Plan for Privately-Funded Moon Base 186
Anonymous Coward writes "Check out The Artemis Project. A project to have a self-supporting moon base and commercial flights within a decade. According to the FAQ, the project will be paid for by 'shameless commercialism'." The project's leaders say their approach is nothing like D. D. Harriman's, but more along the lines of P.T. Barnum.
license a 'SimMoonBase' game (Score:1)
"Official Artemis Project SimMoonBase" game. And
promote it with a big sticker on the box that says that a portion of the profits are going to help actually setup a private enterprise moon base. I think this would be a big winner with geeks and sf fans and their business model would make a good sim game.
You get a big chunk of cash at the start from
broadcasting rights and the movie and merchandising have, then you have to find long
term revenue sources to keep the moonbase economical for 30 years or something. You can build luxury hotels for the tourists, moon themeparks, oxygen plants, hydroponics domes, magnetic acceleration cargo launchers etc Disasters would of course include depressurisation, meteorite strikes and workers going postal....
Also include details on the artemis project and the website address with the game, this would help raise awareness about them as well as raising some money for them.
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
char *stupidsig = "this is my dumb sig";
Biosphere II? That's very different (Score:1)
The Lunar biological environment requires much more rigid control and totally different techniques to cope with lunar vaguarities such as the 336hr night and shortage of organic materials like dirt.
For a quick rundown on the issues, check out The Artemis Biological Recycling page [asi.org] or get a copy of the next Artemis Magazine [lrcpubs.com].
Vik
Spell checker? (Score:1)
Seriously though, do bear in mind that English is not the first language of all Artmis Society members, and it does take a lot of work to maintain a site that huge.
Vik
Re:Scammers (Score:1)
Re:Privately funded? Of course! (Score:1)
Picture it: A far-off shot of the moon base, cuts to a close up of one of the satellite dishes. "Drink Coke", emblazoned vividly on the dish, competes with the "Reebok" emblem on the side of the lunar rover sitting next to it.
"That's one small step for a man, but thanks to my NikeBok MoonBoots (TM), one giant leap for mankind."
dave
Re:Congratulations! (Score:1)
The 'volunteers' however enthusiastic they may be, are offensive to me, throwing time and money into someone else's half-rendered daydream.
Why knock it?
-because it's a waste of time and mental bandwidth (and potentially the savings) of anyone who gives it the time of day
What's (my?) motive?
-Encourage Critical (if not at times downright Cynical) thinking
What Will I gain?
-Satisfaction, in the hope that maybe just ONE person, as a result of my potentially offensive ramblings, will look at this 'Amazing Techno-color Gift Horse On The Moon Place Your Orders Now' a little more closely and a little more rationally, and NOT send in their hard-earned money and NOT waste their valuable time cranking out "serveral thousand web pages, data tables and images" for your organization. I'm a big fan of Heinlein and a big supporter of Space/Lunar research and exploration. Your 'project' as described on your site will foster neither of these.
(belch)
Excuse me.
Re:Congratulations! (Score:1)
If you can actually come up with a good reason why it won't work - and do try to pick one that isn't answered in the FAQ - let us know.
Vik
Re:We need dreamers (Score:1)
It's not the pie in the sky dreamers who advance humanity... it's the type of dreamer who can come up with an idea, build it, and make it work, that really matter. And that's the biggest thing... it's real easy to give impractical plans on how to go to the moon (We'll shoot us out of a cannon! We'll mount a NASCAR on a SRB and use the sponsors to pay for it!), but it's a hard problem to make the dream a reality in a way that makes sense.
If someone can do that, they will have my utmost respect and admiration. But ASI is rather far from that point, despite the pretty pictures and lots of text on their site.
I smell a rat (Score:1)
I could be wrong (we'll see if they go public), but I'm not scheduling any vacation time in 2010 just yet, and my investments are staying with much safer tech startups (relatively speaking).
Just to put this in perspective... (Score:1)
And not gotten one step closer to the lunar surface.
Eventually we'll go back to the moon. But it won't be until access to space significantly cheapens and technology significantly improves.
No advertising there (Score:1)
Re:Who owns the moon? (Score:2)
In all seriousness, who owns the moon?
No one. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prevents nations from making claims of soverignity on the Moon and other celestial bodies. Thus, those who claim to own part or all of the Moon are frauds: there is no government that recognizes their claims, no registrar of deeds with whom to file claims, and no court to arbitrate disputes.
(It should be noted that the U.S., and most other countries, rejected a far more restrictive treaty, the "Moon Treaty", in the late 1970s. This would have required any exploration and development of the Moon to serve "all mankind" and would have essentially made commercial development impossible. The treaty was not ratified by the U.S. Senate after a strong lobbying effort by the L-5 Society, a predecessor of the present-day National Space Society.)
That said, property rights in space is a thorny issue today, since many advocates of commercial development of space see the inability to claim recognized property rights on other bodies as a major hurdle. This will become a major issue down the road as commercial space efforts involving the Moon, asteroids, and other bodies ramp up.
Space Exploitation (Score:1)
There are a lot of resources to be had in our Sol system. The moon for example, is covered with patches of a mineral known as illmenite. This is a compound of titanium, iron, and oxygen. There is a lot of it. As well as aluminum, silicon, and other useful elements. The asteroid belt is another source of riches. According to "Mining the Sky" by John S Lewis, if all the minerals in the asteroid belt were mined and sold at todays prices, it would equate to about.. 500 billion for every person on earth. As well, it is theorized that two of Jupiter's Lagrange points may contain more material than the entire asteroid belt.
Essentially, we could give everybody their own mountain of platinum to sit on.. that is a rather strong reason for exploration and mining of our solar system.
This has already been done... (Score:1)
This looks like someone grabbed the idea and started hypothesizing. For a group that plans to spend $30M on software development and $20M on sales and marketing you would think they might have invested a few thousand dollars in web site design. IMHO it's only a couple of steps above Transmeta's site as far as eye appeal.
--Kit
Re:Perhaps fun, although completely pointless... (Score:3)
I haven't heard that anyone viewed the American West as population control, more like a whole bunch of people who didn't care for the stuffed shirts back east and wanted their own land came out here on their own -- then populated it like mad rabbits.
Also the issue has nothing to do with the size of Moon or Mars. Both have surface areas comparable to Earth's given the large percentage of water surface here. And we don't build *on* the Moon, we build *in* the moon, and that makes for a huge amount of room indeed, potentially.
But you are absolutely right that space in general is useless for population control, just as America was for Europe. You simply can't pack up and ship off as many people as are born each day, so it will never work for that.
It is *NOT* pointless however. First, sheer tourism -- rich people will pay a lot of money for exclusive vacations. Especially if rumors spread about sex in low gravity. Second, science will progress a lot from having more than one set of planetary data, and several observation points on the universe. Specialized enviroments like microgravity and cheap high vacuum labs also help. Third, it's great insurance for the human race to have independent colonies scattered about the solar system. Fourth, people with heart trouble, e.g., are likely to live a lot longer in low gravity. Fifth, though you can't control population, having those who hate the system most leave for space will reduce tensions. Sixth, its something those crazy humans *will* do, better get used to the idea.
Re:It needs nanotech (Score:1)
Yes it will make going to the moon much easier, but it can be done with current materials and equipment. The trick is not to use technology showcases like the Shuttle, to use real consumer-driven technology, and proven kit like Spacehabs and RL10 engines.
Now if nanotech comes along and gives us diamondoid tanks, engines, turbopumps and lunar processing machinery (no carbon, so we'll probably use aluminium oxide to build lunar nanotech) before the mission can get off the ground then you can guess who is going to be absolutely ready to take advantage of the new materials, right?
Personally I don't know which one is going to come first, but I'm not going to hang around and wait for someone else to do it.
Vik
[Chairman Structures & Mechanisms Ctte., Project Artemis] vik@asi.org
If they truly (Score:1)
Re:Ownership == ability to defend (Score:1)
RObert E Heinlein, here we come!! (Score:1)
Re:Lunar Treaty still in force (Score:1)
Re:RObert E Heinlein, here we come!! (Score:1)
--
Re:Robert E Heinlein, here we come!! (Score:2)
Good story.
Why is this news? (Score:1)
Having said that, when it started it did look rather 'Pie in the Sky', but these days they are looking in a much more credible position!
interesting idea, i don't think i'll go (Score:3)
Re:Roughly $6 Billion (Score:1)
Buckets,
pompomtom
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Current "humanoid on the street" perception is that the moon missions didn't do much other than prove that we could do it. I think that's why NASA isn't getting the big bucks anymore. On the other hand, it has to be admitted they haven't been doing anything earth-shattering with the bucks they have gotten - and they're still spending quite a bit in absolute terms.
D
----
Re:No advertising there (Score:1)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Hasn't Artemis been around for absolutely AGES now? I have a feeling that I read about it in a forum somewhere on Slashdot....
Yes, Artemis has been around for a number of years, and I'm not aware of any recent developments that would make it especially newsworthy.
Having said that, when it started it did look rather 'Pie in the Sky', but these days they are looking in a much more credible position!
The Artemis folks have been working hard to refine their mission concept, but I don't know if it's that much more credible now than in the recent past.
The problem with this and other commercial space ventures is the difficulty raising capital. For example, look at the companies developing reusable launch vehicles. Their costs are much lower that Artemis' costs (up to an order of magnitude less) and they have a well-defined market (launching commuications and other spacecraft into Earth orbit.) Yet they have had considerable difficulty raising funds: Rotary Rocket needs "only" $150 million for its entire development process, including building its first flight vehicle, yet has raised only about $30 million.
(Admittedly, the uncertainly in the size of the market for satellite launches, exacerbated by the recent Chapter 11 filings by Iridium and ICO, have made it difficult to show investors that these are viable businesses. This only compounds the problems for Artemis, though.)
Given the current state of venture capital, Artemis might find the most success by billing itself as a unique .com e-commerce startup and watch the VCs stumble over themselves to give it money! :-)
Re:Who owns the moon? (Score:1)
Of course, if the moon base is not self-sufficent, that changes things. It could be "attacked" by shutting down its Earth supply lines. So it's all up in the air.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to think about this, except that it's 10:42am. Moon bases are not interesting to me unless they have better net links than I do. And even with the best tech that can exist in _theory_ currently, there'll always be a really bad RTT. So I don't find moon bases interesting at all. So I'll shut up now.
Re:Earth II (Score:1)
To put it another way, if you go download the CVS tree of KDE 2.0, you don't actually expect it to WORK, do you?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
More recently (though still not very recently) they've actually put together estimates for pricing, and where they'd get more money from. That's all I mean by more credible - they've a long way to go yet!
Re:Commercialization of space exploration ineviata (Score:1)
Corporations/individuals can invest large sums of money in obscure projects, but these tend to be down to earth ones ('scuse the pun) and often promise a return sooner rather than later, and in hard currency, not scientific/engineering advances. Wether we like it or not, space exploration doesn't fit this description well.
The peak of humanity's space exploration was a period of a paranoid cold war. This is no coincidence - the goverments then could afford to spend large amounts of cash on projects that people knew would not improve their life significantly, at least in the short term, and not risk public anger. Today, this is not the case. I don't think I have to proove this.
I believe that today, the moon landings wouldn't happen, because they cost wouldn't be justified. That, or some environmentalists would claim that the project didn't take sufficient measures to ensure no distruption of the moon would occur. Or some other group would come up and cause trouble. You know what I mean
Please, don't misunderstand me - I'm all for science, but in the last decade or so, it became much harder for governments to spend money on projects that don't yield obvious benefits for the taxpayers. That, and they lost interest. The same applies for other research; it's hard today to get a grant on research that will not yield results in 2-3 years that would be of interest to the industry. This is really sad, and hurts science, but it's sadly true. History teaches us that significant discoveries were made years (some times thousands of years actually) before a practical application was found.
There is no such thing as justification for doing science - this notion is obsurd. However, when it comes to someone funding a project, he'd better know that something's good gonna come out of it. Almost noone is willing to give something for nothing, and that's just capitalism's ugly side. We have to live with it - no system is perfect unfortunately.
If sufficient money are collected for this project, or other projects that might choose this way of funding, that's good. I, however, doubt that it will.
What we need is another Isabella crazy enough to sell her crown jewels and fund another Colombus' insane project.
-W
Why hasn't it been done yet? (Score:1)
Amount of material required to 'bootstrap' a base (initial domes, regolith mining, oxygen generation, hydroponics, metal smelting, etc.), plus the amount of food, water, and non-native gases that would need to be shipped until the base was self-sufficent...
...multiplied by the launch cost per pound. What is that sitting at right now? A thousand dollars, more?
Its prohibitively expensive. Too expensive for the US Government, too expensive for a group of corporations... certainly too damn expensive for a private organisation.
Now, if Artemis was serious, they'd start getting money poured into a cheap, high-capacity launch system... a rail launcher, for example. Once LEO travel is down under $100/pound, corporations and organisations are going to be tripping over themselves to colonise the moon.
That will be the point where the government starts passing inane laws trying to stop it or maintain control over it... ah well. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by R.A.Heinlein is a good read for _that_.
Re:Should have happend long ago (Score:1)
Re:Someone, stop letting me overdose on ovaltine. (Score:1)
You know, it seems to me that these days ANY attempt to be humourous on the all-holy Slashdot is met with negativity (and downward moderation). This isn't just my posts; I'm seeing it all around. It's really a shame. I don't think it's the flaming kiddies that are taking away from Slashdot; it's the egomaniacal, something stuffed-very-far-up-their-asses pious better-than-everyone-else folks with moderation access these days. And I wonder why some of my favourite posters aren't posting nearly as much anymore. I don't think I'll be posting again for awhile.
Colonization of the Moon (Score:1)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Re:billboards (Score:1)
Re:Win Prizes! XXX! Cut Off Your Head! (Score:1)
Should have happend long ago? Why? (Score:1)
Re:lofty goals (Score:1)
How long 'til we have a Tower of Death [manifest.com] on The Moon(TM)?
Can't wait!
What happens to the Moon's Environment ? (Score:1)
How can we judge that sort of thing at our age (as a species) ?! Just because there are no trees or lakes or mammals on the moon doesn't mean that it can't be destroyed through human exploitation! Do we really have the knowledge to judge what the effects might be ?
I am among those who enjoys looking up at the stars and seeing a realm that is mostly untouched. There are no flashing Coca Cola signs, no unnatural disfigurations to the beauty of the moon... it looks empty, uninhabitated, wild and beautiful... I am not keen on having this change...
It was mentioned that there are no political claims to the moon yet.. ie. no one owns it... what will happen to that ? Will it be destroyed by greedy mining corporations that have no regulations to follow ? Will it be disfigured with uneccesary moon colonies and bases ?
I think that for once we should pay attention to what history has taught... doing things for pure entertainment and fun is OFTEN a temporary and ultimately disastrous reason... think of all the brief fashion crazes that have endangered various species of animals ... At the time it seemed harmless ... the true, long-lasting effects were only to be regretted later.
Let's leave the moon be. We have NO NEED to colonise it. (If Earth becomes uninhabitable, it's our own fault. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to ruin another part of our Solar System.)
---
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
Better to have commercial interests controlling the moon than government interests.
At least with a corporation, you know what their motivation is (money). With the government, who knows what their after? Is the new funding for space exploration part of a deal that will end up censoring the 'net?
Re:Perhaps fun, although completely pointless... (Score:1)
You know the saying "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"?
Well, the earth is a small, and very fragile basket.
Re:Who owns the moon? (Score:1)
Making the moon base self sufficient would be a trivial problem. There are oxygen supplies in the "soil", and you could get electricity from the sun. With electricity and oxygen, everything else can be generated.
Re:Some Notes (Score:1)
This strikes me as highly infeasible. It would take a tremendous amount of resources (money and power) to mount a lunar colony effort, and anyone or group with that much money and power is highly unlikely to be an "out" group politically.
Re:Should have happend long ago (Score:1)
We need faster than light comunication damnit!
--
Wow (Score:1)
I would definitely love to go.
"The moon belongs to america.." (Score:1)
It was a good episode..
...
Whatever (Score:1)
Re:Why hasn't it been done yet? (Score:1)
First, find a good sized, somewhat geologically stable mountain range. Bore a hole at an angle some 10-20km deep, and install an industrial-strength maglev system along it. At the end of the hole, scrape out a large enough area for launch control, cargo loading, passenger terminal, etc., and drill out land-access tunnels.
The launch vehicle would require an amount of aerodynamic design... since in combination to the maglev system, it would also have a pair of regular rocket engines. Once the vehicle exits the maglev tube and reaches the top of its flight arc, the engines would fire and kick it into orbit. Return is simply a matter of re-entry and landing at a normal airstrip, which could be built close to the launch base. Tow the vehicle back to the base, gas up, off it goes again.
Please, feel free to punch holes in this idea... also feel free to help it along.
Re:Congratulations! (Score:1)
Aw shucks. You got me there. I can't think of ANY...
My check is in the mail!
Oh it'll happen, the question is "When?" (Score:1)
Artemis could do it all by itself by following its current program of re-investment and collaboration (the "lemonade stand" philosophy), but it is unlikely that investors will stay away for that long!
Vik
What do you want as evidence? (Score:1)
But you need evidence that private enterprise does it cheaper and better. So, who has the most advanced graphite-epoxy fuel tanks in the world? The best rocket engines in the world? The best vertical-landing rocket technology? Aerial cryo-propellant transfer? The best high-performance, non-toxic propellants? Modular, flight-tested space habitat components? Not NASA, private enterprises. If you want more evidence, just stick your nose into the aerospace world and look around.
But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the US Govt. doesn't do things the cheap way. NASA is a US government technology showcase, not an inter-planetary transport company.
Vik
Re:P.T. Barnum on the moon? (Score:1)
Vik
And also established the odd company... (Score:1)
They've done a lot more than that. The software used to join the members of the project from all over the globe did itself turn into a marketable product called Website Director. There is now a proper Artemis magazine, full of stories and articles about the moon. The Artemis Database has grown to a point where I understand it is now actually linked to by NASA. Plus there's this little company called TransOrbital about which you will hear much more.
Artemis has gone beyond the point where people can glibly say "it can't be done" or "you'll never get the money because everyone thinks like me." We now know it can be done, we've got the know-how, and we're steadily putting it into action.
So what Artemis has done is to show people that it can be done. To inspire people to think outside the little square that is government-funded exploration and realise that more and more, people will be able to decide the direction of their own future.
Mine is in the direction of the stars, and instead of bitching about it liek I used to I'm just making it happen.
Vik
Re:Who owns the moon? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
--
uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
The moon is responsible for tides on earth and many other things that would severly hamper our ability to survive if it were tampered with too much (I would guess that all nine planets ultimately have an effect on each other, though perhaps miniscule). While landfills on the moon would not affect this, if there is no policy in place of trying to protect the moon from abuse, whats to stop some private company from testing a new missle and blowing it up? Also, we only have one moon and it would be a shame to destroy its surface with garbage, only to later find some other purpose for it (like, fleeing from the earth due to nuclear war).
Respect for the environment should always come first no matter what object in the universe we are dealing with...assuming everything is just "ours" indicates shallow instant-gratification-oriented thinking.
Where do they get their figures? (Score:1)
Re:We need dreamers (Score:1)
Unfortunately, not since JFK has the U.S. had a leader with the vision, the intelligence, the rhetorical ability, and the chutzpah to ram through a $1 trillion (in today's terms) manned moon project.
Keep in mind that American politicans were not necessarilty more visionary 40 years ago. They were more strongly motivated by the threat -- real or perceived -- posed by the Soviet Union, and were willing to spend vast sums of money (although far less than the $1 trillion claimed above) to demonstrate American technological superiority.
As such a set of circumstances is unlikely to arise again in the foreseeable future, commercial endeavors will have to play a larger role in the exploration and development of space in the future. Artemis may not be the most feasible way to acomplish this, but it is not the only way either.
Re:uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
For thousands and thousands of years, humans first puzzled over what the moon was, then dreamed of visiting there. And we finally have the chance to go there and we want to use it as a big garbage dump. Tells you something about us.
Re:Moon already owned (Score:1)
Re:uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
Physics. You couldn't blow up the moon enough to upset the tides if you carefully placed and detonated evey nuclear weapon on Earth in a deliberate attempt to do so.
Also, we only have one moon and it would be a shame to destroy its surface with garbage, only to later find some other purpose for it
Ahem. You realize exactly how big the moon is? And you realize how toxic the garbage would have to be to make it harder to settle the moon than settlement already is?
Sorry, thanks for playing. Please try again!
Lunar manifacturing (Score:2)
--
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
Product and funding? (Score:2)
Remember, right now they have no product. In fact they'll probably have no product for many years to come. They say they're in no hurry and will wait for the technology needed. That's fine. The technology and the little details will be worked out as things go along. Right now they need the money which is why they ask you to join.
Ask yourselves this, though. How many companies are formed at this stage, but never make it to the "delivering the product" stage?
It needs money.
It needs well thought out details.
It needs a product.
It's vaporware.
Stephen
Still... It would be nice...
Other commercial lunar development efforts (Score:2)
Artemis is not the only effort devoted to going to the Moon and making money, although their plan is arguably the boldest. Some other companies with lunar projects:
These and some other commercial lunar projects were discussed at the first Commercial Lunar Base Symposium [space-frontier.org] in Houston in July. This article [spaceviews.com] has some more details about the conference. Those in the Los Angeles area might want to check out the Space Frontier Conference [space-frontier.org], Sept. 23-26, where commercial lunar efforts will be one of the topics.
Re:interesting idea, i don't think i'll go (Score:1)
> useless for anything except science and perhaps
> mining industry. Mars, on the other hand...
...is not a big (cold, dry) rock with no usable atmosphere? It isn't several times the distance?
Re:Privately funded? Of course! (Score:1)
WOO!!
Sigh...
So the best excuse we can come up with for space exploration in this day and age is brand marketing?
Re:uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
Lunar Treaty still in force (Score:2)
Who owns Antarctica? It's the same thing. The Antarctic Treaty guarantees that no country will claim it.
There's a good summary of the Outer Space Treaty at wisc.edu [wisc.edu]
The full text of the treaty is available here [un.or.at]
Re:Lunar manifacturing (Score:1)
Re:interesting idea, i don't think i'll go (Score:1)
Surface mobility would seem to be a big issue in any long-term visit - and on Mars you don't need (as large and bulky) deep-sea diving suits. Plus, if we can figure out a way to release some of the CO2 in the ice caps & soil... rebreathers would be necessary, but no pressurized environment suits. Plus little atmosphere still = big help in radiation shielding. All plusses compared to the Moon.
Travel time is the only real issue concerning distance to Mars as opposed to the Moon. The delta-V difference is negligible (a Saturn V would've been big enough).
There is much more interesting (IMHO) science to be had on Mars. Water? Maybe. Microbal life (current or past)? Maybe. Plus I think it's a more viable option for long-term inhabitance.
If I had the pesos, I'd be headed to the Red Planet, myself.
Cheers,
Brian
Re:Other commercial lunar development efforts (Score:1)
Re:um...*WHY* (Score:1)
To go where not so many humans has gone before.
look at the Artemis-Page [asi.org]
a huge radio telescope on the back-side of the moon would be great. it would be shielded against all stupid earthling-radiowaves and would have no distorting atmosphere above it.
A good challange (Score:1)
If nanotech works out in accordance with current "schedules" (using the word very loosely), you'll see me working hard to get off the planet too.
It's a pity that the Moon doesn't have the same romantic attraction as Mars though. On the other hand, it's far better placed w.r.to the Earth. You're probably laying the foundations for the most important gateway in the solar system. Good luck!
Re:We need dreamers (Score:1)
what were the two countries to vote AGAINST the Treaty of Rome two summers ago, where the International Court for Human Rights was established - Libya and US
which country are YOU most comfortable with?
Re:Some Notes (Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth) (Score:1)
Jamestown was funded by a corporation since, at the time, there weren't many people in England who had the money to finance a colony by themselves. And Jamestown certainly had its share of problems. The managers of the corporation stayed in England to run things while the colonists came to Virginia (just like point 1). Does the rule in absentia have anything to do with their troubles? Hard to say. It's a good possibility, at least.
The founders of Plymouth, on the other hand, were able to ensure that their corporation's managers (and their charter) came with them to the New World. So they were able to prevent (for the most part) interference from England.
belette
Re:I smell a rat (Score:1)
The main area of the web site is the Data Book (http://www.asi.org/adb), in addition to keeping the site so that any browser can render it.
::
think this is a scam. This looks like the type of operation that will draw in a bunch of hoodwinked investors and then suddenly disappear.
::
ASI has been around for several years, this is not a project that was just thrown together to rob people.
::
I could be wrong (we'll see if they go public), but I'm not scheduling any vacation time in 2010 just yet, and my investments are staying with much safer tech startups (relatively speaking).
::
ASI will never go public, it's a non-profit organization. ASI spins off other 'daughter' companies that may or may not go public. However, the only ties these daughter companies have to ASI is that's where they started.
Wayne
ASI Member
Re:Some Notes (Score:1)
OK, so when they establish their colony they should require that the managers/board members live in it...
Re:uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
Ahem yourself. You realize exactly how big the Earth is? We've done a pretty damn fine job destroying its environment. Give us a few centuries on the moon.
Commercial aircraft standards...quite scary. (Score:1)
Quite frankly, that would scare me. Aircraft are generally safe enough for what aircraft do...fly around in earth's atmosphere. But a trip to the moon will put a craft through much worse stresses. I hope they build the craft to much higher standards than a typical airplane.
I think that a desire to 'be an astronaut' or travel into space is a common geek trait, and I'm no different, but if all I can count on is the same safety margin as an airplane, I think I'll stay here on earth.
Ender
This sig is under construction...
Re:Other commercial lunar development efforts (Score:1)
I'm really wondering what the point of TransOrbital is. Isn't there enough photography of the moon for current purposes?
I haven't heard of LunaCorp before... who are they trying to target WRT paying customers? Scientists or tourists?
um...*WHY* (Score:2)
-stumped
Re:Environmentalism on The Moon (Score:1)
So any self-sustaining (i.e. not just an Apollo mission) moon-base will by necessity be very frugal with its 'trash'.
The reality is that there is so much polution, at-capacity landfills, etc. in the U.S. because we are too damn rich for our own goods. We've lost all sense of the value of things. You've heard the term 'disposable culture', well its really true. It doesn't have to be this way of course - we could be that much richer by recycling, and not wasting stuff (one of these days you should weigh all your grocery bags and then unpack all the food and weigh the packaging, wrapping, etc. and figure out what the percentage of waste to food is).
One of these centuries we (humanity) are really going to regret wasting all those hydrocarbons on fueling Suburban Utility Vehicles (which lets face it are nothing more than fancied up minivans).
Lead by example! (Score:1)
So start by killing your self then. Think locally!
Re:uhm, we sort of like, need the moon, and stuff (Score:1)
2) Who wants to use it as a garbage dump? It would be prohibitively expensive, ridiculously expensive to do so. No one sane thinks that's even a minutely remote possibility. So don't even begin to worry about it. It's not an issue.
Cheers
Artemis goddess of the moon ? Not quite... (Score:2)
The real goddess of the moon is Selene (look out for "Selenium" in Medeleiev's table). Pale, thin woman with long black hair - the contrary of healthy, athletic Artemis.
However it is true that those two goddesses have often been confused, even in antiquity. This may come from the former identification of her brother Apollon (god of light, sports and music, among others) with Helios (god of the Sun - ever noticed all those sun-related words that begin with "helio" ?), although those two guys are also different gods with different genealogies and all that.
This may explain why those stupid Romans, when they adopted greek mythology, mixed both Artemis and Selene into one single woman - known as Diana, goddess of hunting and of the moon.
BTW, ever wondered where the word "Dianetics" comes from ?...
Try to guess what they're hunting after !
Thomas
Happy
PS: If you're a student of French or any other latin language, mythology can be quite a funny way to improve your vocabulary : many Greek gods - and nearly all Roman gods - have names that can be found in many words of these languages.
Re:Futurama (Score:1)
Privately funded? Of course! (Score:2)
I will wait to see how this works out, this is definitely something to watch. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see competitors spring up if this thing looks like it will actually fly (in a financial sense, that is).
Picture it: A far-off shot of the moon base, cuts to a close up of one of the satellite dishes. "Drink Coke", emblazoned vividly on the dish, competes with the "Reebok" emblem on the side of the lunar rover sitting next to it.
WOO!!
Some Notes (Score:3)
1) Their primary purpose is to make money (and to "have fun"). I don't know if I'd want to go to a moon base made by someone wanting solely to make money. I wouldn't put it past some managers (who will stay safely on Earth) to cut corners somewhere. And something like that would be disasterous. Their official policy:
To keep costs under control, the spacecraft are built using commercial aircraft standards and procedures.
I don't know if that's good or bad. Are aircraft standards good enough for spacecraft? A spacecraft can't just land somewhere if something goes wrong. OTOH, most all airplane flights have no problems (except maybe delays at airports).
2) Having a lunar colony created by a corporation is not too far fetched. The first European colonies in America were funded by corporations. Unfortunately, the first English colony, Roanoke, was a miserable failure -- everyone was gone (presumed dead) a few years after they arrived. Jamestown (the second attempt) also had a bad record with many people dying the first winter.
3) The lunar colony won't succeed until people have a good reason to leave Earth (i.e. escape a big brother government). Right now, I don't think we have that sort of intolerable situation.
Overall, I think it's a good idea (in principle). One must be wary and not but one's complete trust in this particular company until they prove themselves.
... (Score:2)
--
lofty goals (Score:5)
But where is the business model? I saw estimates for the feasibility study, project design, and testing. A couple year span is given for each. Where are they getting these numbers? Since they estimate the project to run over a billion dollars, where do they plan to get the capital?
And who's going to risk providing venture capital without a solid plan? They say that they plan to make an immediate profit through the entertainment angle. Well that's fine and dandy, but there is no mention of the overhead associated with doing this. This isn't like a standard vacation. You need lawyers to deal with possible accidents. Special security people would need to protect the enclosed environment from some nutcase going postal.
In short, private enterprise has pros and cons. They avoid the overhead of a government project. However, the people they will be transporting do not have the same level of expertise, trustworthiness, and professionalism as traditional astronauts. This adds to the expense.
Don't get me wrong - I think it would be a beautiful thing if we each had the opportunity to experience space travel. But these guys have their heads in the clouds, and really need to formulate a solid business model before they have any hope of getting off the ground (sorry that was kinda bad
Best regards,
SEAL
Commercialization of space exploration ineviatable (Score:3)
So, while the Artemus project will probably turn out to be a failure (although somebody will make lots of money off it anyway, because the aforementioned P.T. Barnum said something about fools and money...), I think it underscores the fact that space exploration needs to be commercialized. Turn NASA into a regulatory body, and hand off space exploration to joint projects between Universities and corporations. If the world governments wants to be a partner on some of these projects, let them pay their share, and enjoy their share of the profits/losses.
Arthur C. Clarke's predictions (Score:2)
Here are some of his predictions:
http://www.suntimes.co.za/1999/03/14/lifestyle/
2012: Aerospace planes enter service. The history of space travel has repeated that of aeronautics, although more slowly, because
the technical problems are so much greater. From Gagarin to
commercial space flight has taken twice as long as from the Wright
Brothers to the DC3.
2013: Despite the understandable apprehensions of Buckingham
Palace, Prince Harry becomes the first member of the British royal
family to fly in space.
2014: Construction of Hilton Orbiter Hotel begins, by assembling
and converting the giant Shuttle tanks previously allowed to fall
back to Earth.
Ownership == ability to defend (Score:2)
That principle applies to everything, by the way, even things for which you've paid money --- your receipt merely gives you some likelihood of marshalling others to defend what you say is yours. There is no other meaning to "ownership", despite what any politicians, lawyers or philosophers may say. It boils down to just this single pragmatic issue.
Re:lofty goals (Score:3)
We stopped posting business models on the public web about four years ago, when the business side of the Artemis Project became a serious concern. A lot of the technical development has been moved into private forums for the same reasons.
The FAQ files about business things are currently sitting in my author stage in the WebSite Director system, waiting to be rewritten and updated. Sorry about that; there just aren't enough hours in a day and this isn't a high priority until we have something to offer. This is a very complex business venture. We're putting a lot more resources into doing it than just talking about it.
I know of one fellow who's willing to put his money where is mouth is when it comes to commercial space ventures: my boss, Robert T. Bigelow. He has set aside $500 million as seed money for the development of a business venture that leads to commercial space cruise ships that will take you on a tour around the moon. See the FAQ at the Bigelow Aerospace [bigelowaerospace.com] web site. You'll find articles about Bigelow Aerospace in the Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, several other newspapers, and all over the web.
Like Bigelow Aerospace, none of the Artemis Project program participants intends to do a public offering until there's something to offer. We're very serious about this project, so we don't want to come out with premature stock offerings or lunar real estate deals.
The best place to ask questions about the Artemis Project is the open artemis-list mailing list. See the first item on the description of mailing lists [asi.org] operated by Artemis Society Interntional.
Greg Bennett
President, Artemis Society International [asi.org].
We need dreamers (Score:2)
dreamers. It's easy to sit back and shoot down the this group's plans, but how does that
help? I believe the superpowers of the mid-21st Century are going to be the nations and
grouips of nations that move into space for commercial exploitation. Unfortunately, not
since JFK has the U.S. had a leader with the vision, the intelligence, the rhetorical ability,
and the chutzpah to ram through a $1 trillion (in today's terms) manned moon project.
Now, as technological prowess has proliferated globally, other nation-states such as
Japan, China and India have developed spacefaring ability, even as the U.S. and Russia
have backed off. Instead of a sort of Pax Americana in the skies, with U.S. space fleets
maintaining fair and free trading routes much as the British fleets did in the 19th century,
we will probably see a free-for-all with inimical, totalitarian powers like China setting up
military bases in orbit while American politicians wring their hands helplessly.
Go, Artemis!