00:04

A true space advocate is someone who does something about their cause beyond just spectating and armchair criticism.

Pffft. Out comes the chicken hawk slur. "Only activists like me have the right to (insert thing here)!"

You try and make much out of large engineering companies that do big things, but I contest your usage of the comparison; its really not valid. One of the not entirely understood facts about NASA is that most of the manned flight program is actually not run by NASA but rather the big aerospace contractors.

And isn't the whole point of having an alternative to NASA and the contractors to have a radically cheaper and probably quicker era of manned space flight, predicated on the concept that there is a newer, simpler, smaller, cheap way of doing it that is embodied as "AltSpace?" Therefore you can't rely on any large corporate entity to be a member of "AltSpace."

I contest that AltSpace, in that a non-government entity has a "new" way to execute a solution to the traditionally extremely expensive endeavor is a pipe-dream fairy tale for the most part. Particularly as far as markets go, only Elon Musk's SpaceX might pull it off, offering a reduced-cost alternative to government agencies for Pegasus/Delta-II/small Delta-Atlas vehicles. To put it another way again, deviating from the present way things are done is probably a sure ticket to failure.

Now this business of a "citizen oriented NGO" space program; nonsense, no structure by the people could stand against the disparate directions of the will of said people if it encompassed enough of them to put you over the threshold into actually being able to afford to do something. Witness the trouble with the first orbital "home made" rocket, doomed because of infighting.

But I digress, you are crazy if you think that "space advocates" will cough up that kind of money: you are trying to couch it in pretty terms of "come together" or "easily" raise and try to "hide the money" behind small aggregate numbers. Most personal incomes are measured annually, so it is only proper to measure such a hypothetical commitment too, I think. That means two hundred thousand people would fork over $2,500 a year! Every year for a whole decade! Thats $25,000 per person, or really almost double that if you add lost opportunity cost.

You are nuts if you think people would pitch-fork over that kind of cash. Better get that through your head real quick before you do any more damage to Marsdrive.

Marsman · 2007-04-26 21:32:23

Being a pragmatist and a realist I agree with you GCN in some aspects of what you say. Space programs and missions do require "big" everything and private AltSpacers are not facing that issue properly. AltSpace need a success like a dying man needs CPR. The problem is they are not being pragmatic about it. If they were to band together and raise public funds (like what was done in the private funding of the Suez Canal) along with their meager funds they might just manage to get a man into real orbital space for a start. (Instead of spending their limited funds on R & D they can't finish).

What I am talking about is AltSpace and space advocate NGO's uniting to form an organization with the "large minimum critical mass of scale, infrastructure, and skills" that all space missions require instead wasting their time and money on a million different ideas and directions. It is an unusual idea, but I think it will be required if private space is to become a reality. The fact is AltSpace do make claims they can't live up to, and doing that actually alienates them from their potential source of investors and supporters like space advocates. I wish they wouldn't. Their websites are littered with fantastical claims but no actual hardware or success(or money).

Maybe they should be called FalseSpace because the fact is a true, viable alternative is just that- an alternative. AltSpace is not the alternative to NASA. If they remain divided and cash and resource poor they will never be the alternative to NASA. The Russian Space agency is about the closest thing to a real alternative to NASA right now follwed by the ESA, China and Japan space agencies. Elon Musk is a great example of your point GCN. He has invested large amounts of his own money to the tune of tens of millions (and hundreds of millions eventually). And that is just for the R&D phase of things. Richard branson and Burt Rutan are on a similar path. This sort of financial committment is the minimum needed for real space programs/projects to even have small chance of becoming real. AltSpace should take notice and become more pragmatic in their approach. Stop doing what doesn't work and start searching for ways that do. Clearly big money, lots of skilled workers, infrastructure, etc is what IS needed to get anyone into space.

Why can't AltSpace accept this? Despite all their claims they have failed largely to do anything significant. There are great rewards out there in space, but only for those who are pragmatic enough to pay the full price of getting there. Whatever it takes.

The problem also is the AltSpace have big mouths and their PR and hype machine is in full swing and it takes many average space advocates in. It tricks them into thinking that cheaper space access is just around the corner but fails to DO anything real about such a goal. As far as I'm concerned GCN, one pragmatist in the space community is worth more than 100 CEO's of AltSpace companies put together. A pragmatist accepts the realities of human space flight and says"Let's do whatever it takes to get there". AltSpacers deny the reality of things and attempt to create their own style of space travel even though they don't have the resources to make their dreams come true. They are part of the problem, not the solution. I was an AltSpacer for a long time but due to personal conflicts with AltSpace and finding out first hand just how bankrupt and devoid of actual money, skills, hardware, etc they really are I agree that big is currently the only way to go, however that turns out to be.

The difference between me and an anti-AltSpacer is that I don't just revert to NASA as the answer for everything. Private companies and private citizens, when they band together can and do accomplish big things as I listed earlier. When they make themselves BIG (and professional)they can accomplish anything. The stock market is full of companies that have millions of shareholders and billions in capital and they use that money for mega projects like I described earlier. So this model of things is not unusual, just unknown to space advocates and AltSpacers. Space and the drive to get humans there presents many unique challenges which will require UNIQUE solutions, even financial ones. The sooner the space community accepts this, the sooner we can get out there.

Marsman · 2007-04-26 22:21:42

Advocating in a vacuum is not advocating. Advocating to the choir is not advocating. So whatever such people are, they are not space advocates.

You talk about "Big" being the only way to do things in space then attack my ideas about "Big' alternatives as "not valid". You say that the point of having an alternative to NASA is to have radically cheaper manned space flight but you contradict yourself in the process. You can't have it both ways. If Big is the only way to do things then that's where it will have to begin. Once BIG corporations (or BIG NGO's)get into space travel and succeed then the smaller players will start to come in. The current way things are done won't allow that though. While Lockheed and others are funded by governments they will never do their own space missions. So the only other alternative is big corporations or NGO's not currently in the employ of governments.

In the commercial world, when a large corporation brings out a new product or service it doesn't take long before competitors arrive with cheaper versions of their expensive new thing. That is the way things happen in the commercial world. One company builds a tower of 80 stories for a Billion dollars, another builds the same tower for half a billion and makes a greater profit. It happens all the time. If Elon Musk succeeds others will try to emulate him with varying degrees of success. perhaps this is how AltSpace might take off. I doubt it though.

As to the citizen NGO idea, it's just that- an idea. The model is not unheard of. Lead by respected business names like the Suez Canal was, it can succeed, despite what you say. There are many companies on the stock market for example that have massive numbers of shareholders but those shareholders do not control every aspect of the company(in short- the company makes the rules, not the shareholders). A company is lead by its management team, not by the shareholders. (They get a vote on matters that the management team bring to them, they don't run the company). So as long as the rules are laid out before such a venture was started, and is lead by people who can be trusted and have their focus on the goal (like all effective management teams), then the problem of disparate directions within the shareholder base is not a problem. Governments and large corporations prove every day that large numbers of "disparate" people can be governed and lead. What you are describing is an organization where chaos and anarchy rule, with no leadership and no direction. That's not what I'm describing.

Space advocates like anyone else spend far more than 2500k a year on far more frivolous things than a future in space. You obviously don't understand the consumer mindset. If something has apparent value, people will pay for it. Maybe 2500k is too much, it was only hypothetical after all. Or didn't you you read that? Maybe there might be 300,000 people at $500 a year and it takes a few more years? So what? How do you go from a hypothetical idea to accusing me of wanting to do such a thing with Marsdrive? I don't know how such a thing could happen, or if it will happen, but that doesn't mean I don't keep searching for answers. Stop jumping on people with alternative ideas and sounding like a broken record with the "only NASA" doctrine. It's getting tired and old and is not the future in the end.

Other groups, other nations and other ways of getting humans into space are doing things about alternatives and NASA is not the only way into space. Even Russia is beating NASA with getting citizens into space. NASA should and could take the lead and they have done a great job at inspiring others. But their disconnect with the average public is staggering. If passing every idea by you first GCN was required for alternatives ways into space we would never get there. Thankfully we live in democracies that allow free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Why are you so bitter and angry with so many people here? Why do you hurl such hurtful insults to passionate space advocates when you could be encouraging them? People might have wrong ideas, but you draw more flies with honey you know.

X · 2007-04-26 23:15:11

GCNRevenger wrote:

But I digress, you are crazy if you think that "space advocates" will cough up that kind of money: you are trying to couch it in pretty terms of "come together" or "easily" raise and try to "hide the money" behind small aggregate numbers. Most personal incomes are measured annually, so it is only proper to measure such a hypothetical commitment too, I think. That means two hundred thousand people would fork over $2,500 a year! Every year for a whole decade! Thats $25,000 per person, or really almost double that if you add lost opportunity cost.
You are nuts if you think people would pitch-fork over that kind of cash.

You could likely find 200,000 people in any large developed nation that give away $2,500 a year to charity. This neglects various private foundations that do so. Similar numbers would exist for private funding of political causes. Why should it be so hard to find the requisite numbers when you're drawing from the population of multiple nations?

X · 2007-04-26 23:19:14

As to the citizen NGO idea, it's just that- an idea. The model is not unheard of. Lead by respected business names like the Suez Canal was, it can succeed, despite what you say.

Similarly back in the early 20th Century you had private citizens in various nations forming naval societies whose purpose was to raise privately volunteered money which would be used to purchase warships particularly battleships which were viewed as major sources of national strength.

Marsman · 2007-04-27 00:13:32

Thanks for the ideas X. I looked that reference up and found this fascinating article here

It's good to know that such things have been done before. Like I said, people are capable of anything if they put their minds to it. We currently have 6.6 Billion people in the world. With this population I'm sure enough participants could be attracted. After all, the benefits of space can be theirs too, and any group that succeeded in putting humans on the Moon privately would definitely not have fundraising difficulties after that. Never say never.

noosfractal · 2007-04-27 01:05:05

You could try presenting the project as an eco-investment ...

A Billion Years of Carbon-Neutral Power,
Beamed Down From Our Friend, The Moon
http://www.agci.org/energyPPT/criswell_agci.ppt

Weren't they tossing around multi-trillion dollar "fixes" recently? You can save them a bunch and establish the private space industry at a stroke.

Grypd · 2007-04-27 09:30:01

SpaceX just recieved a very good deal. They are to be allowed the use of the abandoned Space Launch Complex 40 at cape Canaveral and as such they now have there launch site on the mainland.

The deal is for 5 years and SpaceX has to pay to upgrade the site as well as put in its own infrastructure and the goverment can still use the site if needed but im pretty sure SpaceX can live with that.

U.S. lets SpaceX operate at Cape Canaveral

Martian Republic · 2007-04-27 21:38:23

Marsman, this was the second time that you used the Suez Canal as your reason for private development of space. So let take a look at the Suez Canal building project.

The Suez Canal was indeed a private effort with stock holder that built the Suez Canal. But, what you didn't say or maybe you don't know, was that it had the backing of the Egyptian Government backing it up in it bid to build the Suez Canal. Don't under rate the importance of the Egyptian Government helping to make that Suez Canal a reality, because those same people then took on the project of building the Panama Canal and they failed miserably. In the Panama Canal project, they did not have a major government backing them up or supporting there efforts like they did in the Suez Canal project. Matter of fact, the Panama Canal project didn't become reality until the US Government got involved in it. The private company that built the Suez Canal and failed to build the Panama Canal didn't fail because of lack of expertise or ability or even because they didn't have a track record even. We can assume that they failed because they didn't have a major government backing them up, since that was the only variable that was different between those two Canal projects.

Most of these Canal project or the rail road network inside the United State along with other such projects, generally require government impute to make them happen. It not necessarily whether a private sector has the technology to build something or even have a track record even to build similar things even, they just can't wheel the resources that a government can to make something happen. A good example of that is the Suez Canal success vs the Panama Canal failure by the same people.

Let tell the whole story and not just part of it.

Larry,

Marsman · 2007-04-27 23:05:10

First of all, you can't deny a private group funded the bulk of the Suez Canal, and you can't deny that the Egyptian Government would have done nothing without the private side starting the whole process. It was clearly initiated by the private sector with the government coming in as a minor partner. That is the whole picture with that. As to the Panama Canal, the private group that started the project could not finish it NOT because they did not have enough funds, they failed because the head of the project would not listen to his engineers and advisors. Study the history and you will see I'm right with that.

He wanted to build a canal just like Suez, flat and at sea level, but when they came to the mountainous regions his plan fell apart. That was just plain stupidity and narrow mindedness on the project manager's part. Plus did you take a look at that link I found for the privately finded warships? These examples merely prove the point that such things do get done, some are a success, some are not. Arguing that ONLY government can do truly big projects is a false argument if you look at the fine details of history. Every day private companies start up or work on multitudes of billion dollar mega projects, many times at their own expense with NO government involvement. Or don't you watch Discovery? The information is everywhere to be found. The reason I used Suez as an example was to show a positive case in point that proves private projects can work, even on large scales. They can also fail, but just becuase they have failures does not mean private groups cannot ever succeed at grand projects. The "only government" can do big projects view is flawed and it's time people become aware of this.

And BTW, many government projects are initiated by the private sector and completed by the private sector and as far as I know there are many private sector companies that now manage(or even constructed) large parts of our infrastructure like power supplies, water, gas, phones, etc. Governments might have more money to use than the private sector but all that money is useless because of the red tape and politics every decision has to go through, especially in the space travel sector.

noosfractal · 2007-04-27 23:48:20

I was going to write that if power generation is too rich for you, then perhaps you could pitch a private lunar telescope - who wouldn't want a Super Hubble?

But apparently the lunar surface is passé as a location for advanced telescopes ...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401274.pdf

... having been forced to develop the tech to work from LEO, astronomers now prefer free space ( JWST is going to be at L2 ).

=edit=

Ah, I knew the moon had something going for it ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Infr … xploration

... radio silence. Not as sexy as optical, and hard to raise money for while the ESA is seriously considering funding it.

The guys over at Artemis nix mining lunar ice for LEO refueling ...

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02/polar-hydrogen-value.html

... 'cause of the possible scientific value of lunar ice cores.

I guess you could try for the lunar hotel thing. ( Early investors get every 7th night free )

cIclops · 2007-04-29 10:34:02

Yep free space is best for observatories except radio, because of interference. Free space is superior to the lunar surface because it eliminates gravity effects, vibration, thermal changes and dust.

Another exception is liquid mirrors that require gravity to shape the surface, a proposal for a large liquid lunar telescope has been made by Roger Angel. More about science at the Lunar Outpost here

Martian Republic · 2007-04-30 14:31:53

Marsman, your saying that:

That the government of Egypt didn't play a major roll in building the Suez Canal or play major roll in supporting the building of the Suez Canal.

These same people that built the Suez Canal, but failed to complete the Panama Canal. They failed because of incompetence and not because they didn't have a government backing them up.

Let follow through with your logic and apply it to space, shall we!

That like saying that the United States went to the moon because the private sector built the space ship to take us there, which they did, but that the US Government didn't play a major roll in sending us to the moon.

That the reason that the private sector isn't now going to the moon or building colony on the moon is because of bad policies choices and not because they can't do it.

This appears to be the exact same logic that you are using to explain why private companies can build canal when they have government help, but can't build canals when they don't have government help. So why don't we just apply that logic to explain why the private sector can't build colonize now in space or continue building Apollo Space ships. It not because the government plays a major factor in either building space ship or canal, it the competence of incompetence of the private sector that the cause of the problem here.

Larry,

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-26 05:14:45

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.

I don't think the private sector has the right stuff

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-26 20:09:07

Yep free space is best for observatories except radio, because of interference. Free space is superior to the lunar surface because it eliminates gravity effects, vibration, thermal changes and dust.
Another exception is liquid mirrors that require gravity to shape the surface, a proposal for a large liquid lunar telescope has been made by Roger Angel. More about science at the Lunar Outpost here

Vibration from what?

And the dark side of the moon is plenty stable thermally for two weeks of the year.

noosfractal · 2007-05-26 20:56:12

Vibration from what?

Moonquakes
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 … quakes.htm

induced thermally and gravitationally (tidal stresses from Earth and Sun).

SpaceNut · 2015-12-23 21:52:54

Its been 8 years and we are now on the verge of Space x doing just what we were thinking wayback then in making it possible for a manned moon mission without Nasa.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-11 10:15:08

The 'new space race': China and US lead the charge for Mars, with SpaceX and smaller nations fighting for the Moon and low Earth orbit
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … -rush.html
Newspapers ask Bezos, Branson and Musk... Who is winning most here understand Musk is thousands of miles ahead of the contest

There were many Old thread on the Commerical Lunar topic

btw newmars forums back in its early days also had a banned user an imposter troll posing under the user name 'Richard Branson' although the topic did bring some interesting discussion

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-12 04:29:46

Musk will now buy Bransons space tourism flight?...will Branson then buy a trip around the Moon??

Maybe there should be robots up there building a hotel, a theatre stage and casino?

Elon Musk Buys Ticket To Space On Branson’s Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo Unity Spaceplane
https://www.republicworld.com/world-new … plane.html

SpaceX founder Elon Musk has bought a ticket on one of the future spaceflights by billionaire Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic

I wonder
Has the private commerce sector changed a lot, has it changed everything?

American won the space race against Soviets putting man on the Moon, only <strike>edit correction</strike>... only Twelve people have walked on Earth's Moon people have visited the Moon all NASA astronuats standing on another world. Shuttle was an amzing machine but keeps Ameerica stuck in LEO, then after the loss of Shuttle the US industry relied heavily on the Russians rockets to keep the station going and this Private Commercial thing is a new area. Branson now has tourists going sub-orbital before Bezos, it is expected that Bezos will soon follow with his tourism flights. Maybe other companies will follow and it will become a bigger industry, putting tourism into LEO on stations.

Could Lunar Tourism be a thing?

It is now possible because Musk even claimed SpaceX is set to inaugurate lunar tourism in January 2023, he's known for misisng dates but a lot of Musk claims have come true.
A Japanerse Billionaire Yusaku Maezawa once saiod he plans to invite up to eight artists to join him on the 2023 lunar mission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusaku_Maezawa first he will be joining Space Adventures on a trip to the International Space Station in December 2021, via the Soyuz. Fame won't be new to this guy, Maezawa was already a rock star in Japan -- literally.
it was announced that Maezawa will be the first commercial passenger to do a flyby around the Moon.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-07-12 12:36:27)

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-12 05:25:51

For Mars_B4_Moon re #44

Apollo flights were in threes, and there were 8 of them.

12 Astronauts walked on the Moon, and 12 circled or just flew by (6 and 6 to be exact)

Thanks for bringing so many older topic back into view.

Ref Google:

Twelve people have walked on the Moon. Four of them are still living as of July 2021. All crewed lunar landings took place between July 1969 and December 1972 as part of the Apollo program. ... Apollo astronauts who walked on the Moon.
Name
Buzz Aldrin
Born
January 20, 1930
Age at first step
39y 6m 0d
Mission
Apollo 11
List of Apollo astronauts - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_Apollo_astronauts

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-12-21 03:25:38

Musk said he will send him around the Moon.

The Soyuz with the Billionaire space tourist Yusaku Maezawa is back on Earth.

Yusaku Maezawa returns to Earth after 12-day space flight
https://torontosun.com/news/world/japan … ace-flight

Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa returns to Earth after 12 days on ISS
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/japanese-bill … 28196.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-17 06:03:00

Protecting the Health, Safety, and Comfort Of Civilians in the Commercialization of Space

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-protecting- … -of-space/

Until recently, with several exceptions, the only travelers in space have been career astronauts. Most stakeholders envision that space will be populated in the coming decades by average civilians who will travel, live and work in space. In the February 2021 edition of the Harvard Business Review, Matt Weinzierl and Mehak Sarang stated that we are reaching the first stages of a “true space-for-space economy.” They observed that the commercial space industry has the “intention and capability of bringing private citizens to space as passengers, tourists, and — eventually — settlers, opening the door for businesses to start meeting the demand those people create over the next several decades with an array of space-for-space goods and services.”
There are plans to create research laboratories and manufacturing facilities in space to produce new drugs and manufacture materials that will greatly benefit terrestrials. There are also plans to mine helium-3 and other rare metals on the moon and asteroids. Mining will require trained miners to oversee the process of safe extraction and efficient delivery to Earth.
Although a small number of civilians have experienced space travel to the Kármán line or beyond to the International Space Station since 2001, the recent spaceflights by Blue Origin in July, October, and December 2021, and March and June 2022 (26 civilians), Virgin Galactic in July 2021 (three civilians), and SpaceX’s Inspiration4 (four civilians) and Axiom-1 missions (four civilians) represent the interest, commitment and intent of the U.S. space industry to commercialize space in a manner and at a pace that only American ingenuity and industry can accomplish.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-16 14:39:34

Seven Teams Advance in NASA’s $5M Watts on the Moon Challenge

https://spaceref.com/space-commerce/sev … challenge/

With the upcoming launch of Artemis I, NASA is setting the stage to land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon. Future Artemis astronauts living and working on the lunar surface will require rugged technologies that can store energy and deliver continuous, reliable power.

Toward that goal, NASA has announced seven teams advancing to the next level of the agency’s Watts on the Moon Challenge. The $5 million, multi-level prize competition challenges innovators from all walks of life to develop pioneering power systems light enough for spaceflight and tough enough to withstand the harsh lunar environment.

“Building a strong infrastructure on the Moon is critical to enabling sustained human presence on the Moon and beyond,” said Denise Morris, acting program manager for NASA’s Centennial Challenges at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “The Watts on the Moon Challenge will get us one step closer by providing power transmission and energy storage solutions that will help future Artemis astronauts explore more of the lunar surface than ever before.”

The second phase of the challenge kicked off in February with a design competition. Phase 2, Level 1 challenged solvers to submit concepts for drawing power from an existing source and delivering it over nearly two miles (three kilometers) under the same temperature extremes and vacuum conditions found on the lunar surface.

The winning teams were chosen from submissions of technical documentation, including detailed engineering designs and analyses. A panel of judges reviewed, evaluated, and scored submissions based on key performance metrics such as minimal mass and maximum efficiency. Seven winning team will receive $200,000 each from NASA and move on to compete in Phase 2, Level 2.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-16 12:30:31

Dennis Tito and wife to be on second Starship flight around the moon

https://spacenews.com/dennis-tito-and-w … -the-moon/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-27 09:11:15

'Spaceflight Participants' will colonize the Moon and Mars?

We still use names like Cosmonaut, Astronaut, Taikonaut, a person launched on a private spaceflight on SpaceX is called an Astronaut, is that just something we do watching news media or is it because Musk is launching in America, a praivte flight from inside a nation that leads the Western world and using NASA help and facility?

The term Space-tourism seems to have come and gone, it is maybe coming back a little in media again but 'Spaceflight Participant' is the term used for people who travel into space, but are not professional astronauts.

'Galactic Energy is gearing up for the fourth launch of its Ceres-1 solid rocket.'
https://twitter.com/aj_fi/status/1585595614544396288

Chinese private space launch enterprise, said it plans to mine asteroids, comets.

http://www.galactic-energy.cn/index.php/En

China has a country and government space agency has gone impressive things in space, however their Private Sector is now growing. Which got me thinking about other nations and other space commerce and other programs and Total person-days in space. Before the Ukraine invasion and sanction for a while people talked about Soyuz tourist flights, then came commerce "Burt" Rutan and Branson's Virgin Orbit would get there some said, Bezos and Amazon came along but Musk and Space-X seem to have won that race. If you now count up the Total person-days of each nation in space the Private Sector plays a big role. The USA and USSR / Russia still have accumulated very impressive long duration feats, a collection of tens up thousands of hours on Skylab, MIR, ISS, Apollo, Chinese are the new guys making feats. However if you look at 'Japan' and 'Europe' and Canada who have zero independent human access to space they collected hundreds of days of experience, tens of thousands of hours of experiences in space, some gained experiences as dual citizenship some had governments guy private flight, Costa Rica, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Israel, Malaysia, South Korea any kingdom or group or nation could access, if you add up the time of each ESA member state it adds up to a lot of hours in space.

if you were trained by Russia you were a Cosmonaut
trained by NASA an Astronaut
Chinese a Taikonaut

but let's explore an idea of almost ANY science group or nation collecting time in Space as

Astronaut / Lunarnaut / Commercial-naut

'Spaceflight Participant' Moon Mission does not have the same ring to it.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-27 09:36:36)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-04-26 21:00:04

Re: Private Moon mission

#27 2007-04-26 21:32:23

Re: Private Moon mission

#28 2007-04-26 22:21:42

Re: Private Moon mission

#29 2007-04-26 23:15:11

Re: Private Moon mission

#30 2007-04-26 23:19:14

Re: Private Moon mission

#31 2007-04-27 00:13:32

Re: Private Moon mission

#32 2007-04-27 01:05:05

Re: Private Moon mission

#33 2007-04-27 09:30:01

Re: Private Moon mission

#34 2007-04-27 21:38:23

Re: Private Moon mission

#35 2007-04-27 23:05:10

Re: Private Moon mission

#36 2007-04-27 23:48:20

Re: Private Moon mission

#37 2007-04-29 10:34:02

Re: Private Moon mission

#38 2007-04-30 14:31:53

Re: Private Moon mission

#39 2007-05-26 05:14:45

Re: Private Moon mission

#40 2007-05-26 20:09:07

Re: Private Moon mission

#41 2007-05-26 20:56:12

Re: Private Moon mission

#42 2015-12-23 21:52:54

Re: Private Moon mission

#43 2021-07-11 10:15:08

Re: Private Moon mission

#44 2021-07-12 04:29:46

Re: Private Moon mission

#45 2021-07-12 05:25:51

Re: Private Moon mission

#46 2021-12-21 03:25:38

Re: Private Moon mission

#47 2022-06-17 06:03:00

Re: Private Moon mission

#48 2022-08-16 14:39:34

Re: Private Moon mission

#49 2022-10-16 12:30:31

Re: Private Moon mission

#50 2022-10-27 09:11:15

Re: Private Moon mission

Board footer