First private Moon satellite?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aphh

Guest
<p>Now that SpaceX is capable of orbiting payloads, the next logical step will be a private Lunar orbiter. This will come eventually, but who to your opinion will be the first private entity to orbit the Moon?</p><p>I have not heard the latest about the ILO's proposed mission of a Lunar Observatory, for which SpaceDev did some hardware testing for the lander perhaps a year ago.&nbsp;</p>
 
S

spacy600

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now that SpaceX is capable of orbiting payloads, the next logical step will be a private Lunar orbiter. This will come eventually, but who to your opinion will be the first private entity to orbit the Moon?I have not heard the latest about the ILO's proposed mission of a Lunar Observatory, for which SpaceDev did some hardware testing for the lander perhaps a year ago.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>"In the first trip to the moon by a private company, scientists&nbsp;from Hughes Space and Communications Co. will send a communications&nbsp;satellite to the moon in an effort to &ldquo;slingshot&rdquo; the craft into&nbsp;geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. The satellite, AsiaSat 3, has been stranded in&nbsp;a useless low orbit since its failed launch last&nbsp;Christmas.</p><p> Hughes scientists have fired its Russian Proton booster rocket&nbsp;several times to lift it into a higher orbit. The final firing on May 7 will&nbsp;send it into a figure-eight orbit to the moon and back. The team hopes&nbsp;that the slingshot effect from that trip will enable them to place&nbsp;the satellite in the correct Earth&nbsp;orbit."</p><p>http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/30/local/me-44579</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Made the news a while back. </p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"In the first trip to the moon by a private company, scientists&nbsp;from Hughes Space and Communications Co. will send a communications&nbsp;satellite to the moon in an effort to &ldquo;slingshot&rdquo; the craft into&nbsp;geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. The satellite, AsiaSat 3, has been stranded in&nbsp;a useless low orbit since its failed launch last&nbsp;Christmas. Hughes scientists have fired its Russian Proton booster rocket&nbsp;several times to lift it into a higher orbit. The final firing on May 7 will&nbsp;send it into a figure-eight orbit to the moon and back. The team hopes&nbsp;that the slingshot effect from that trip will enable them to place&nbsp;the satellite in the correct Earth&nbsp;orbit."http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/30/local/me-44579Made the news a while back. <br />Posted by spacy600</DIV><br /><br />Really wasn't a lunar orbiter though; rather they just used the moon as a momentum source to place a satellite in Earth Geosynch orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now that SpaceX is capable of orbiting payloads, the next logical step will be a private Lunar orbiter. This will come eventually, but who to your opinion will be the first private entity to orbit the Moon?I have not heard the latest about the ILO's proposed mission of a Lunar Observatory, for which SpaceDev did some hardware testing for the lander perhaps a year ago.&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Escape Velocity Inc. ;O) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Private lunar orbiters are not going to happen until someone coughs up the money to paay for it.</p><p>So who is going to pay for a private&nbsp;lunar mission and why?</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Private lunar orbiters are not going to happen until someone coughs up the money to paay for it.So who is going to pay for a private&nbsp;lunar mission and why?Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Jon, there are companies working on lunar orbiters (SpaceDev, TransOrbital, LunaCorp among others) with the intention of selling images and data to various public and private groups or for use in future missions of their own. So far, their efforts are stalled due to insufficient funding, but progress is being made.</p> <p>OTOH, a lander is certainly in the works. The Google X-Prize, in a scenario similar to the original X-Prize, is offering a $30 Million prize "for the first privately funded team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters and transmit video, images and data back to Earth." There are currently 12 teams actively working on hardware.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Private lunar orbiters are not going to happen until someone coughs up the money to paay for it.So who is going to pay for a private&nbsp;lunar mission and why?Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>SpaceDev estimated the total cost of the ILO lunar observatory mission to be roughly 35 million (this was a few years back, though).</p><p>By comparison, Simonyi is spending 50 million to do 2 orbital visits. Certainly somebody has the money to do this "first", a lunar orbiter taking hi-res images of the Apollo landing sites among other things, at some point in the near future.</p><p>Somebody like James Cameron might very well come up with the funding just for the "first" aspect.&nbsp;</p><p>It would be great, if this was to be done while many of the Apollo astronauts are still with us. To show that the private guys are catching up. Slowly, but steadily. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jon, there are companies working on lunar orbiters (SpaceDev, TransOrbital, LunaCorp among others) with the intention of selling images and data to various public and private groups or for use in future missions of their own. So far, their efforts are stalled due to insufficient funding, but progress is being made. OTOH, a lander is certainly in the works. The Google X-Prize, in a scenario similar to the original X-Prize, is offering a $30 Million prize "for the first privately funded team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters and transmit video, images and data back to Earth." There are currently 12 teams actively working on hardware. <br /> Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">Is TransOrbital still in business? &nbsp;I went to there site a few months back and IIRC the site is still hoping for a "2004" launch of the Trailblazer satellite. &nbsp;BTW, the trailblazer that was lost on Falcon 1 launch 3 wasnt the TransOrbital Trailblazer. &nbsp;</span></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">LunaCorp closed its doors in 2003. The CEO now works at T/Space. &nbsp;<span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">http://www.lunacorp.com/lunacorp.html</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;T/Space has plans for the moon.&nbsp;<span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=7A828E3D-96B6-175C-9D4AB8EB1A173B97</span><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;</span></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">sorry for the long link Google Chrome wouldnt run the script for Inserting a link.&nbsp;</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is TransOrbital still in business? &nbsp;I went to there site a few months back and IIRC the site is still hoping for a "2004" launch of the Trailblazer satellite. &nbsp;BTW, the trailblazer that was lost on Falcon 1 launch 3 wasnt the TransOrbital Trailblazer. &nbsp;LunaCorp closed its doors in 2003. The CEO now works at T/Space. &nbsp;http://www.lunacorp.com/lunacorp.htmlT/Space has plans for the moon.&nbsp;http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=7A828E3D-96B6-175C-9D4AB8EB1A173B97sorry for the long link Google Chrome wouldnt run the script for Inserting a link.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by danhezee</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the corrections, danhezee. I had noticed that a lot of the pages I was checking out were several years old.</p><p>I cannot find any references to TransOrbital going out of business, though everything I <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">can</span>&nbsp;find is several years old.</p><p>As far as Jon's point is concerned, the fact is that there are companies out there that have shown an interest in a lunar orbiter mission for such things as imaging and prospecting for resources. Whether or not this interest will result in actual missions is, obviously, still an open question.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as Jon's point is concerned, the fact is that there are companies out there that have shown an interest in a lunar orbiter mission for such things as imaging and prospecting for resources. Whether or not this interest will result in actual missions is, obviously, still an open question. <br />Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p>Yes, I was aware that&nbsp;there are companies that have shown an interest.&nbsp; The fact that they are all defunct or moribund is also significant.</p><p>Without a clear and successful business plan there won't be any private lunar missions.&nbsp; Non profit organisations might be able to scrape together the funds for a small orbiter or lander.&nbsp; But that is a different story.&nbsp; And there is no reason why they should prefer a SpaceX product, as there may well be cheaper options out there.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I was aware that&nbsp;there are companies that have shown an interest.&nbsp; The fact that they are all defunct or moribund is also significant.&nbsp;Without a clear and successful business plan there won't be any private lunar missions.</DIV></p><p>I would agree that a company that intends to make a profit would be ill-advised to go ahead without a good understanding of their potential markets and the economics of providing their product. This is basic business. This doesn't mean it can't be done or won't be done at some time in the future.</p><p> OTOH, non-profits, supported by private money, and encouraged by organizations such as the X-Prize Foundation and Google, do not need a business plan.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Non profit organisations might be able to scrape together the funds for a small orbiter or lander.&nbsp; But that is a different story.</DIV></p><p>And still a private effort.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And there is no reason why they should prefer a SpaceX product, as there may well be cheaper options out there.</DIV></p><p>I don't believe anyone has suggested a preference for SpaceX to provide launch services for a lunar orbiter, though I would point out that they are&nbsp;offering a 10% discount for participants in the Google Lunar X-Prize.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really wasn't a lunar orbiter though; rather they just used the moon as a momentum source to place a satellite in Earth Geosynch orbit. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Thats even more cool from a certain point of view: they visited the moon for a simple commercial&nbsp;purpose with no 'higher' motive, either science or patriotism.</p><p>One thing I dont understand is why they both had the ability to do this after something went wrong, yet apparently it was not the most economic approach in the first place.<br /></p>
 
S

spacy600

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One thing I dont understand is why they both had the ability to do this after something went wrong, yet apparently it was not the most economic approach in the first place. <br /> Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You can read more about it here:</p><p>http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/MoonCommsat.html</p><p>Yes I agree it was a way cool thing to do. It shows talent, creative thinking,&nbsp; and I hope </p><p>those controller at Hughs were rewarded for it. </p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thats even more cool from a certain point of view: they visited the moon for a simple commercial&nbsp;purpose with no 'higher' motive, either science or patriotism.One thing I dont understand is why they both had the ability to do this after something went wrong, yet apparently it was not the most economic approach in the first place. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br /><br />It took a very long time and had used much of it's station keeping fuel by the time it was over, IIRC <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

spacy600

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It took a very long time and had used much of it's station keeping fuel by the time it was over, IIRC <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>What is more important?</p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is more important? <br />Posted by spacy600</DIV><br /><br />I would think the loss of station keeping propellant. That significantly cuts into the lifetime at it's Geostationary slot.</p><p>This was strictly making the best of a bad situation, using a very creative solution. It saved some money, but the replacement will need to be constructed and launched sooner than it would have been otherwise.</p><p>I'm not an expert on this, so if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>Oh ok.. it was an unusual orbit they ended up in, though this does suggest that orbital resonances may be a useful tool for positioning satellites cheaply. It would be very cool if these moon slingshots became a common occurance for commercial launches.</p><p>Also noting that they 'just used it as a momentum source': people often compare moon materials to the cheapest slag on earth, yet every&nbsp;gram of moon rock has more energy (as kinetic energy) &nbsp;than any gram of chemical fuel.&nbsp;Current schemes for exploiting this beyond the occasional slingshot are unfortunately a bit contrived :)</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would agree that a company that intends to make a profit would be ill-advised to go ahead without a good understanding of their potential markets and the economics of providing their product. This is basic business. This doesn't mean it can't be done or won't be done at some time in the future. OTOH, non-profits, supported by private money, and encouraged by organizations such as the X-Prize Foundation and Google, do not need a business plan.</DIV></p><p>They don't need to make a profit but they will still need a plan top manage the business.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And still a private effort.</DIV></p><p>True, but it will be a stunt.&nbsp; Worthwhile perhaps&nbsp; in that it will inspire a new generation of engineers and may&nbsp;lead to some innovation that real space mission may take advantage of.&nbsp; But unlike the X-Prize is isn't going to lead directly to commerical business.&nbsp; And of course just because a prize is offered does not mean to say that it will be taken up.&nbsp; There are only four years until the window closes on the full prize, six years to the prize closes altogether.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They don't need to make a profit but they will still need a plan top manage the business.True, but it will be a stunt.&nbsp; Worthwhile perhaps&nbsp; in that it will inspire a new generation of engineers and may&nbsp;lead to some innovation that real space mission may take advantage of.&nbsp; But unlike the X-Prize is isn't going to lead directly to commerical business.&nbsp; And of course just because a prize is offered does not mean to say that it will be taken up.&nbsp; There are only four years until the window closes on the full prize, six years to the prize closes altogether.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Gee, you seem so negative, Jon&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-kiss.gif" border="0" alt="Kiss" title="Kiss" />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There may be some of these efforts that could be called stunts, but who cares? Stunts are useful in developing technology, they're fun to watch, they may increase interest in space stuff and they don't cost the taxpayers a dime.</p><p>And certainly, I wouldn't label all non-profit efforts as stunts, nor would I label all efforts as non-commercial. With all due respect, you seem to fit into the category of people who didn't see the potential of personal computers thirty years ago.&nbsp;</p><p>The future is ours to make. Pragmatism and realism are important. Things don't work without them. But a little bit of dreaming is necessary to push the boundaries of our capabilities. Some dreams don't come to fruition. Others do. It's the way reality works. If the Lunar X-Prize doesn't get awarded then so be it. My guess is that another prize will be offered and new players will enter the competition to try again or focus on some other goal. In the meantime, the participants can sell us t-shirts, hats and coffee mugs and make a little petty cash while we get our vicarious thrills watching them try to prove you wrong.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts