E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA video from the Golden Spike Company introduces its plan to send humans to the moon.
A group of space veterans and big-name backers today took the wraps off the Golden Spike Company, a commercial space venture that aims to send paying passengers to the moon and back at an estimated price of $1.4 billion or more for two.
The venture would rely on private funding, and it's not clear when the first lunar flight would be launched — but the concept received a vote of support from NASA, which canceled its own back-to-the-moon plan two and a half years ago.
Golden Spike's announcement came on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 17, the last manned moonshot. Backers of the plan, including former NASA executive Alan Stern and former Apollo flight director Gerry Griffin, discussed the company's strategy at a National Press Club briefing in Washington.
"The time is ripe for commercial human lunar exploration," Griffin told journalists.
Stern said Golden Spike's experienced team of board members and advisers gave him confidence that they'd be able to make good on what sounds like a supremely overambitious plan. "We realize this is the stuff of science fiction," he said. "We intend to make it science fact."
Stern, a planetary scientist who was NASA's associate administrator for science in 2007-2008, is Golden Spike's president and CEO, while Griffin is chairman of the board. Other board members include new-space entrepreneur Esther Dyson and Taber McCallum, co-founder and CEO of Paragon Space Development Corp. The lineup of advisers taps into a who's who of space figures, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former NASA shuttle program manager Wayne Hale, former NASA engineer Homer Hickam and Bill Richardson, who has served as U.N. ambassador, energy secretary and the governor of New Mexico.
The venture also numbers United Launch Alliance, Armadillo Aerospace, Masten Space Systems and several other space-industry players on its team for the lunar lander system.
Golden Spike takes its name from the ceremonial spike that joined the rails of the first transcontinental railroad across the United States in 1869, a milestone that opened up the Western frontier to new opportunities.
"We’re not just about America going back to the moon; we’re about American industry and American entrepreneurial spirit leading the rest of the world to an exciting era of human lunar exploration," Stern said in the venture's first news release. "It’s the 21st century, we’re here to help countries, companies, and individuals extend their reach in space, and we think we’ll see an enthusiastic customer manifest developing.”
Ambitions and doubts
Golden Spike's news release said the venture would make use of existing rockets as well as commercial spacecraft that are currently under development to send expeditions to the lunar surface, with the estimated cost of a two-person lunar surface mission starting at $1.4 billion. That's roughly equivalent to the cost of a flagship robotic mission to the moon or Mars, such as the Curiosity-class rover mission that NASA is planning to launch to the Red Planet in 2020.
Stern said Golden Spike's mission architecture has been in development for two years. Each expedition would involve two sets of two launches each: The first set would put the pieces in place to pre-position a lander in lunar orbit. The second set would deliver a two-person crew to hook up with the lander, head down to the lunar surface, return to lunar orbit and then sail home.
That architecture could be put in place for $7 billion to $8 billion, Stern said. "This is a breakthrough cost," he said. In addition to the $1.4 billion for each two-person expedition, Golden Spike would derive revenue from media ventures associated with each moonshot, Stern said.
Golden Spike said market studies indicated that 15 to 20 expeditions could be undertaken in the decade after the first landing. However, no time frame was given for that landing. That's just one of the gaps in Golden Spike's plan. Among the other questions yet to be resolved:
- How will Golden Spike fund its operations during the buildup to the first flight? Stern said the venture needed several hundred million dollars to proceed with mission development. Unlike the Planetary Resources asteroid-mining venture, Golden Spike has no billionaire backers. Instead, Stern said his venture would rely on making enough advance sales to attract financing, as the Boeing Co. would for a new airplane. He acknowledged that when it came to being able to land on the moon by 2020, the "long pole in the tent" would be the ability to make those sales.
- Can private-sector efforts produce a workable lunar launch and landing system at a cost far less than the $100 billion that NASA said it would cost in 2005? Stern said recent advances in technology would lower the cost of spacecraft development, but he acknowledged that "re-creating Apollo capability, even 40 years later, is hard." As detailed on the venture's Web site, the mission architecture relies on launch vehicles currently in use or under development, such as ULA's Atlas 5 or SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. SpaceX's Dragon capsule is under consideration as the crew vehicle. The lunar lander, however, has yet to be developed. Stern said Golden Spike is working with its partners to study concepts for the lander.
- Are Golden Spike's assumptions about the demand for lunar missions correct, even if the price point is in its estimated range of $1.4 billion and up? Stern said Golden Spike was in contact with one individual who might be able to pull together a moonshot deal, but the prime market for missions would be national space agencies. "We've already had conversations with some national space agencies, and they've expressed their interest," he said. Stern declined to name names, but said that the agencies were based in Europe and Asia.
- What kinds of relationships would Golden Spike be able to forge with NASA and international space efforts? Stern and Griffin did not say that NASA would be involved in Golden Spike's moonshots, but they suggested that the ticket window would be open. "By all means, if NASA wants a ride, we'd be glad to put them on our railroad," Griffin said. Stern said Golden Spike has also retained counsel to help sort out the export-control issues associated with foreign sales.
Reaction, pro and con
NASA's associate administrator for communications, David Weaver, issued a statement that portrayed the venture in a positive light while steering clear of a formal endorsement.
"This type of private-sector effort is further evidence of the timeliness and wisdom of the Obama administration's overall space policy— to create an environment where commercial space companies can build upon NASA’s past successes, allowing the agency to focus on the new challenges of sending humans to an asteroid and eventually Mars," Weaver said. "As the private sector works to develop human missions to the International Space Station and eventually the moon, NASA will continue to develop new technologies and capabilities to advance the frontier ever further into space."
But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.
Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.
India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."
Are you optimistic or skeptical about Golden Spike's prospects? Either way, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts in the comment space below.
More about moonshots:
- Private moon race may spark 'water rush'
- Fly me to the moon? That'll be $100 million
- Gingrich promises US moon colony by 2020
- Russian official says Moscow needs a moon base
- Will China take over the moon?
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Don't want to be judgmental, but I haven't seen pics of too many multi-billionaires who look as if their doctors would OK them for rocketing up there.
Why am I suspicious about this venture? There is a very limited number of people who could afford such a flight and that number is winnowed down considerably when you consider the number of billionaires whose health would permit them to make such a flight.
And what a miserable experience. What does it take to get there and back? A week? Imagine a some billionaire couped up in a space craft for a WEEK hooked up to a pee-bag with a catheter and sucking down his liquified lunch.
I just don't see it happening or being all that profitable. So what are these people up to? I am suspicious.
While I'd love to see the Giant Sand Worms of Mars by moonlight, I just don't see it being worth that much money or discomfort to do so.
My idea of roughing it is Motel 6.
Mm, I hadn't even thought of the toilet arrangements. The billionaires should just band together and do this - they can send their kids or grandkids or friends, and a few fit ones like a Richard Branson or someone might go along. That would get the ball rolling, then pretty soon they'll be building a casino up there.
Is anyone even reading the story? I believe the point of the venture is to provide 'cost-effective' access to the moon for scientific study, not space tourism. Tourism could be one aspect, but it wouldn't make a sustainable business model by itself.
It would fall in line with NASA out-sourcing aspects of space exploration to the private sector. NASA would be potential customer if Golden Spike can demonstrate the cost-effectiveness.
If any natural resources could be found on the moon. Exploitation of those resources could be a possibility, as well.
Fly me and my honey to the moon, and get married via telecommunication with Earth.
What a HoneyMoon!!!
Oh Yeah?
that really all I could come up with.
But re-reading the article I still came away with the idea they are looking at space tourism as a funding source. Where else are they going to come up with the billions they'll need?
Oh yeah, Dubai......
Well, I kind of read the article.. but I still think it would make a good reality show if a consortium of multi-multi-billionaires just paid out the bucks to make it happen, Apollo-style or whatever. You could get, like Snooki and the Situation to go!
Just wondering how long it will be before unemployed freeloaders start complaining about lack of opportunity, because traveling to the moon isn't affordable enough for them.
No, Snookie and the Situation should be shot toward the Sun on a one way trip. Let's not mess up the Moon like that.
Notice the name - golden spike. It evokes the image of a ground breaking ceremony for a new company facility in a new location. Their vision is to plant businesses on the moon, not to send a few billionaires up there on a lark. To plant an outpost. Start prospecting. Build a fuel depot. Whatever. Presumably there are some corporations who would see this as an opportunity to get there first cheaply (compared to other options), and monopolize moon resources for profit. That's what the name golden spike is all about.
Consider how much big oil pays to build and maintain offshore oil platforms, far more per platform than this. This sounds like a lot of money to us but to the right players it is pretty cheap, if they can figure out how to collect and sell the resources that are there.
OK: After a while they will want to put a base on the moon, however rudimentary as a life boat or even accommodation. Then they'll get commercial outfits developing "stuff" in near zero G.
So which country owns the rights to this stuff, I assume the US as they will have put them money up, what is the tax take on stuff from the moon.
What if they find some miracle mineral who will own it?
What if a commercial enterprise want a permanent base there, can they declare it as sovereign land? As belonging to them. Why not the Brits did it over most of the globe we live on (including the USA)
My only question is this.... Why are we so concerned with going to the moon when we as a nation are trillions of dollars in debt? I think perhaps we should focus on the problems on earth instead of running away to the moon. Just sayin....
@Tbrews.....this is a private venture for profit. The money spent on this won't cut into anybody's welfare check or food stamps.
Aside from that, the space program in this country is one of the things that set us apart from the rest of the world. It was GOOD for the economy in it's heyday, too!
Thousands of businesses across the U.S., both large and small, profited from providing bits and pieces of the program. From, the large aerospace companies that provided the booster rockets, to the small Mom & Pop shops that made smaller items such as digging tools, headphones, gloves, etc.
NASA employed thousands of people, as did the companies who "vended" to NASA.
It's called "capitalism." Try it; you might like it.
Umm Tbrews two things: #1 this is a private company that is talking about moon trips, they would be charging $1.4 billion for two people per trip. #2 NASA has cost this country about $1.2 trillion in its 54 years of exsistence, and at its most well funded point in time, was less than 5% of the annual budget, so if you want to look at massive contributors to the deficit, look else where. NASA is about .05% of all federal spending each year.
Oh and to add to Zman2012, read this(FYI NASA is federally mandated to license out all technology they develop to private businesses. This helps to create spin off technologies)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/partnership/economic_impacts.html
That's just it, they don't need to be in shape, they have the money to buy them off...
Oooh, these "evil rich bastards" had better get their spaceship launched before Obama and the Dems realize how much money they have, and tax it away to pay for more handout programs for their "voting base".
Even if I could afford it I probably wouldn't do it. Why mess up a place so sacred in the history of mankind that so many people risked it all to visit? Buying a ride to space or the moon doesn't make an astronaut. I'd rather cough up a few grand and have a chance to compete for a ride to the space station and do actual work and earn my wings. Imagine a chance to be an actual astronaut. Not just a rich guy who bought a joy ride. That to me would be really cool. It would probably be cool enough for most anyone. And probably more affordable and reachable since we will soon have the man rated vehicles ready from NASA and the private companies. And the ISS only a few hundred miles from home.
SPIDER: It if what you speculate is true re: potus and the dems, do you not think that the repubs would not be in on it. You are one of many peeps who are full of bovine scat re: handout programs. There are no handout programs per se. Welfare and food stamps for many of the people who are on it are not all on "their voting base." However, this proposed endeavor by the "golden spike" group will be long in coming. Has everyone forgotten when NASA really stopped sending people up. The many tragic mistakes they made and knew about which lead to two blown missions. NASA is still trying to get over those fiascos, and these golden spike people believe they will do better. Yeah right.
Who will be the pilot of the lander? Two seats only. Automation needs a backup for human rated flight.
ZMan, you seem to be a big believer of "government creates jobs", aka industrial welfare. That's not capitalism, it's goverment-assisted private economy.
@ Lemonella another ignorant fool, your probalay on welfare too you lazy piece of @!$%#, obama accumlated 6.5 trillion dollars in four years and hasent even payed Bush's tax cuts listen people they owe 16 trillion dollars we have a fiscal cliff whichj should not even be there in the first place just extend tax cuts to make everyone happy. LISTEN WE CANT AFFORD IT. Republicans will end up cleaning up this mess and save this country just like thomas jefferson said once we become bigger then europe were corrupt so please people forget about this @!$%# when our nation alone needs prolific help. Democrats and people these days are all about spending what WE DONT HAVE!!!!! I feel bad for the upper 2% which needs to deal with this crap and is the main scapegoat we already tax em 70% give a break bro a @!$%#ING tourist venture aircraft to the moon and it wont help in our economy because nobody would invest due to the cost of it you see buddy no economic help cant afford it but again good for the upper 2% to gety away from this crap.
For the people arguing private venture and safety here are a few things for you;
Funding; A few hundred years ago a queen privately funded a small venture that discovered a new land...
Safety; You think the first boat was safe? How about the bicycle, automobile or airplane. Sometimes people pay for discoveries with their lives. You people need to see footage of the Mercury-Redstone project failures. Those guys watched their vehicle ignite on the pad and still jumped in line to catch a ride..
You want a safe engine? Not too sure about thrust on this one...
Here you go;
http://www.google.com/patents/US6349682?pg=PA1&dq=richard+alexius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0jHBUKXVPJCc8gSw9IHgAQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=richard%20alexius&f=false
Politics not obama, stay calm, the nice men in white coats are coming to take you home. Everything will be ok.
Private enterprise or NASA, the costs are enormous. The risks do not change becuase of someones dream. The big difference in this story, NASA will not look bad when they crash.
That may be true Doug (what you said about Billionaires and doctors) but you can bet some will make this happen anyway; and then who knows what will follow?!
Perhaps because most of them might want to be customers, not investors?
Get some actual hardware flying, and they may step up and buy 'tickets...'
If I had a billion and in good health, I would buy a ticket. I would also find some way to make it pay. At any rate, given that space commercialization is in its infancy, we can see travel to the moon and Mars within 50 more years at affordable rates for large and medium companies and perhaps a combination of ventures. It NASA can do it, the private sector can do it and more economical wise too.
I wonder if Romney got his ticket but then again he would have to buy two so someone would take care of him
Exactly right if a government bloated program can do it the private sector can do it 100 times better and 90% cheaper before profit that is (better to have money in profit than in government wallets). That being said nothing is worth 1.4 billion dollars... nothing.
Hey fast - Is there a problem with Romney being successful? And secondly...Romney isn't the type to "have someone take care of him." The record is clear that Romney donates a heck of a lot more than most people do to help others. Why don't you compare the % Romney donates to charity to that of your buddy Obama an the report back to the rest of us who REALLY cares about others. BO is only charitable with OUR money...NOT his own.
@fasttime,
Mitt has moved on. It's time for you to do the same. FYI...$1.4 billion is too rich for him, too.
Great way to dispose of the one percenters. One way trips.
Chas01c Now if we could find out if he paid all his taxes.
To me, it's not about the big bucks I would have to dig up to make a ticket purchase, it is about the technology. Grand projects usually result in grand results for the entire economy and the capacity of humanity to improve life for everyone on this planet. Besides, it's time for a space outpost that isn't orbiting earth.
The moon orbits the earth.
lmfao....
wompa-stompa beat me to it lolzz
While this is encouraging news, it does not address the real problem which is the lack of a clear mission for NASA. See this link for a very good analysis of the problem:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/mars-the-hard-way
Okay, but it's not about NASA, its vision, or any lack thereof.
Interestingly enough this is almost 1 bil EUR, which is how much was charged per ticket in the movie 2012, several major and prominent figures have resigned in the last few months. Even though I do not believe the 2012 hype, it does give one pause for thought.
You watch too many movies.
@klondiko just thought it to be a humorous observation.
This is more private sector hype. From a business perspective this is a very bad plan. The first rule of any enterprise is to have an identifiable market. A market being people who have money and are willing to spend it at the right price. The only real market are national governments around the world that would like to send explorers to the moon and perform scientific work there without having to build their own space craft and launch facilities. This would be countries making up the Commonwealth such as Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. or OAS countries like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, or EU countries such as France, Germany, Italy, etc. Private billionaires are not a viable market. At best you would get only five people willing to actually go to the moon and pay for it, after this you would go bankrupt. Ask yourself this, would you invest your money in this company or a blue chip company that paid regular dividends? I would invest in the latter.
No kidding. You nailed it. Going to the moon is RISKY and EXPENSIVE. So it takes a whole lotta investment in something without a clear business plan. Oh and if you mess up, see you in court! Bye bye private space company.
Just dumb all the way @.
I could drum up the cash for Newt to go .....but it's gotta be one-way.
Robert, you took the words right out of my mouth!
This TELLS me that the TOP 1-10% has Riches BEYOND what average people make. They WASTE and BURN MONEY on stuff like this. When all they are showing is the HAVES and THE HAVE NOTS.
These 1-10% SUCKING THE POCKET BOOKS OF ALL OF US FOR their GREED MENTALITY. Not HUMAN send them all to PLUTO and leave them there.
So what? It's their money why can't they spend it however they want to. And for the record, the ones "sucking" the pocket books are the ones on the government handout list. At the expense of the rich I might add. What the left will not tell you is that the effective tax rate for "the rich" is 30% already according to the CBO....and the effective tax rate for the "poor" is only 10%...
so....the "rich" are already disproportionately taxed with a greater burden. But you don't have to take my word for it...Check out the CBO and see what it is for yourself....wait...you won't because you don't care about the truth, you just want to regurgitate leftist talking points.
Why do you hate successful people so much? If you are a "HAVE NOT" then change it!! But stop hating others simply because they are successful. I thought the American dream was the celebration of success, not the hatred of it. What kind of a society have we become that we now hate success?
@Alain,
The top 2% income earners in this country make ~$200K/year or more. To be in the top 10% of income earners you need only earn about $120K/year.
Lastly, very few affluent people actually "WASTE and BURN MONEY." That's why they are typically affluent.
There's exceptions to all cases Gator. Larry Ellison, the founder and CEO of Oracle, is a notorious spendthrift. He's worth billions but keeps spending his money on stupid things like islands of Hawaii. It cost half a billion bucks! No word on what the 3,000 inhabitants of the island think of him. Then of course there are people who aren't at all affluent and are very frugal.
Because the American Dream is to be successful without artificial barriers such as social castes and classes. We are developing into a class-based society. We can see this by the hampered economic mobility of Americans. We can see this because children aren't doing as well as their parents did. We can see this by the way money is completely infused with politics. We can see this by the scores who are underemployed or unemployed. It's folks who say "Why do we hate success?" that are further hastening the process. Money is not the same thing as success. When you define success as the same thing as money, you're saying that the only way to be successful is to have an over-inflated sense of self-worth and be willing to back-stab your way into a position to do something about it.
So what's your point, Alain?
What's any of that got to do with this?
This project will be quickly abandoned once they find out that man cannot survive passage through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. You'll see.
Who gives a "rads" a$$.
Methinks someone needs to go back to science class.
Take your tinfoil hat someplace else. I have had the great honor of personally meeting three men who did survive that passage, two of whom walked on the moon: Buzz Aldrin, Gene Cernan, and Jim Lovell. All of them are in their eighties and in very great health. I'd dare you to speak face-to-face with any of those heroes and try to spew your garbage to them. I know Buzz Aldrin would punch your lights out - he's done it before.
You absolutely ought to be ashamed of yourself. Thinking that you can invalidate one of mankind's greatest achievements from your parents' basement armed with a few articles you found on the internet written by others who know about as much as you? You dishonor not only these men, but the thousands upon thousands of men and women who worked to get them there. I've met many of them too, and they are real people, real, honest, and good people, of a generation that this generation can only dream of matching. This was their life's work, their greatest goal, and they gave everything they had for it. Many of them are humble beyond imagination - they don't want the glory, they simply wanted to see mankind achieve. Neil Armstrong himself was the most humble of them all.
And yet you think that every single one of them must be lying through their teeth about every aspect of everything they ever did. Not only is that completely ludicrous (not only because of your outlandish claim but also because the statistical likelihood of all of them keeping quiet this long is impossibly slim) but it is incredibly insulting.
I used to just brush your kind off as an annoyance. But I've met history face to face, and since then I find it nearly impossible to just stand by and let people like you spew your filth. You quite literally have no idea of what you speak. We landed on the moon. It took an army of incredible people with incredible vision, but they were willing to rise to the difficult task in front of them and accomplish it, and they did it.
You might learn something from that.
@rjh4509,
Chill dude. Take Prozac or something. You just fed a troll.
Peace...
"...man cannot survive passage through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. You'll see."
And yet it's been done. Multiple times. (no, you don't linger there, and on a high-thrust escape trajectory, you don't have to)
Or are you among those who don't believe that it's happened?
If so, then there's nothing more you have to say, that I need to hear.
Let me check under my couch cushions....................
I think it's a little late to be planning such a venture with the end-of-the-world scheduled for Dec. 22.........
One of our local car dealerships is have an end-of-the-world sale. No payments till January, and if the world ends on the 21st or 22nd, the car is free.
That's the whole idea behind it! Ya have to pay for your ticket NOW!
Since most of the customers would be foreign governments, US Cold War technology transfer regulations would probably kill this scheme.
Not if they're simply customers/passengers. That's not technology transfer if you're just riding the thing.
Ever flown on a commercial aircraft? How much of its design did you learn by doing so...?
What is there to do on the moon besides being weightless? Take the weightlessness away and you just took a vacation to the Sahara desert.
Actually, there is a lunar gravitational force that's 1/6 of Earth's.
And it has a killer view.
Amazes me sometimes how little imagination some people have.
There are some people whom you could give a million dollars and they'd complain because the bills were creased. They live such sad little lives. Pity.
"Amazes me sometimes how little imagination some people have"
Or just flat-out knowledge.
US Industry has not done something this fun in a while. Where can I send my resume? There is nothing like a cost effective lunar trip to reinspire someone like me.
Don Turnblade
MBA, MS Physics
Classified space systems experience.
www.linkedin.com/in/arctific
Sooo. With the going price of moon rocks nowadays, how many would you have to stow so you could sell them when you return to pay for your trip?
But the more you have on the market, the lower their value will be...
They will deduct the cost of the equipment over a period of years and pay no tax on their losses. So the bottom line is we will pay for the rich to play.
And that's different from any other business...how?
When do we leave?
$1.4 Billion for one person?
I better just take two tickets then...
It's $1.4 billion for two tickets. Bring a friend. ;-)
Yes, but with two you do get an eggroll.
Thanks, Alan. And anyone with $1.4 billion won't have any trouble finding a friend (HA!)
Excellent article, as always.
I agree with Alain,are we not in an economic crisis??No wonder the poor want to tax the rich to death,they keep flaunting it.And dont give me that crap that they earned it,I know many who have worked very hard and just make it.I think that amount of money could be much better spent to help with other humanity problems here on Earth.
Ummm - you do realize the money is spent here on earth constructing rockets and launch pads and control offices and stuff, right? You know, creating jobs? What - you think the money goes with them to the moon?
I may have my doubts about the feasibility of a program advertised for tourism, but the money will be spent right here, creating jobs. Last time I heard, that's what our economy needed. Maybe you would rather the money continue to be hoarded by the billionaires and keep those bankers happy? Or maybe you would rather have it redistributed to the poor? I say let those rich people start spending that money on big projects so they can start creating some worthwhile jobs. Especially if it is their money, not tax money.
Working hard is of no particular value. What you accomplish determines the value of your work. Simply exerting effort counts for nothing.
"I think that amount of money could be much better spent to help with other humanity problems here on Earth."
It wouldn't be just handed out on street corners, if anything, it would just be invested in some other business that you may or may not like...
This isn't government money, you know.
I believe it is absolutely great that private enterprise is getting involved. Who built America? Private individuals like Edison, Rockafeller ?, Westinghouse, Carnagie ?, Ford and others.
Since individuals are getting involved I might be able to afford to go as the price gets cheaper - in maybe 50 years - if I am still alive (I would be 119 years old) lol
Space - the last frontier - go Star Trek
Well actually it was the spanish, english, french, dutch governments that built America.
They better take me to Jupiter or Saturn for 1.4 Billion. Make it worth the cost. Hell, I can look at the Moon just fine from home with my Telescope.
I can't wait to go.....gonna make a fortune in cheese!
For all the money bags on their way to the moon, albeit they could miss a turn and wind up floating in blackness, has the thought of spending those bucks on matters that actually mean you've accomplished a good deed even entered your pockets? For instance, Breast Cancer Centers/Research, St. Jude Children's Hospital/Research, donations to umpteen organizations; opening funds accounts for the less fortunate, humble though they may be without stretching their hands out; or even better, how about volunteering at a home for AIDS patients and listening to them? Cost nothing except it may touch your heart and a trip to outer space may be humbling.
Most of them do that quite a lot already. Far more as a percentage of their wealth than the average schmoe. You gonna begrudge them every single plug nickel?
Even at that price tag there is only around a thousand or so billionaires and 1.4 billion is a lot for even the richest billionaires like Bill Gates or Carlos Slim Helu, not really a good investment.
What would they even do at the moon?
They would get to the moon and be like wheres the five star hotel. When Buzz Aldrin and the rest of crew went it wasn't like they had a five star hotel experience.
They will be roughing it and most Billionaires are over 50 to boot, can they even pass the physical exams?
Huge waste of money, would be better to just have a simulator on Earth.
You speak as if no one is doing those things.
Have you checked? I doubt it. No one who wants to spend someone else's money on their pet projects does.
Newt and Calista will be there waiting, cocktails in hand