Talk:Artemis Project

Untitled

Hi, I am currently working on this on my sandbox, which is available here, User:SimonHarvey/Sandbox. Please pick bits out of it as you see fit. Kind regards SimonHarvey 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

no longer working on it anymore... SimonHarvey 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of putting this article in the past tense, considering that most of the supporting divisions that this project has relied upon have closed down. Does anybody disagree? SimonHarvey 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a good idea. In fact, since the project seems to have gone away, I'm not sure the article meets the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability. In that case, it should probably just be deleted. —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the notability banner. —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that It should be deleted as it does present an interesting idea that did receive coverage during the 1990s to the early 2000s however I can also see your point of view as well. I will have a go and reediting it as well and see how it turns out. SimonHarvey (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put everything in the past tense as well as added a mission profile section, I have added a few extra references at the bottom. I can see what you mean in terms of notibility... as there really wasn't that much out there. I hope that this meets the minimum requirements. SimonHarvey (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I've removed the notability banner. In looking at the matter again, I'm not sure I was correct about the Wikipedia:Notability issues. There's a section of the notability document (Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary) that seems to suggest that I should never have tagged it. Nevertheless, your work on moving the article's text to the past tense has improved the article by keeping it current. Thanks —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong sentence.

"However, nothing ever came of this." This sentence expresses the opinion of the writer, and doesn't add anything of value. More interesting would be an information of what really happened to the project - that it was abandoned, winded down, or it appears to be inactive for a longer time period... or whatever. Show it went nowhere, no need to write "it was a waste of time". --217.115.75.229 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Peter Sidor

What I was trying to communicate was that the project seems to have slipped into antiquity, with no hardware built or flown. Not unlike a government study (such as NASA) who seem to generate detailed studies, [CGI]], but no real flight hardware. I acknowledge that "However, nothing ever came of this." is unsubstantiated, SimonHarvey (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be accurate to say that the Artemis Project inspired an entire generation of new space entrepreneurs, leading to the creation of TransOrbital, SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, the Mars Society, and the Moon Society; however, finding supporting documentation would be difficult. Very few go-getters are willing to acknowledge their progenitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if there was any acknowledgments that this project had a notable effect or was the principle inspiration for the creation of TransOrbital, SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, the Mars Society, and the Moon Society then maybe, however I haven't yet come across any evidence for this. I would not also jump to conclusions that the AP was the primary source of inspiration for these companies. SimonHarvey (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a great start at an article about the Artemis Project, Simon. I'll see if I can get you some better answers. A few odd points:

1. I don't know where the 2002 date came from. The Artemis Project has by intent never announced a date for landing on the moon. I have always maintained that it is folly to establish a date for a mission until you have things in place to accomplish the mission.

2. Colonies on Europa or any other moons other than Luna were never part of the Artemis Project. There were some speculations about in the Moon Miners Manifesto, but MMM is an indepedently published newsletter and its scope goes way beyond the Artemis Project. (The Moon Society still uses MMM as its house organ for communication among the members, but the editor writes about whatever he wants to write about. Several chapters of the National Space Society also use MMM as their chapter newsletter.)

3. About those companies and organizations: (a) TransOrbital -- absolutely. TransOrbital was a company formed by Artemis Society members to implement the microlander that I designed as part of the work on the Artemis Project. They gave it a good effort but ultimately ran out capital. The only thing they launched was a mass simulator. (b) SpaceX -- um, maybe, but I don't think so. Elon Musk was a member of Artemis Society International some time ago and certainly benefited from all the discussions about commercial space development, but to the best of my knowledge his ideas about commercially developing a launcher (and hence, SpaceX) did not come about because of the Artemis Project. The Artemis Project was never about developing launchers. (c) Bigelow Aerospace -- no. Though I was vice president of Bigelow Aerospace and worked there for nearly five years (and I am the founder of the Artemis Project as well as the Moon Society), Robert T. Bigelow had not heard of the Artemis Project at the time he decided to form his company. He found me through mutual contacts in the aerospace industry and it was only then that he heard about the Artemis Project. (d) Mars Society -- definitely, although Bob Zubrin would never admit it. At the world science fiction convention in San Antonio (whatever year that was), Zubrin was trying to talk me into expanding the scope of Artemis Society International to include Mars. I told him I wanted the Artemis Society to retain its focus but I'd be happy to help him crank up a new, independent Mars Society. The next time the Case for Mars conference came around he renamed it the Mars Society Founding Convention and the rest is history.  :) (e) Moon Society -- no question whatsoever: the Moon Society was created by the Artemis Project. The Moon Society was formed at its founding convention, the Lunar Development Conference in Las Vegas in 2000. Along the way, Artemis Society International had become a membership organization and we realized that operating the organization was consuming all we had, to the detriment of the Artemis Project. So we formed the Moon Society and handed over to it the membership and membership-related assets of Artemis Society International. At the time I announced that I fully intended to step out the top executive spot of the Moon Society within two years, and I did. See: http://www.moonsociety.org/ (f) Lunar Traders -- (I added this one to the shopping list) yes. Lunar Traders was a company formed to sell moon-related merchandise and was part of the Artemis Project. To the best of my knowledge, it is no longer in business; due to lack of business acumen rather than to any other factors. (g) Virgin Galactic -- (another addition) I would doubt it. Richard Branson and I have some mutual friends so it's possible that some cross-fertilization happened, but I've never heard of any direct connection. (We could add all the other commercial launch companies here; to the best of my knowledge, the Artemis Project has not had any direct influence in inspiring any commercial launcher endeavor.)

4. You will find a lot more accurate information about the Artemis Project on the asi.org web site than you will on permanent.org. The author of the Permanent site seems to have an axe to grind.

5. Past tense: The Wikipedia article makes it sound like the Artemis Project is something that happened in the past and has since been disbanded. No; the project is still on-going and Artemis Society International is still here. This speculation is probably based on the lack of trying to continue to provide entertainment for space fans at the same time we're working on getting to the moon. We learned the hard way that we can either maintain an elaborate web site and operate a membership organization, or we build a lunar development program. We cannot do both.

6. Flight hardware: Building flight hardware was never the goal of Artemis Society International. The Society's purpose is to bring together the people who will establish the infrastructure required to accomplish the flights required. The purpose of the reference mission is to provide a means to explore the technical, financial, and political challenges of establishing a self-supporting lunar settlement. For the rest of it, it is way too early to be building flight hardware.

Maybe this will help: "The confusion might come from the emphasis on the Reference Mission. We are using the Reference Mission to analyze the technical, financial, and political issues associated with establishing a permanent exploration base, but the Reference Mission is far from being the entire plans or end goal of Artemis Project." -- http://www.asi.org/adb/j/02/go-and-quit.html

7. Frequently asked questions: It would be better to link directly to the FAQ on the Artemis Society International web site: http://www.asi.org/adb/j/01/ for Frequently Asked Questions and http://www.asi.org/adb/j/02/ for Frequently Raised Objections.

Hope this helps!

Greg Greg (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)