Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Shackleton Crater Company

Shackleton Crater Company

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:49 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 3 posts ] 
Shackleton Crater Company 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Shackleton Crater Company   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:49 pm
In at least one other thread I already talked about Shackleton Crater Company which is founded by Stone Aerospace to mine Shackleton crater for hydrogen, methane etc..

The article telling this also said that the investment required will be $ 15 bio. I sent an email to Stone Aerospace but didn't get an answer yet.

This thread is meant to discuss it and also can be related to the Moon Mining-thread.

I don't know if I am correct really but I seem to remember that an Arian 5-launch costs $ 30 mio. Then 500 Arian 5-launches would be equal to the investment. This would mean that far less launches would be required since a lot of the investment will be mining equipment, development, exploration and lunar exploration equipment etc.

The rockets they might use will NOT have launch costs at or above the billion-dollar-level - so they will be cheaper than the Areses.

It's looking a bit as if they have in mind to use reusable vehicles to get lunar equipment into LEO.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:55 pm
Posts: 506
Location: Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:57 pm
For $30 million I would take a loan to buy them. Would be a nice amount of profit :)

Exact values are not public but these prices are seen as realistic:

Soyuz: $50-60 million
Proton: $85 million
Sea Launch: $90 million (I guess insurances play a role here too so I would guess after the failure this year the price will be higher)
Ariane 5: $150 million (latest figures I heard were in the $120 million range)

_________________
"The hardest hurdle to space isn't the technicalities and money. But rather, the courage and the will to do it." - Burt Rutan.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:37 am
Hello, Klaus,

so at the correct price the $ 15 bio would be 100 Ariane-flights maximum while Soyuz would be 300 flights maximum.

I am focussing on the number of flights merely - regardless of 100 flights or 500 flights the numbers are lokking very high from my point of view and thus the comparison seems to give a raw hint to the portion of the $ 15 bio spent for flights.

Let's apply the number 100 flights. If one flight takes 6 days to fly to the Moon and return to Earth then 600 days would be required until the $ 15 bio are spent totally - and it would have been for flights only but no mining equipment etc.

300 flights would mean 1800 days - a bit less than 3 years and again the $ 15 bio are spent for flights only but no way for equipment.

Is that realistic? Mining equipment for Earth will require investments in the range of 1 bio maximum I suppose but what about developments and adjustments to the lunar environment and surroundings? What about preparations of the surface at the lunar location?

Might it be that they in opposite to the numbers calculated and to my thoughts have in mind more or even much more flights by private reusable vehicles? SpaceX's Falcons? The HLLV-version Elon Musk wants co-investors for?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use