
US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission - paulsutter
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-set-to-approve-moon-mission-by-commercial-space-venture-1465166277
======
nostrademons
This is one of 16 teams competing for the Google Lunar X-Prize:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 major U.S. corporations. SpaceIL has some interesting design choices that
limit risk, eg. they're launching on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and they aren't
building a rover, instead lifting off via rocket and flying to a second
destination 500M away.

Moon Express has two major risk factors against it: they're launching on an
Electron, which is a rocket that has never successfully flown before and won't
be commercially available until 2017, and their founder has a reputation for
making grandiose promises and then running away with the money. (He founded
InfoSpace during the dot-com boom, sold all of his stock at the peak even
while revenues were declining, then was ordered to pay $247M in insider-
trading fines by the SEC.)

~~~
runholm
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?

~~~
11thEarlOfMar
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](https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm)

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

[3]
[http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1494730-16-7&CIK=...](http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1494730-16-7&CIK=1318605)

~~~
_sword
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1)

------
gkoberger
Here's a version without a paywall: [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-
commercial-mission-to...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-commercial-
mission-to-the-moon-nears-approval-2016-06-05)

(Alternatively, there's a "web" link on HN to bypass the WSJ paywall)

------
jesuslop
hm why do they need permission?

~~~
kirrent
Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of
the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity
to the articles of the treaty by private entities.

Specifically, article VI requires - "the activities of non-governmental
entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall
require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State
Party to the Treaty"

Interestingly I don't know of any established processes for monitoring the
activities of companies in outer space apart from getting approval from the
FAA. It's not really ever been a problem up 'til now.

~~~
hirsin
Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching
off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters?
Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the
owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you
register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like...
Monaco ?

~~~
greglindahl
ITAR makes that illegal.

~~~
hirsin
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.

~~~
snowwrestler
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.

------
Animats
A one-way robotic mission to the moon is reasonable enough.

It's been 50 years since the first one. The USSR's Luna I landed on the moon
on February 3, 1966. The US's Surveyor I landed on the moon on June 2, 1966.

~~~
ColinWright
There was one in 2013:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29)

~~~
distances
I wasn't aware of this, somehow totally flew beneath my radar.

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

~~~
snowwrestler
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.

------
awinter-py
guessing the '20 pound scientific payload' isn't a solar-powered 3d printer

------
bunkydoo
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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _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 reduces its as an independent hedge for humanity. Any gamma-
ray burst, nearby supernova or supercharged solar flare hitting the Earth will
probably take out a base on the Moon, too. Mars has a chance of hiding behind
the Sun.

> _A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in
> space_

I think an independent colony is a far more valuable.

> _and [could be] a fallback location for global conflict_

See above. A lunar base would be dependent on terrestrial re-suppply. Knocking
out those logistics knocks out the base.

[1] [http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-mars-colonies-human-
surv...](http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-mars-colonies-human-
survival-2015-10)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturing_propellant_on_Mars)

~~~
danieltillett
There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it
would be possible to make rocket fuel. Wanting to colonise Mars does not mean
you should avoid the moon.

Edit. Spelling

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it
> would be possible to make rocket fuel_

Both requiring advanced, energy-intensive chemistry to extract small amounts
of water and trace amounts of carbon. All running on specialised gear built
out of elements difficult to find on the Moon. Compare that to heating a fluid
containing 95% CO2 to 400 degrees C and running it over a catalyst which makes
up over 5% of Martian soil (aluminium).

> _Want [_ sic _] to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon._

There's value in focus. Mars is the easier and superior target, given present
technology and Elon's goals. Someone else can focus on the Moon if they want
to.

~~~
danieltillett
I am not sure Mars is the easier target given how much further it is up the
gravity well, but certainly Elon is welcome to focus on whatever he wants. I
was just making the point that the Moon is able to be used as a source of
rocket fuel if so desired and in my opinion it is a worthy target.

------
alberthartman
If some other criminal hijacks their gear is the government responsible for
protecting their assets?

------
Overtonwindow
Paywall

~~~
gpm
Click the web link, then click the first result. Going through google bypasses
the paywall.

