US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission • Hacker News Board

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#61

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 1:24 PM UTC

andreasvc wrote: post #53

What are the scientific goals of such a mission? The article only talks about the regulatory hurdles.

It is probably primarily an engineering mission--with goals to see if it can be done, how efficiently it can be done, and what can be learned along the way.

It is similar in this respect to SpaceX or Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin. The science of rocket engines is pretty well understood, but it's still an interesting problem to optimize.

To some extent future science depends on future engineering, so advances in engineering can still have scientific value.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#62

Post by 11thEarlOfMar » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 1:25 PM UTC

runholm wrote: post #58

nostrademons wrote: post #25

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 ma…

Out of interest: What is the correct way to sell your stock in your company? What made the way that the founder of InfoSpace did it illegal?

In principal, publicly traded stock has the attribute that all investors make buy and sell decisions on the same information. In order to enforce that, laws prohibit persons who know what is happening within the company before the general public investor knows from profiting specifically from that insider knowledge. There are a lot of restrictions, policies and processes for buying or selling stock "while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security." [1] There are literally 'black out days' where employees of companies that have stock traded on the public market are prohibited from buying or selling company shares. From my days at a public company, this period was generally 4-6 weeks per quarter, encompassing the quarterly reporting period.

In particular, officers, director and senior staff have to file a form with the SEC in order to trade shares at all. Those trades are subsequently reported to the public in SEC Form 4 [2]. From the SEC [3]:

"Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:

- Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;

- Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;

-Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;

- Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government;

- and Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers."

[1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

[2] http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/insider-trades

[3] http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1494730-16-7&CIK=...

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#63

Post by adrianN » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

jhou2 wrote: post #29

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…

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.

Putting a semi-permanent colony on Mars is cheaper than you might think, on the order of $50 billion [1]. That's about 10 aircraft carriers, or 1/3 of the cost of the ISS. Making it independent of the Earth is of course orders of magnitude more expensive, but making a self-sufficient underground habitat on Earth isn't exactly cheap either.

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

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#64

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

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.

It seems like it would be very difficult to export to "not a country." Every dry rock in the world is claimed by some nation, and ships and platforms on the open ocean are flagged and/or operated by citizens of some existing nation. Many U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens no matter where they are in the world.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#65

Post by _sword » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #62

runholm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest: What is the correct way to sell your stock in your company? What made the way that the founder of InfoSpace did it illegal?

In principal, publicly traded stock has the attribute that all investors make buy and sell decisions on the same information. In order to enforce that, laws prohibit persons who know what is happening within the company before the general public investor knows from profiting specifically from that insider knowledge. There are a lot of restrictions, policies and processes for buying or selling stock "while in possessi…

Adding on one thought, many insiders of publicly traded companies will sell shares through pre-established 10b5-1 plans. This can help to provide liquidity to insiders while limiting the potential for accusations of insider trading as insiders can set up defined trading plans for their stock that act independently of their knowledge or day-to-day intentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#66

Post by Exras » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

bbcbasic wrote: post #11

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.

> and a fallback location for global conflict. Or something else to fight over

I'm reminded of the ending in Iron Sky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uimh2EBB1yQ

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#67

Post by function_seven » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #42

function_seven wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubly-so, if they used feet, inches, °F, and pounds to do so! It would prove the superiority of our great measurement units :)

I don't think they are "yours", but more so an anachronism from your colonial days ;)

Well shit, nobody else seems to want 'em, so they're "ours" now.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#68

Post by nameless912 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

gnu8 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

> the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states. International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes…

To add onto this: I know the movie "Gravity" was just a bit of an exaggeration, but a situation whereby two different satellites are competing for the same spot in the sky and collide or otherwise negatively interact with each other is totally possible. If nothing else, there should probably be some international governance when it comes to orbits, positioning, and mission planning to make sure no one interferes with each other.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#69

Post by nameless912 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #32

jhou2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. Then the Moon is, as well.

I would argue the moon is more difficult than Mars to colonize. No atmosphere means landing will always be, at best, a giant pain in the ass, and at worst, extremely dangerous. A lack of water of any kind makes life nigh-on impossible, as well as the moon's extremely long days; Imagine being in the sun (albeit at a toasty 100C or something, but whatever) for fourteen days straight, followed by the longest, coldest night you've ever experienced (to the tune of -120C or worse) for fourteen days straight. That would be a nearly insurmountable engineering feat in and of itself, totally neglecting the other problems.

I think Mars will ultimately prove much easier to colonize. Getting there isn't necessarily hard once we've figured it out; we have the life support systems to keep the ISS going (albeit with constant support from the ground) for 15 years, and we can already do all the orbital math and whatnot. It's just a matter of doing it.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#70

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 12:16 AM UTC

nameless912 wrote: post #69

ceejayoz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. Then the Moon is, as well.

I would argue the moon is more difficult than Mars to colonize. No atmosphere means landing will always be, at best, a giant pain in the ass, and at worst, extremely dangerous. A lack of water of any kind makes life nigh-on impossible, as well as the moon's extremely long days; Imagine being in the sun (albeit at a toasty 100C or something, but whatever) for fourteen days straight, followed by the longest, coldest ni…

In general, I agree.

Temperature changes will likely be dealt with by living underground, and there's something to be said for the ability to nope out of there in a couple days instead of months/years.

I think there's value to figuring out both - a giant space telescope on the far side of the Moon would be amazing for science - but Mars seems like the more logical first spot.