Commercial (lunar) missions!!!!

[Remcook]

If the people at TransOrbital are telling the truth on their site (not just wishfull thinking), we're going to have a commercial lunar mission VERY soon! (end of 2002).

www.transorbital.net

www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-02a.html


Whatever happened to that rover that was going to visit and video tape several (historical) lunar landing sites? I think it was a plan by lunacorp.

www.lunacorp.com


Also nice: NEAP, by SpaceDev, but they keep extending their launch date..

www.spacedev.com

[archiebald]

Quote: The approvals and licensing by U.S. State Department and The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) position TransOrbital as only company presently authorized by the U.S. Government to return to the moon.

Since when did the USA have ownership of the moon??

[spacecat27]

And NOAA's interest in the moon should go no further than the tides it creates.  
Just what are they trying to say here?

[ZeroGeezus]

If the the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists' get wind of this you can imagine what they will  be saying.  "Further proof the US government doesn't want just anybody nosing around looking for lack of evidence of moon landings or finding pyramids and glass towers there."

That statement about being 'presently authorized' makes no sense.

[Remcook]

NOAA had something to do with imaging the earth. But i agree, it all sounds ridiculous.

But hey, if there will be a moon mission before the end of the year, you don't hear me complaining!

[archiebald]

I really think that whoever sends a probe there should be careful.  If they don't have the correct documentation, they could be classified as hostiles.

Let's see if a cruise missile can reach the moon!!

(I really am sorry about bringing politics into the space flight forum, but doesn't it make you just want to :puke :puke )


Remcook, totally agree with that sentiment!!

[TVYee1]

The whole transorbital timeline sounds fishy to me.  I was the chief engineer for NEAP at SpaceDev, so I know a fair amount about the competition that's out there.  NEAP keeps getting pushed back because there is no funding for it.  Jim Benson was bankrolling the intial research himself, but that pool of initial cash is exhausted and SpaceDev is now waiting for a white knight with deep pockets to swoop in and "partner" with it to really do the mission.  One group that was going to photograph several landing sites was Blastoff!, which has since gone quietly "away".  There was a whole bevy of companies with similar plans, including Applied Space Resource's Lunar Retriever, Lunacorp, and Transorbital.  The thing about the Transorbital announcement that doesn't make sense to me is that the timeline for developing the spacecraft is totally unrealistic and to my knowledge there has be zero hard engineering done on this at their company.

You're absolutely right to be suspicious of the NOAA approval too.  I can't fathom why they felt that was necessary.  State department, sure, you need the export license to ship the vehicle out to Russia for launch.  I left a message with a friend who's a consultant for them, maybe he'll have the real scoop.

[archiebald]

Hmm,
Accept the point about exporting high tech equipment, but the article specifically mentioned "permission to land on the moon".

[TVYee1]

I've done a little checking with my friend who briefly did some work for Transorbital.  Turns out that the NOAA license is one of those formalities the agency wants for everyone who launches with an imaging camera aboard.  Their original intent at NOAA is to catalog and coordinate all the sources of high resolution hyperspectral imagery of earth, but they're very broad in their language, so someone carrying an imager to the moon that might capture a shot of earth still has to add their name to the database.  So it's not really a "permission" thing at all.  And the state department filing isn't an export license, just a TAA, which allows them to talk to the Russians about it.  My source says that all Transorbital would really provide to the Russians is a launch adapter.  The spacecraft (actually a mock up on the first mission, not even functional) and launcher would all be Russian, so it's not as if Transorbital is really doing anything at all.  So basically, the press release is a bunch of hot air and static.  Even if they actually find money to do this, they won't accomplish anything more than a publicity stunt.

[remcook]

One more:
http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=431

A study, but still a nice idea

[Oak6221]

In my opinion commercial space activities well be where all the history well be made for the next five too ten years. It’s sad to say it but I don’t see governments doing anything (or at lest that much) in the same time frame.    

[remcook]

another daring idea

http://www.lunacorp.com/moon_orbit.htm

Why, let's build it on the ISS! And bring it there using the space shuttle! lol! If only! :/  :'(
But who knows....maybe if the astronauts get some extra money, if ISS can support 7 people, if the space shuttle will still fly these things

[payloadcontroller]

Consider also, that filing with the gov't at least might provide a way to weed out a group that would get up there and trash the place. Maybe.

[Skyjim]

Geez, guys - it's a press release, the traditional organ of PR flack half-truths and exagerrations.  It has nothing to do with the U.S. government beyond the rather boring permit issues, none of which are new.  Nowhere is the U.S. claiming juristiction over the Moon.  Just regulatory authority claimed by most governments, here distorted to imply some sort of official blessing.  

Arch, I know it's hard for you to resist a dig at the U.S. government - but this isn't it. It's PR.

Isn't the paranoia running a little high?  

Jim

[Skyjim]

oops!  Is this really a thread started in late 2002?  If that is correct, sorry to be beating something which may be dead!  

Jim