Back to the Moon, Commercially - By James Lovell

[bananas]

http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/37353back-to-the-moon-commercially

Back to the Moon, Commercially
By James Lovell | Sep. 23, 2013

<snip>

Until now I have been very doubtful and indeed critical of many existing commercial space ventures that are largely funded by taxpayer dollars. But after several meetings with Golden Spike executives, including the chairman of its board — my old friend — former Apollo Flight Director Gerry Griffin, I became convinced that we truly are on the cusp of a brand new era of commercial lunar space travel.

Golden Spike’s plan is to use existing rockets and emerging commercial crew spacecraft to lower the cost of a two-person expedition to the lunar surface to roughly the price of current robotic missions to the Moon. Golden Spike would only develop new systems — such as a lander and surface suits — where no existing system exists or is in development. Such an approach offers enormous cost, schedule and reliability advantages. And it’s viable. Market studies done for Golden Spike show the possibility of 15-20 expeditions in the decade following a first landing.

<snip>

I was so convinced that I am now an adviser to the company as it progresses through its first wave of lunar lander and spacesuit studies.

<snip>

James Lovell, a member of the Golden Spike Co. board of advisers, is a former NASA astronaut who was commander of Apollo 13 and the first human to travel to the Moon twice.

[NBachers]

1. I go back to that day in 1969; I project my imagination 44 years into the future

I would have seen a different future than the one we got.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bananas.

[LongTomH]

3. I have mixed feelings about this, as I've stated before

I'm a fan of SpaceX and Elon Musk, and I was part of a 'citizen's lobbying effort' called March Storm for several years in the late 90s / early 2000s. I still believe there's a place for the private sector in space; but, if private companies are allowed to drive the agenda in space, we may end up with something like this: Playboy in orbit: A step toward the world of Elysium.

We have an economy that has devolved into a plutonomy, which is fed by the luxury spending of the few mega-rich; Playboy in space would just be an extension of that; I can see an evolution from pleasure domes in orbit to the ultimate gated communities, where the mega-rich escape from the economic and ecological destruction they've caused.

I support Elon Musk and SpaceX because he promises to make spaceflight to orbit routine; but, Musk's biggest customer is NASA. The contract to resupply the International Space Station was a major boost for the company.

The long-term settlement of the solar system and the galaxy will require both government and private participation; but, I want to see something like Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, not Ayn Rand or Jerry Pournelle's.

I have very definite opinions on space and the relationship of public and private sectors; but, right now, I'm not prepared to discuss this in detail.

[bananas]

4. I agree - These are real problems we have to guard against

That's why I post articles from:

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space:

MILITARIZING SWEDEN

Each year the Global Network holds our international space organizing conference in a different country. We try to go to places where military space technology development is underway and under reported.

<snip>

More: http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2013/06/militarizing-sweden.html

The Union of Concerned Scientists:

UCS backgrounder on China's manned space program

<snip>

From the beginning, and throughout the development of the Chinese human spaceflight program, China’s goal was never to catch up or surpass other nations but to avoid falling too far behind.

The public and official Chinese debate over a sending Chinese astronauts to the moon centers on the economic cost and a desire for greater international cooperation. China’s policy preference appears to be to work with other spacefaring nations on a human lunar mission.

<snip>

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/122810482

The Federation of American Scientists:

Fifty Years of Space Nuclear Power - with a comment by James Oberg

<snip>

In order to minimize the health and safety risks involved in space nuclear power while still taking advantage of the benefits it can offer for space exploration, the Federation of American Scientists years ago proposed (pdf) that nuclear power — both plutonium-fueled RTGs and uranium-fueled reactors — be used only for deep space missions and not in Earth orbit.

Although this proposal was never officially adopted, it represents the de facto policy of spacefaring nations today.

<snip>

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x80815