NASA Wants To Buy Moon Dirt From Private Companies (space.com) 33
NASA aims to pay private companies to collect moon dirt in an effort to stimulate and normalize the extraction and sale of lunar resources. Space.com reports: The agency just issued a request for proposals (RFP) to this effect, [NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine] explained in a blog post today. NASA wants private companies, from the United States or abroad, to snag 1.8 ounces to 18 ounces (50 to 500 grams) of lunar material by 2024 and officially transfer ownership of the stuff to the space agency on the lunar surface. NASA will pay $15,000 to $25,000 for each of these caches, with 80% of the money delivered after sample collection. Companies will get 10% upon signing a contract and 10% after launching their spacecraft, Bridenstine added.
NASA will eventually bring the lunar material down to Earth, if all goes according to plan. (The space agency already has a considerable stash of moon rocks here, of course. The Apollo astronauts brought home 842 lbs., or 382 kilograms, of lunar material between 1969 and 1972.) The main goal of the new RFP, which you can find here, is to stimulate and normalize the extraction and sale of lunar resources, Bridenstine said. For example, participating companies may choose to collect far more than 18 ounces of material and sell the excess to non-NASA buyers.
NASA will eventually bring the lunar material down to Earth, if all goes according to plan. (The space agency already has a considerable stash of moon rocks here, of course. The Apollo astronauts brought home 842 lbs., or 382 kilograms, of lunar material between 1969 and 1972.) The main goal of the new RFP, which you can find here, is to stimulate and normalize the extraction and sale of lunar resources, Bridenstine said. For example, participating companies may choose to collect far more than 18 ounces of material and sell the excess to non-NASA buyers.
Wrong Direction (Score:2)
You are meant to pay bonuses for get tons to the moon, big bonuses. The only thing that should ever come back is people and data. Any resources you collect up there should stay up there, it is really expensive getting material to the moon, so much so, bringing anything back, outside of people and data is a waste of money. Getting resources from the moon further out into the solar system is also really worth while. Bringing resources back is stupid, leave the ground hogs to rot, dwelling on their own genital
Re:Wrong Direction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
NASA is buying the lunar sample that's on the surface of the moon. Nobody's shipping it back to Earth, at least not at this phase.
$25K for a $100M mission won't cut it (Score:1)
NASA is offering 1/4000th of the cost of a lunar mission -- the space launch, flight to the moon,, the lander, the extractor, and the return.
And you have 3 weeks go bid it... and 29 days to get it approved.
If you already had such a program (SpaceX, UAL) then yeah you could boost your revenue 0.004% by bringing back some moon rock.
This RFQ will go unfulfilled.
E
You get the point .... only UAL is supposed to bid (Score:2)
But maybe Elon has a spare Spider he can dump on the moon to collect some rubble.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, NASA is going to the moon and they want you to take samples and bring those samples to them, on the moon. Of course, it's still pretty cheap per cache.
On the other hand, one could design a rover, and have it collect 50 caches and drop them in one spot. That's a million dollars for you. Still not a lot of money, but presumably this could be piggybacked on some other mission.
FOB Destination means give it to the buyer. (Score:1)
You don't have to return it. The request lists "Delivery is FOB Destination."
The "Destination" is wherever the mutually signed contract says the moon rocks will be delivered. It's not the "Source" which is where they find and pick up the rocks, and it's not "drop them in one spot" on the moon either.
If this is confusing, check this link:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
E
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, of course, that this is minuscule incentive to stimulate a new mission to the lunar surface, though it could be an important step toward normalizing off-planet business transactions.
If you're really looking to cash in, TFS claims they'll give you 10% for signing the contract... $1500-$2500? Score! That's maybe a kilo of white truffles to enjoy while your lunar mission goes painfully off the rails.
Just as long (Score:1)
Once You Tell Everyone It Is To Make Werewolves (Score:2)
I am sure the value will go up outside NASA and you can sell it to them.
I would think NASA has plenty of moon rocks and dirt from previous missions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what makes this very suspicious to me. Why don't they? What's the real point of this?
Re: (Score:2)
They are doing to get people used to the Moon being a resource anyone can exploit instead of a publicly owned resource. Bunch of rich asshole grifters want to exploit resources no one is allowed to own, not that this is new by any means.
From this debate emerged the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) [7] which re
Come on get real (Score:2)
Moon dirt? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here on Earth, it's raining men. Hallelujah!
You are Mike Pence, and I claim my $20!
NASA Should Not Be Privatized (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe one of those companies will have the balls to use them since we are obviously too scared to use them.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are fine now. people live there and life goes on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Orbital rocket are not ICBMs. That's even more true for moon rockets.
ICBMs are suborbital, and have to be able to be launched quickly. For that reason, they are usually solid fuel rockets, with high thrust, but not particularly efficient. They also have military-specific features like stealth, hardening, independent guidance systems, ... And a nuclear warhead too, private companies usually don't have these.
Orbital and outer space rockets are all about efficiency. For that reason, they are more likely to use
Why not ask to iRobot to have the job done ? (Score:2)
A cunning plan (Score:3)
(oblig) The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
At last (Score:3)
I knew these eggheads would crawl back to me. - Cave Johnson
Not "dirt", correct term is "regolith" (Score:2)
When I RTFA (including Bridenstine's Tweet), I can't believe how many euphemisms are used to describe what is properly called "regolith".
I thought that the term was reasonably well known/understood.
I hear that Aperture Science had a supply. . . . (Score:3)
. . .perhaps they have some left, that hasn't been made into a very special paint. . .
. . .if they do, then it's a triumph: make a note, huge success. . . .
A bit of dirt? (Score:2)
I bought large parts of land on the moon in the seventies when it still was dirt-cheap.
Mass, at scale (Score:2)
If we are still around by then, once this scales up, moving mass from orbiting_body_A
to orbiting_body_B not seem like the best of ideas, especially if you live on orbiting_body_B,
even if the mass is gold encrusted diamonds.
Yeah, I know it would take a lot of mass, but humans also thought that the atmosphere
and oceans could absorb unlimited shit over time.
There's gold in them moons (Score:1)
Cave Johnson here... (Score:2)