Japanese startup Ispace raises $90M, targets landing on moon surface by 2020(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Japanese startup Ispace raises $90M, targets landing on moon surface by 2020
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-13/space-startup-raises-90-million-to-bring-ads-to-moon-by-2020
40 comments
They're the cheapest (probably) per kilogram; but if you're willing to settle for smaller payloads, you can get to orbit for quite a lot cheaper. For example, the European Vega will get you 2.5T to LEO for under $40M. Half your budget on launch costs isn't bad.
This article has some more details on their plans. Apparently they're looking to launch as a secondary payload on something like a falcon 9:
http://spacenews.com/japanese-lunar-exploration-company-ispa...
I'm not sure if launching as a secondary decreases costs. They do have two missions planned apparently, after which they hope to start generating revenue by carrying up to 30kg of customer payload to the moon per launch.
http://spacenews.com/japanese-lunar-exploration-company-ispa...
I'm not sure if launching as a secondary decreases costs. They do have two missions planned apparently, after which they hope to start generating revenue by carrying up to 30kg of customer payload to the moon per launch.
I would imagine the initial funding does not include the cost of the rocket. The risk of this effort is not in the trans-lunar stage. Reliable solutions for that can be purchased off the shelf. A seed-stage company needs to prove out the custom tech required for its own application, then if there's a business case what they're doing in the first place they can go raise additional funding at a higher valuation to cover the cost of launch. No reason to suffer many times more dilution on that now.
Short answer yes.
Slightly longer answer, space technology is really far behind. Look into the RD-180 and RD-170. You might be surprised that a lot of newer engine designs are only slight modifications of these. The 180 and 170 were also used for a long time. Engine design is a very costly process.
That launch cost is going to be the majority of the mission cost. I'm not familiar with Ispace's lander and vehicle, but you can build those for fairly cheap, in comparison. Since it looks like they are going for an X-Prize, I expect that they don't plan to stay there long. This means that they can get away with only slightly rad hardening devices. Sure, if there's a solar event, they are toast, but in their time window, that's just bad luck.
Somewhat related, EEVBlog has a few videos [1][2][3][4] on the Google Lunar X-Prize where he talks to a guy from Audi's team. He mentions there that they do not use space grade electronics. This is actually fairly common for nano sats (like Planet Labs). GEO is where you REALLY need things to last a long time and satellite prices skyrocket.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7NoK2fiUD4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJwChUtdDQ
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJLOZDPTp3I
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JwNmdV2QPs
Slightly longer answer, space technology is really far behind. Look into the RD-180 and RD-170. You might be surprised that a lot of newer engine designs are only slight modifications of these. The 180 and 170 were also used for a long time. Engine design is a very costly process.
That launch cost is going to be the majority of the mission cost. I'm not familiar with Ispace's lander and vehicle, but you can build those for fairly cheap, in comparison. Since it looks like they are going for an X-Prize, I expect that they don't plan to stay there long. This means that they can get away with only slightly rad hardening devices. Sure, if there's a solar event, they are toast, but in their time window, that's just bad luck.
Somewhat related, EEVBlog has a few videos [1][2][3][4] on the Google Lunar X-Prize where he talks to a guy from Audi's team. He mentions there that they do not use space grade electronics. This is actually fairly common for nano sats (like Planet Labs). GEO is where you REALLY need things to last a long time and satellite prices skyrocket.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7NoK2fiUD4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJwChUtdDQ
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJLOZDPTp3I
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JwNmdV2QPs
They plan on being a secondary payload. Secondary payloads don't have to buy an entire rocket flight. As an example, SpaceIL (one of the other Xprize competitors) recently explained how they plan on getting to the Moon:
http://spacenews.com/spaceil-making-final-fundraising-push-f...
> "SpaceIL has a contract with Spaceflight Industries to launch the lander as a secondary payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9 mission whose primary payload is a commercial communications satellite. That satellite, which he declined to identify, will be deployed in a supersynchronous transfer orbit, whose apogee is above the altitude of geostationary orbit. The lander will then use its propulsion system to fly to the moon and land there."
The cost for being a secondary payload can be much cheaper than an entire rocket, and much cheaper than other smaller launch vehicles like Soyuz and Vega.
http://spacenews.com/spaceil-making-final-fundraising-push-f...
> "SpaceIL has a contract with Spaceflight Industries to launch the lander as a secondary payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9 mission whose primary payload is a commercial communications satellite. That satellite, which he declined to identify, will be deployed in a supersynchronous transfer orbit, whose apogee is above the altitude of geostationary orbit. The lander will then use its propulsion system to fly to the moon and land there."
The cost for being a secondary payload can be much cheaper than an entire rocket, and much cheaper than other smaller launch vehicles like Soyuz and Vega.
Spaceflight Industries acts as an intermediary layer between the launch providers and small customers. It arranges suitable rides, manages the hardware (for example cubesat dispensers).
It's the kind of useful growth niche that makes me think "why didn't I think of that?"
It's the kind of useful growth niche that makes me think "why didn't I think of that?"
Depends a lot of how much mass you plan to land on the moon. Also depends on if you want 80% chance of success or 99% chance of success.
It costs roughly $4000/lb to LEO, and the rocket equation makes the whole thing pretty unforgiving with current tech.
Is this an Onion piece? Or something from the Beaverton?
They want to land on the moon... To set up a billboard? And here I thought that the Silicon Valley model of startups making money by advertising other startups that make money by advertising other startups was insane.
Oh... They want to start a space economy. That's great, but there is no mention of what will that space economy do. They will maybe consider mining water, for a potential future human settlement that will... Do what? They will put up a billboard, to advertise... To whom?
They want to land on the moon... To set up a billboard? And here I thought that the Silicon Valley model of startups making money by advertising other startups that make money by advertising other startups was insane.
Oh... They want to start a space economy. That's great, but there is no mention of what will that space economy do. They will maybe consider mining water, for a potential future human settlement that will... Do what? They will put up a billboard, to advertise... To whom?
A lot less money than it takes to build a social network.
First, we should accelerate building better robots to do the work of humans, then send thousands throughout the solar system. This will be cheaper and faster than manned space flight...
Anyway, I went through this a few years ago on HN after the Virgin Galactic accident. People argued that it was only a minor setback. Any setback that involves humans costs a lot of money and time.
Anyway, I went through this a few years ago on HN after the Virgin Galactic accident. People argued that it was only a minor setback. Any setback that involves humans costs a lot of money and time.
Robots don't get anywhere near the effectiveness of boots on the ground, even with the most advanced robotic explorers we have today. All of the science done by the Martian rovers could have been done by a human geologist in a few hours work (except the traversal itself, so let's add a day's hike on top of a few hours lab work). And the robots are only really able to inspect the stuff that happens to be exposed on the ground around them and easily reached by limited robotic manipulators.
Sending humans to Mars for even a 30-day mission would be orders of magnitude more science return than the entire robotic exploration program to date.
And that's without considering relativity time-lag. There's serious consideration of an orbital precursor mission to Mars that would put robotic handlers in Martian orbit, or a free-return trajectory near Mars, without a lander, to do little more than remote control a couple of Curiosity-style rovers that accompany them (and maybe visit one or both low-gravity martian moons). It's anticipated that the time-lag reduction alone could vastly increase the amount of science that could be done on a robotic mission before the nuclear batteries die or servos get clogged with dust.
And of course all the robotic arguments are predicated on basic science being the only reason to go in the first place. In reality, most of the people interested in Mars and space exploration generally want people to permanently settle in space. I actually don't give a damn whether there was once life on Mars.. but there damn well better be human societies there within my lifetime.
Sending humans to Mars for even a 30-day mission would be orders of magnitude more science return than the entire robotic exploration program to date.
And that's without considering relativity time-lag. There's serious consideration of an orbital precursor mission to Mars that would put robotic handlers in Martian orbit, or a free-return trajectory near Mars, without a lander, to do little more than remote control a couple of Curiosity-style rovers that accompany them (and maybe visit one or both low-gravity martian moons). It's anticipated that the time-lag reduction alone could vastly increase the amount of science that could be done on a robotic mission before the nuclear batteries die or servos get clogged with dust.
And of course all the robotic arguments are predicated on basic science being the only reason to go in the first place. In reality, most of the people interested in Mars and space exploration generally want people to permanently settle in space. I actually don't give a damn whether there was once life on Mars.. but there damn well better be human societies there within my lifetime.
"Robots don't get anywhere near the effectiveness of boots on the ground, even with the most advanced robotic explorers we have today"
Yes, that's why I said we accelerate the research into robotics.
No one wants to fund NASA to go to Mars. It'll cost $200 billion to get a dozen people there, then it'll cost even more to stay.
The DoD can spend a few billion in R&D, and that's a small project. We can give tax credits for R&D to private industry. The research doesn't even go on the NASA budget.
Yes, that's why I said we accelerate the research into robotics.
No one wants to fund NASA to go to Mars. It'll cost $200 billion to get a dozen people there, then it'll cost even more to stay.
The DoD can spend a few billion in R&D, and that's a small project. We can give tax credits for R&D to private industry. The research doesn't even go on the NASA budget.
I think you don't understand the vast chasm between robotic capability and humans, and what can reasonably be done to close that gap. You're talking about making some sort of robotic geologist/biologist in the literal sense -- a humanoid robot or equivalent functionality that is space hardened, resists abrasive dust like nothing we have on Earth, requires no on-site maintenance, and is autonomous enough to operate for 10's of minutes at a time as good as it would be if humans were at the helm and it was next door.
I don't think you understand the scale of those requirements. It would be cheaper to send humans, even at absolutely ridiculous Apollo-on-steroid prices.
I don't think you understand the scale of those requirements. It would be cheaper to send humans, even at absolutely ridiculous Apollo-on-steroid prices.
i didn’t say that the robots had to do everything that humans can. I said we should accelerate the improvements of robots and do what we can with them.
Such a simple and elegant solution. We could also upload our minds into said robots remotely.
I am not sure if we want to upload our minds... then the robots would be humping each other endlessly and never get anything done.
So simple!
No one said it would be easy. You guys added that. It would be difficult and expensive, but cheaper, faster, and easier than man space flight.
So you would prefer JFK to have said: "We choose to send robots to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are easy and cheaper and faster..."
It's worth reading the whole speech: https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm
It ends with:
"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."
There will as many robots as you want in space, but man will be out there right along with them, no matter how difficult or dangerous or expensive it is.
It's worth reading the whole speech: https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm
It ends with:
"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."
There will as many robots as you want in space, but man will be out there right along with them, no matter how difficult or dangerous or expensive it is.
Let me blog it. I get tired of answering this question. The short answer is if we had built robots and sent hundreds into space, we'd have more humans in space now because it would be safer and cheaper. We'd also learn more quickly. We'd also have more advanced robots because of the investment.
We reached the moon, spent a few years, then gave up because of cost.
Would you rather have a new robotic explorer, or two or three, queued for Mars, Titan, etc every year or a few people on Mars by 2040?
We reached the moon, spent a few years, then gave up because of cost.
Would you rather have a new robotic explorer, or two or three, queued for Mars, Titan, etc every year or a few people on Mars by 2040?
Totally agreed. We could have an army of terraforming robots establish a space on Mars, for instance, then send humans there when we're sure it's hospitable. Or send drones throughout the galaxy with human embryos to potential habitable planets. An ethics nightmare, to be sure, but interesting to consider the implications nonetheless.
> cheaper, faster, and easier
We don't know that, right? We don't know how much it would cost to develop the tech; we don't know how long it would take; we don't know how difficult it would be.
It might actually be cheaper to send canned apes throughout the solar system, than human minds in robot bodies; we just don't know yet. This is at best a Fermi problem, where we can start throwing numbers out and hope our estimates are within a few orders of magnitude.
We don't know that, right? We don't know how much it would cost to develop the tech; we don't know how long it would take; we don't know how difficult it would be.
It might actually be cheaper to send canned apes throughout the solar system, than human minds in robot bodies; we just don't know yet. This is at best a Fermi problem, where we can start throwing numbers out and hope our estimates are within a few orders of magnitude.
We send what we have now then iterate. Release early, release often. Funding robotics, AI, etc is not a NASA funded goal but goes under defense budget, tax deductions for industry, etc.
The real problem is getting the money for space. No one wants to write a big check for Mars. They’ll write big checks for the Pentagon, automation in manufacturing, and strategic national goals.
The real problem is getting the money for space. No one wants to write a big check for Mars. They’ll write big checks for the Pentagon, automation in manufacturing, and strategic national goals.
I was talking specifically about mind uploads.
Curiosity cost us about $2 billion and it has some of the most state of the art systems on board. Among these was its drill, which was supposed to provide some of the most important science from the mission. And as my use of past tense probably belies, it broke after 15 activations. [1] Redundancies and the best NASA has on it notwithstanding, it remains broken. They've now, a year later, developed a high risk idea to try to get some drilling done. We'll see how that works out. This would have been something a human on site could have repaired in relatively short order.
The point is that robotics and other technologies are advancing extremely rapidly, but they're still not anywhere even remotely close to being able to compare to humans in general purpose functionality - let alone improvisation. Don't forget that those amazing videos of Atlas are the result of countless takes and on-site specialization. This [2] article describes the results of the most recent DARPA Robotics Challenge which featured all the big names, including Atlas. The competition included tasks like walking, opening a door, and climbing up stairs. The most ostensibly difficult would be navigating a specially modified vehicle after having humans carefully place and suspend their robot inside it. And the developers all knew ahead of time exactly what the tasks would be and the circumstance, except for one surprise task which ended up being pulling a lever. The long and short is that it was a disaster. Quoting the article:
"If there's a single lesson from the [DARPA Robotics Challenge], it's that humanoid robots are falling robots. Also, that the road to humanoids that aren't so clumsy will be long, and strewn with shattered components. If DARPA doesn't hold another version of the DRC, then the first one will have been little more than a grim status update, and a self-contained failure, for the few of us that realized it happened."
The point here is that we are a long ways away from robots that can remotely compare to humans for general purpose tasks. The timeline for getting to the Moon and even to Mars on the other hand is very near future.
--
Beyond all this, space exploration is not just about science. Did you know China put a probe on the moon in 2013? Technically it was a rover, but back to those robotics problems - it became a probe. It was the first time anything had soft landed on the moon since 1976. If you did know this you're probably already a huge enthusiast in the field because the world collectively yawned, even though it made some groundbreaking discoveries including discovering the moon's geographic makeup was far different than we thought. That discovery is playing no minor role in driving the recent moon race.
But people want to see and discover space themselves. And there are lots of people willing to pay lots of money for the privilege. Two individuals have already purchased a Moon flyby from SpaceX - scheduled for next year. And even though a flyby is nothing compared to a soft landing, that will not be met with a yawn. Action requires money. Money requires public drive. Public drive requires manned operations.
[1] - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2017/0906-cu...
[2] - https://www.popsci.com/darpa-robotics-challenge-was-bust-why...
The point is that robotics and other technologies are advancing extremely rapidly, but they're still not anywhere even remotely close to being able to compare to humans in general purpose functionality - let alone improvisation. Don't forget that those amazing videos of Atlas are the result of countless takes and on-site specialization. This [2] article describes the results of the most recent DARPA Robotics Challenge which featured all the big names, including Atlas. The competition included tasks like walking, opening a door, and climbing up stairs. The most ostensibly difficult would be navigating a specially modified vehicle after having humans carefully place and suspend their robot inside it. And the developers all knew ahead of time exactly what the tasks would be and the circumstance, except for one surprise task which ended up being pulling a lever. The long and short is that it was a disaster. Quoting the article:
"If there's a single lesson from the [DARPA Robotics Challenge], it's that humanoid robots are falling robots. Also, that the road to humanoids that aren't so clumsy will be long, and strewn with shattered components. If DARPA doesn't hold another version of the DRC, then the first one will have been little more than a grim status update, and a self-contained failure, for the few of us that realized it happened."
The point here is that we are a long ways away from robots that can remotely compare to humans for general purpose tasks. The timeline for getting to the Moon and even to Mars on the other hand is very near future.
--
Beyond all this, space exploration is not just about science. Did you know China put a probe on the moon in 2013? Technically it was a rover, but back to those robotics problems - it became a probe. It was the first time anything had soft landed on the moon since 1976. If you did know this you're probably already a huge enthusiast in the field because the world collectively yawned, even though it made some groundbreaking discoveries including discovering the moon's geographic makeup was far different than we thought. That discovery is playing no minor role in driving the recent moon race.
But people want to see and discover space themselves. And there are lots of people willing to pay lots of money for the privilege. Two individuals have already purchased a Moon flyby from SpaceX - scheduled for next year. And even though a flyby is nothing compared to a soft landing, that will not be met with a yawn. Action requires money. Money requires public drive. Public drive requires manned operations.
[1] - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2017/0906-cu...
[2] - https://www.popsci.com/darpa-robotics-challenge-was-bust-why...
It will cost $200 billion to get to Mars by 2040?
That's a lot of cheaper robotic missions. If something breaks, there's another one in the works.
We should also be developing robots that can do what the human can do. That investment will pay off in many ways.
Btw, the first DARPA Grand Challenge was a bust in 2004. No one finished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge#2004_Gra...
That's a lot of cheaper robotic missions. If something breaks, there's another one in the works.
We should also be developing robots that can do what the human can do. That investment will pay off in many ways.
Btw, the first DARPA Grand Challenge was a bust in 2004. No one finished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge#2004_Gra...
> It will cost $200 billion to get to Mars by 2040?
That's not a lower bound. That's an upper bound on what hopeful NASA contractors think they can milk the government for in doing it The NASA Way.
That's not a lower bound. That's an upper bound on what hopeful NASA contractors think they can milk the government for in doing it The NASA Way.
Going to Mars doesn't have to cost 200 billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
>We should also be developing robots that can do what the human can do. That investment will pay off in many ways
That investment is absolutely worthwhile, but we aren't even vaguely close to a general-purpose robot that can do what humans do. One human geologist could do the work of an entire fleet of Curiosity rovers. It's a matter of if all of the associated dangers of space travel worth all of that scientific knowledge gained from both sending people to do interplanetary science and from developing new tech to get us there is worth it - IMO, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
That investment is absolutely worthwhile, but we aren't even vaguely close to a general-purpose robot that can do what humans do. One human geologist could do the work of an entire fleet of Curiosity rovers. It's a matter of if all of the associated dangers of space travel worth all of that scientific knowledge gained from both sending people to do interplanetary science and from developing new tech to get us there is worth it - IMO, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Yep, a lot of people think it's worth it. I'm with you. Good luck getting the money. One accident will cost years to "improve safety", and people will question if it's really worth it. Keeping humans safe is costly.
I bet we can get the money for better robots. It doesn't even need to come from NASA's budget. The DoD, private industry tax breaks, etc can pay for the research.
https://www.wired.com/story/atlas-robot-does-backflips-now/
If we lose a robot on Mars, not much changes.
I bet we can get the money for better robots. It doesn't even need to come from NASA's budget. The DoD, private industry tax breaks, etc can pay for the research.
https://www.wired.com/story/atlas-robot-does-backflips-now/
If we lose a robot on Mars, not much changes.
Taking extreme sports and jobs into consideration, and the fact that space is considered more and more as a lucrative destination for profit making, I think that human beings will be the first to do most of the ground breaking work. Virgin Galactic, the SpaceX moon flyby, etc. are meant for tourists, hence the different approach to absolute safety. I think the public's acceptance of the dangers of space, and the thrill/benefits of confronting them will come before we get to the point of having the necessary robot tech to make significant progress without humans on site. Then again if you consider things like Andy Weir's The Martian you realise that's a likely scenario of the kind of spending that might happen in the case of a stranded astronaut after a disaster, sending more afterwards would still be a financial decision rather than one of public opinion regarding safety however, and in my opinion the tech and financial support for these sorts of missions is going to be up to it in a few years.
Yeah, someone always brings up mining, Alaskan crabbing (was it crabbing?), etc. Anyway sure, 4 years ago we had the same conversation... I guess someday greed might overcome the risk. Still, the lawsuits over loved ones could get expensive.
My observation is that we can start immediately with attainable goals, at a cost we'll likely accept, with no risk of human life, and with immediate economic and technological benefits.
In the meantime, we've lost 4 years... with another decade more with no real goal.
My suggestion makes forward progress every year. At some point, sending humans to Mars, for example, becomes a small inexpensive step, rather than a giant costly leap.
My observation is that we can start immediately with attainable goals, at a cost we'll likely accept, with no risk of human life, and with immediate economic and technological benefits.
In the meantime, we've lost 4 years... with another decade more with no real goal.
My suggestion makes forward progress every year. At some point, sending humans to Mars, for example, becomes a small inexpensive step, rather than a giant costly leap.
There's more than just cost. Round trip latency to Mars can be reasonably measured in tens of minutes. Tasks that a human can do in seconds take days with a robot at that distance. Curiosity can move at up to 0.09mph. A human infant can move faster than that.
We've invested many billions of dollars on robots already and this is the best we have. If we could spend $200bn to do he science in a few years that trillions dollars in R&D and probably the better part of century of iteration would take, why wouldn't we send humans up?
It seems crazy to me to throw money at robotics that work well on Mars when we are already investing billions and billions of dollars on robots here on earth that aren't even able to do the things that humans do.
We've invested many billions of dollars on robots already and this is the best we have. If we could spend $200bn to do he science in a few years that trillions dollars in R&D and probably the better part of century of iteration would take, why wouldn't we send humans up?
It seems crazy to me to throw money at robotics that work well on Mars when we are already investing billions and billions of dollars on robots here on earth that aren't even able to do the things that humans do.
If NASA hasn't made it back to the moon for decades and all it takes is $90M, they are doing something seriously wrong.
Huh. Is Japan company trying to reach to the moon? Haha.
Hey, take a look at the guidelines for HN. Its preferrable to have comments here that have something to offer to the discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is just them investing $90M in bitcoin right? To the moon...
Do they anticipate getting additional funding or decreasing costs?