Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Privately Funded Lunar Mission Set a Launch Date For 2017

Posted by samzenpus on from the to-the-moon dept.

merbs writes: If all goes according to plan, the world's first private lunar mission will be launched just two years from now. SpaceIL, an Israeli nonprofit, has secured a launch contract with Spaceflight Industries, and will aim to land a rover on the moon in the second half of 2017. It's the first such launch contract to be verified by the $30 million Google Lunar XPrize competition. Another group called Moon Express has signed a deal with New Zealand-based company, Rocket Lab, to launch and put a lander on the lunar surface 2017.

35 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Jews In Space! by Cito · · Score: 2

    It was predicted!!!

    https://youtu.be/ZAZhtT-dUyo

    1. Re: Jews In Space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And getting their spacecraft in orbit with technology perfected by NAZIs.

      Oy! The irony! THE IRONY!

    2. Re: Jews In Space! by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Jewish physics, as opposed to gentile physics.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Jews In Space! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

      The Israelis are actually from the Simon Wiesenthal center - they're hunting for the Nazis that have been hiding on the dark side of the moon since 1945. They'll chase the Nazis from the moon to Argentina in 2018. I think I saw this in a movie, so it must be true.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    4. Re: Jews In Space! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      throwing objects into the air is not "technology perfected", but the victims underneath could debate the issue on point.

    5. Re:Jews In Space! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      ignoring the irony, "god speed."

    6. Re: Jews In Space! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Truth is a troll on Slashdot. Good to know.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    7. Re: Jews In Space! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Idiot downmodders, go learn some history. There's an apocryphal meme floating around that Hitler hampered Germany's nuclear physics by forbidding using Einstein's stuff because he was Jewish.

      This sarcastically called those "Jewish physics" in this context.

      God damn, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Get back to tumblr or wherever the hell you edumicated yourself.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. A Rover? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the 21st century. Let's send a human there instead.

    I nominate Mark Zuckerburg.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:A Rover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't have the post WWII impetus and properly taxed corporations of the 1960s anymore. We have a fractured populace entertained to death, and any increased productivity or technological gains are immediately funneled up towards the rich.

      Funny how a society with single income families and no cell phones was able to put people on the Moon, hm?

    2. Re:A Rover? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      This is the 21st century. Let's send a human there instead.
      I nominate Mark Zuckerburg.

      Let's wait and send him for the Google Sol XPrize competition ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:A Rover? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Another way of looking at it is that money that could have gone to a space program is now in the homes in the form of smartphones, cutting edge PCs, home entertainment systems, etc. No one wants to sacrifice for a greater good if it means not getting the latest new iPhone.

    4. Re:A Rover? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually both of you are wrong or at least misleading (my guess is misleading for ideological reasons; i.e. you value government projects more than you value individual wealth in the form of better material goods that even the poor have access to better than at any other point in history.) The reality is that the US government is pulling in record revenue, but adjusted for percentage of GDP, it's at about 16.9%. The post WWII period was about 17.6%.

      That's not a big enough change to take away moon landings. The reality is that the money you're lamenting going into stuff that everyday people actually want (why is this a bad thing, by the way?) is really going into pork projects, such as the F-35 (oh, and that $1.2 trillion figure only accounts for the contractual costs, the actual cost of the project itself is much higher than that even though it's not done yet.)

      Even if it wasn't going into pork, and I don't know about you guys, but I much prefer a situation where I (and anybody else) is able to have nice things even if it means we put off manned space exploration for 50 years.

      The reason why is simple: Going to the moon is nice and all, but when you spend a crapload of money on it just for the novelty of it, then it's somewhat pointless. I think the money is better spent finding a way to do it in a practical manner that is cheap enough that you can actually afford to put people other than the world's wealthiest (or an otherwise lucky select few) into space. Read: I don't care how you try to spin it, going to the moon is pointless if we can only send about 20 people there per lifetime. All that the 1960's moon landings did was prove the concept. Until it becomes practical from a cost perspective, then we still haven't truly reached the moon yet.

    5. Re:A Rover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The thing is, going to the moon in the 60s is the reason why you have nice things like smartphones today.

      Not because of spinoffs (which never actually were spinoffs) like velcro or space pens, but because of the re-industrialization of the South that LBJ required of Kennedy to support the project (look at where all the Apollo era NASA centers are), because of the manufacturing and quality control techniques developed for the space program, and -- less directly -- because of the huge boost in the number of kids going into what's now called STEM because of the popularity of the program. Those kids led the personal computer revolution that led to all the other nice things.

      No, that money wouldn't have been spent on those projects without Apollo. It would have gone to extend the Vietnam War another few months.

    6. Re:A Rover? by mbone · · Score: 1

      We don't have the post WWII impetus and properly taxed corporations of the 1960s anymore. We have a fractured populace entertained to death, and any increased productivity or technological gains are immediately funneled up towards the rich.

      Funny how a society with single income families and no cell phones was able to put people on the Moon, hm?

      And this is generally treated (even by people concerned about it) as a fact of nature, something like the drought in California or dust storms on Mars.

    7. Re:A Rover? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      You're reading ideology into a non-ideological comment. I greatly prefer that people retain as much of their income as possible. I would love it if we could choose parts of the government to fund voluntarily rather than the funds be removed from our pay before it ever hits our checking accounts. I don't ever expect to see that happen, but it could create a government that is actually "for the people".

      The point I was trying to make is that a lot of great things were done during the race to the moon, but the average family didn't have the kind of possessions that we take for granted today. If everyone made do with what they had during that time period, there would be money to fund a more aggressive space program.

      The only thing I can say about the moon is that with the technology we have today compared to what we had back then, I would think we'd be able to get people on the moon for a heck of a lot less money. Why bother? I have no idea. Maybe as a stepping stone to Mars. Why go to Mars? No idea there either, but then again, why do so many people go mountain climbing?

    8. Re:A Rover? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No one wants to sacrifice for a greater good

      Sending meat to the moon is not "for a greater good". A robot can do 90% of what a human can do for 1% of the cost.

    9. Re:A Rover? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      "I nominate everyone currently on a TLC or E! reality show to be launched in a rocket!"

      "To space?"

      "To anywhere where they wouldn't come back."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:A Rover? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Sending meat to the moon is not "for a greater good".

      After all, who wants anything to do with people made out of meat?

    11. Re:A Rover? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, going to the moon in the 60s is the reason why you have nice things like smartphones today.

      ICs already existed before Apollo. At worst, computers would be a few years behind where we are today.

      If you really want to find the money we used to be able to throw at expensive technological boondoggles, it's easy. It's in the massively increased post-60s welfare state.

      The hard part of 'bread and circuses' is funding both.

    12. Re:A Rover? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you view our role to be in this existence. You can send a robot up a mountain too, but climbers generally prefer to climb it themselves. I'm not in favor of spending a fortune on human space travel right now, but at the same time.. can you imagine our existence if we went with the lowest cost option for everything in life?

    13. Re:A Rover? by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

      I would think we'd be able to get people on the moon for a heck of a lot less money.

      Sadly not. We've had nearly fifty years of tightening FAA regulations (rightly so, isn't it nice to feel safe on airplanes?) and there's not much on a Saturn V that would get a type certificate these days.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    14. Re:A Rover? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Not because of spinoffs (which never actually were spinoffs) like velcro or space pens, but because of the re-industrialization of the South that LBJ required of Kennedy to support the project (look at where all the Apollo era NASA centers are), because of the manufacturing and quality control techniques developed for the space program, and -- less directly -- because of the huge boost in the number of kids going into what's now called STEM because of the popularity of the program. Those kids led the personal computer revolution that led to all the other nice things.

      If that's the case, then the F-35 should (by your own argument) be a huge boon to technological advancement due to the sheer number of firms that are working on it. And again, if that's your only motivation, then who needs the space program when we've got tons of technology pork projects?

    15. Re:A Rover? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      You're reading ideology into a non-ideological comment.

      Your comment was effectively 'it's a shame that we have smartphones, and it's because we didn't tax corporations enough'. That's an ideological argument for why you think the government should have more money than it already has. It also neglects that the government has by far more resources at its disposal today than it did back then.

      The point I was trying to make is that a lot of great things were done during the race to the moon, but the average family didn't have the kind of possessions that we take for granted today. If everyone made do with what they had during that time period, there would be money to fund a more aggressive space program.

      No, that wouldn't be the case at all. The government needs an economy to be able to fund itself, and the economy would be considerably weaker without the private sector having better technology. Technology of course being anything that makes your life simpler, i.e. every day things you need are cheaper and take less time to do.

      If the private sector had less technology, then they'd also be producing less, meaning the GDP is much lower. Likewise, the government would be taxing a much smaller economy, and thus making less, and if the government made less, the potential for the space program would be massively reduced.

      Besides, suppose we continued the lunar missions to this date, have you any idea how much that costs? It would have bankrupted us by now. The only way the space program can realistically continue is if either:

      A) We figure out a way to make it profitable (i.e. there's a monetary incentive to explore space.)
      B) Going to space is considerably cheaper.

      Right now though it's just a giant money sink.

      The only thing I can say about the moon is that with the technology we have today compared to what we had back then, I would think we'd be able to get people on the moon for a heck of a lot less money. Why bother? I have no idea. Maybe as a stepping stone to Mars. Why go to Mars? No idea there either, but then again, why do so many people go mountain climbing?

      The problem is, Mars is considerably more difficult, and repeated moon missions aren't going to make it any less difficult. What needs to happen is we need to figure out two things:

      1) Make the process of escaping earth's gravity well cheaper or otherwise more efficient.
      2) Interplanetary travel needs to take less time (currently we rely on gravity slingshotting to get anywhere, which makes the trip take a VERY long time compared to say a direct shot.)

      The ISS research is a FAR more cost effective means of figuring out both of those than moon missions. Though you know who has been working really hard on making #1 more cost effective? Not NASA (their budget is huge, so they don't mind throwing wads of cash at it.)

      It's actually two private firms that are so far making the best progress: Virgin Galactic (using a jumbo jet and rocket propulsion combination) and SpaceX (reusable booster rockets.) If we were still just leaving it up to the government, they wouldn't have much of an incentive to reduce costs. NASA and their contractors were dismissing both of these ideas until they were shown to be useful.

      There is a possible method to address #2 but it came from experimentation on earth, not during space travel.

    16. Re:A Rover? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      He's to old. Lets send a Chess Master, from India.

    17. Re:A Rover? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The hard part of 'bread and circuses' is funding both.
      Maybe we stop exporting food from the U.S. and feed our starving masses. Would WalMart survive?

    18. Re:A Rover? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I didn't even mention corporations, that was someone else. I was just making an observation that our standard of living and what we deem as essential possessions and such have changed considerably since the era of the space race. America isn't poorer than it was before, the funding could be had.. but I don't think most folks would want to make any sacrifices in order to free up money to fund truly large space programs.

      Yes, if it was cheaper, it'd be more likely to happen. Also true that if there was revenue to be had either through tourism, mining, or who knows what.. that could also make it happen. Virgin and SpaceX might get there. Who knows.

    19. Re:A Rover? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      America isn't poorer than it was before, the funding could be had.. but I don't think most folks would want to make any sacrifices in order to free up money to fund truly large space programs.

      As I mentioned, people making those sacrifices would do the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. If they did, that would mean that consumer spending goes down, and if consumer spending goes down, less people are making money, and if less people are making money, the government has reduced tax revenue. Remember, what people produce in America counts as GDP, and people don't produce if nobody buys.

      Having said that, while it's true that the government today is taking in slightly less as a percentage of GDP, you've got to consider that the GDP is much greater now than it was in the late 60's, even after you adjust for inflation. In fact if you just adjust government revenue for inflation, then in terms of real dollars the government has twice the revenue today than it had in 1968, as you can see here:

      http://www.truthfulpolitics.co...

      And also if you look here, the government makes by far the most amount of its money from personal income taxes, which are heavily influenced by consumer spending:

      http://www.truthfulpolitics.co...

      And you know the biggest reason why we have a bigger GDP (and thus more government revenue) than we did back then? It's because we have better technology that makes us better producers. And before somebody argues anything about our population growing, I've got you covered there too:

      http://www.multpl.com/us-real-...

      Notice the GDP per capita (that is, GDP per person) has only risen since the 60's, and boy has it risen by a LOT. And again, that's due to individual people having better technology, which includes little things such as smartphones and other creature comforts that the OP was lamenting.

  3. Let Pixar Fund a Mission!!!! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Let's give the conspiracy theorists some BUZZ LIGHTYEAR ROCKET FUEL!!!!

  4. telegram from one M. Ardan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Substitute for your rover a cylindro-conical projectile. I shall go inside.

  5. STEM bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They want to use this mission to get kids interested in STEM fields. What I found disappointing after having grown up and watching the US Moon shots is that when you get your STEM degree, you are most likely going to be working in an industry that makes consumer products. Products that have no real value; it's just crap to get people to part with their hard earned money.

    So kids, just because you have a STEM degree does not mean you will be doing cool or valuable things. Most likely you will be working on the next form of passive mindless entertainment.

    1. Re:STEM bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh man, at one job I said "we're building next year's landfill". What can you do? We have this social model that says "work or starve" while farmers pour milk down sewers to control the price.

      We want to pretend we're all so technological and we believe in progress, but we don't even accept 19th century automation to reduce the workweek.

      So, keep building crap. It's vital.

    2. Re:STEM bandwagon by wcrowe · · Score: 2

      Um, yeah. So, you know that humanitarian project we hired you for? Well, the corporation scratched that project, sooooo, I'm going to ask you to go ahead and move over to the team that's working on our Death Gel, okay? Thanks.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  6. Fries cooked with trans fats legally too! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    McDonald's should take the opportunity to fund a $50 million pre-launch that lands a small habitat on the moon, well-stocked and waiting, for an extended stay if necessary (this is how we should go to Mars BTW) complete with a tiny McDonald's in it where they can buy four Big Macs, run by one astronaut who is also a legal McDonald's employee.

    McDonald's, are you listening?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. The moon is not something we can stand on... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    It's a luminary, like the sun, and is the same size and distance away from us here standing on this flat Earth. Moon light makes things colder; sun light makes things warmer -- thus, it is not reflected sunlight, as were that the case it would still warm things, just to a lesser degree -- it wouldn't cool them.

    See my signature to learn more.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.