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.

11 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!

  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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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?

  3. 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
  4. 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.