Stone Aerospace: mining the Moon by 2015?

http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

"Stone announced his intent to be the first explorer to lead an
industrial team to the moon to explore for water and other fuels, and,
if found in sufficient quantity, process the fuels on the moon, then
transfer them to a low Earth orbit (LEO) refueling station."

I don't want to be harsh, but is this significantly different from me
announcing my intent to train a pig to grow wings and fly? Reading
further, Stone says "once initial funding is received to initiate the
detailed planning effort, we expect to be open for business in LEO in
the 2015 timeframe."

This is about a bazillion times more ambitious than that company that
was going to land a tiny rover on the Moon, whose name I can't even
remember anymore, and they never managed to get off the ground after
about ten years of trying. Now this guy says he's going to have full
manned lunar mining and refining facilities in place, and be selling
refined product on orbit, eight years from now.

Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

Best,
- Joe

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:00:35 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

This is about a bazillion times more ambitious than that company that
was going to land a tiny rover on the Moon, whose name I can't even
remember anymore, and they never managed to get off the ground after
about ten years of trying.

Lunacorp.

Now this guy says he's going to have full
manned lunar mining and refining facilities in place, and be selling
refined product on orbit, eight years from now.

Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

He's not insane. He probably just doesn't understand business.

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

Firstly, they think they need $15 billion to develop this capability.
Assume this is doable with only $15 billion since they're likely planning on
buying things like launch vehicles and manned space capsules off the shelf.
They assert that the funding would come from "long term futures contracts
(much like the airlines do with jet fuels) with governments and space
tourism companies who will need these fuels to more efficiently and cost
effectively conduct their businesses". They also claim that they can make
this fuel available in LEO for 1/10 the cost of fuel launched from earth.

This sounds an awful lot like another discussion we've had around here
recently. That is, what if NASA agrees to buy an awful lot of fuel in LEO
at 1/10 the current price of LEO fuel that was launched from earth?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:00:35 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

He's not insane. He probably just doesn't understand business.

Please explain further since to me, this sounds an awful lot like they're
putting a business plan together based on something like NASA entering into
a contract to buy a large amount of fuel in LEO (for CEV/Orion).

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:57:29 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

Firstly, they think they need $15 billion to develop this capability.
Assume this is doable with only $15 billion since they're likely planning on
buying things like launch vehicles and manned space capsules off the shelf.
They assert that the funding would come from "long term futures contracts
(much like the airlines do with jet fuels) with governments and space
tourism companies who will need these fuels to more efficiently and cost
effectively conduct their businesses". They also claim that they can make
this fuel available in LEO for 1/10 the cost of fuel launched from earth.

This sounds an awful lot like another discussion we've had around here
recently. That is, what if NASA agrees to buy an awful lot of fuel in LEO
at 1/10 the current price of LEO fuel that was launched from earth?

I don't think that anyone thought that a business plan could be built
on the assumption that NASA would provide a contract for fifteen
billion to a single provider.

Well, maybe some did. But they would be bad businessmen...

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

"Stone announced his intent to be the first explorer to lead an
industrial team to the moon to explore for water and other fuels, and,
if found in sufficient quantity, process the fuels on the moon, then
transfer them to a low Earth orbit (LEO) refueling station."

I would be concerned about burning up all the water before the first lunar
colony is built. I think that it is OK for people on the moon to convert
water into fuel for the purpose of returning people to Earth. I don't like
the idea of shipping water anyplace. It takes fuel to ship fuel and you
could burn through an awful lot of water shipping it to LEO. I think water
on the moon is too valuable. to ship it anywhere.

It would take energy to do everything he wants to do. Has he worked through
the energy aspects of his plan? The moon has an easier gravity well, but it
is a difficult place to work, so lunar resources could be expensive. The
south pole is dark which would make it a difficult place to land, work and
explore. Mountain tops get sunlight, but I worry about avalanche risks. Is
that a legitimate concern?

On 15 Mar, 05:09, "Mike Rhino" wrote:
"Joe Strout" wrote in message

...

http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

"Stone announced his intent to be the first explorer to lead an
industrial team to the moon to explore for water and other fuels, and,
if found in sufficient quantity, process the fuels on the moon, then
transfer them to a low Earth orbit (LEO) refueling station."

I would be concerned about burning up all the water before the first lunar
colony is built. I think that it is OK for people on the moon to convert
water into fuel for the purpose of returning people to Earth. I don't like
the idea of shipping water anyplace. It takes fuel to ship fuel and you
could burn through an awful lot of water shipping it to LEO. I think water
on the moon is too valuable. to ship it anywhere.

In the short to medium term there will be an energy limitation on how
much water can be consumed, simply because of the power required to
electrolyze it. Until there's a powersat at L1, this will be the
limiting factor. After that, the amount of water may become an issue.

Of course, the best quality ores near any base might be used quickly.

Regarding fuel to ship fuel, at some point a catapult needs to be
built. This would launch fuel for return trips to the moon.

Longer term, for large missions to the rest of the solar system, it
might be worth developing Al / H2 / O2 fuels, plus plasma engines
running on waste oxygen.

"Mike Rhino" wrote in message
...

I would be concerned about burning up all the water before the first lunar
colony is built. I think that it is OK for people on the moon to convert
water into fuel for the purpose of returning people to Earth. I don't
like the idea of shipping water anyplace. It takes fuel to ship fuel and
you could burn through an awful lot of water shipping it to LEO. I think
water on the moon is too valuable. to ship it anywhere.

I take your points, but the simple fact of the matter is that fuel in LEO is
more valuable than fuel on the lunar surface right now for the simple reason
that there are conceivable markets for the fuel in LEO right now, but so far
none on the lunar surface.

Mountain tops get sunlight, but I worry about avalanche risks. Is that
a legitimate concern?

I would expect it to be much less of a concern than on Earth. I think most
avalanches on Earth are triggered by changing weather conditions. And of
course there's no changing weather on the moon because there's no weather.
Only the slow, constant thermal cycling, which had happened billions of
times since the last significant geological changes.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in message
...

I would be concerned about burning up all the water before the first
lunar colony is built. I think that it is OK for people on the moon to
convert water into fuel for the purpose of returning people to Earth. I
don't like the idea of shipping water anyplace. It takes fuel to ship
fuel and you could burn through an awful lot of water shipping it to LEO.
I think water on the moon is too valuable. to ship it anywhere.

I take your points, but the simple fact of the matter is that fuel in LEO
is more valuable than fuel on the lunar surface right now for the simple
reason that there are conceivable markets for the fuel in LEO right now,
but so far none on the lunar surface.

Mountain tops get sunlight, but I worry about avalanche risks. Is that
a legitimate concern?

I would expect it to be much less of a concern than on Earth. I think
most avalanches on Earth are triggered by changing weather conditions.
And of course there's no changing weather on the moon because there's no
weather. Only the slow, constant thermal cycling, which had happened
billions of times since the last significant geological changes.

If nobody does anything, the probability of an avalanche is low. If people
start driving trucks up mountains, there is a risk. That is activity that
the moon hasn't seen before. At the south pole, there is talk of erecting a
rotating solar panel at the top of a mountain which implies a fair amount of
activity.

On Mar 14, 10:00 am, Joe Strout wrote:
http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/news-press-release-1.php

"Stone announced his intent to be the first explorer to lead an
industrial team to the moon to explore for water and other fuels, and,
if found in sufficient quantity, process the fuels on the moon, then
transfer them to a low Earth orbit (LEO) refueling station."

I don't want to be harsh, but is this significantly different from me
announcing my intent to train a pig to grow wings and fly? Reading
further, Stone says "once initial funding is received to initiate the
detailed planning effort, we expect to be open for business in LEO in
the 2015 timeframe."

This is about a bazillion times more ambitious than that company that
was going to land a tiny rover on the Moon, whose name I can't even
remember anymore, and they never managed to get off the ground after
about ten years of trying. Now this guy says he's going to have full
manned lunar mining and refining facilities in place, and be selling
refined product on orbit, eight years from now.

Normally I'd just dismiss him as a kook (or crook), but he does have
reasonable credentials... and I'd love there to be some reason to think
he's not completely insane. Can anybody think of one?

Best,
- Joe

The conference at which Stone presented Shackleton Energy is TED. It's
star-studded brain candy. Venture capitalist John Doerr, the Amazing
Randi, Bill Clinton, They Might Be Giants, Murray Gell-Mann, Paul
Simon, Nathan Myrhvold, Tracey Chapman, Edward deBono -- why, it's
like ... like ... Davos on Acid! (Or Extropians on Lithium. Or
something. You *know* what I mean.)

It's kinda nuts to talk about sinking $15 billion before seeing
profit, if any. On the other hand, John Doerr's little black book
alone probably represents several times that figure. Who knows what
tech-bubble baby boomer multi-billionaires will decide to spend all
their obscene wealth on? LEO refueling stations by 2015 is decidedly
ridiculous however, even if everything pans out wonderfully.

-michael turner