Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bunkydoo wrote: post #10

I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon. A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space, and a fallback location for global conflict.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon

SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight (e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2].

Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also reduces its as an independent hedge for humanity. Any gamma-ray burst, nearby supernova or supercharged solar flare hitting the Earth will probably take out a base on the Moon, too. Mars has a chance of hiding behind the Sun.

> A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space

I think an independent colony is a far more valuable.

> and [could be] a fallback location for global conflict

See above. A lunar base would be dependent on terrestrial re-suppply. Knocking out those logistics knocks out the base.

[1] http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-mars-colonies-human-surv...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturin...

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hirsin wrote: post #17
kirrent wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the articles of the treaty by private entities. Specifically, article VI requires - "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropria…

Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like... Monaco ?

> Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters?

A tangible way to explore this is to ask "What if a craft, launched by SpaceX from international waters, fell on country X?"

If X is Canada, the resolution process seems straightforward. American and Canadian courts and law enforcement are sufficiently cross-linked to allow the latter to pursue SpaceX's assets and personnel.

But what if X is Iran, or Venezuela or North Korea? We would have to consider diplomatic and geopolitical factors. That looks much more like the anarchic environment of international relations rather than a sovereign-corporate dispute.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#23

Post by danieltillett »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
bunkydoo wrote: post #10

I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon. A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space, and a fallback location for global conflict.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it would be possible to make rocket fuel. Wanting to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon.

Edit. Spelling

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#24

Post by hirsin »

greglindahl wrote: post #18
hirsin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like... Monaco ?

ITAR makes that illegal.

An interesting notion - it would be an interesting case to see if exporting rocket components to "not a country" would violate ITAR. That hasn't stopped Iran from getting launching satellites into orbit though, and misses that e.g. ULA buys their rocket engines from Russia where ITAR obviously isn't a problem.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#25

Post by nostrademons »

This is one of 16 teams competing for the Google Lunar X-Prize:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize

My bet would actually be on SpaceIL or Astrobotics to win the prize. Astrobotics has been the consistent winner when it comes to demonstrating intermediate goals; they won the prizes for Landing, Mobility, and Imaging, and seem to have a solid engineering effort based out of CMU with partnerships with major U.S. corporations. SpaceIL has some interesting design choices that limit risk, eg. they're launching on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and they aren't building a rover, instead lifting off via rocket and flying to a second destination 500M away.

Moon Express has two major risk factors against it: they're launching on an Electron, which is a rocket that has never successfully flown before and won't be commercially available until 2017, and their founder has a reputation for making grandiose promises and then running away with the money. (He founded InfoSpace during the dot-com boom, sold all of his stock at the peak even while revenues were declining, then was ordered to pay $247M in insider-trading fines by the SEC.)

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#27

Post by jonknee »

hirsin wrote: post #24
greglindahl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITAR makes that illegal.

An interesting notion - it would be an interesting case to see if exporting rocket components to "not a country" would violate ITAR. That hasn't stopped Iran from getting launching satellites into orbit though, and misses that e.g. ULA buys their rocket engines from Russia where ITAR obviously isn't a problem.

If by interesting you mean certain Federal prison time, sure I guess that would be interesting.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#28

Post by jonknee »

EdwardMSmith wrote: post #3
jesuslop wrote: post #2

hm why do they need permission?

The article is paywalled, but if they are launching from a US Government owned launch facility, they would need permission to use it. They would also need US airspace approval as well. There are probably quite a few other regulations they would need to adhere to as well. I would imagine it would be the same for any other country that has launch facilities as well.

It needs US approval because it's a US company. The launch site is in New Zealand.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#29

Post by jhou2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
bunkydoo wrote: post #10

I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon. A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space, and a fallback location for global conflict.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

I agree that colonizing another world is important as a "backup policy" but I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. I feel like human civilization would have a better chance of surviving deep underground or in the oceans than spending so many resources attempting to colonize Mars.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#30

Post by xufi »

danieltillett wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it would be possible to make rocket fuel. Wanting to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon. Edit. Spelling

Interesting point. Do you think Elon Musk would ever create a expedition to the Moon even though he's so focused on Mars right now? I always thought he would've tried at least once
Post reply on HN