I don't know if you saw it on the news Paul but ESA announced a new joint mission with Russia called Luna 27 to visit the lunar south pole in 5 years time. The purpose is to prospect for minerals, volatiles, and lunar water ice in permanently shadowed areas of the Moon and investigate the potential use of these natural resources to build a moon base.

This has probably had a negative effect on recruiting new luminauts because

1. Luna 27 is an offical space agency project
2. Luna 27 is not funded by the public
3. Luna 27 is launching 4 years before LM1

It is terrible luck that LM1 was announced at a time when agencies were not interested in the Moon but now they will beat us to it. However:

1. Remember that part of the purpose is to leave a record of humanity, Luna 37 is not doing this
2. A crowdfunded mission is something to be proud of as this is our mission
3. LM1 would be a world first

Don't give up on LM1 until LM1 gives up itself.

Paul!!! Don't disappear just yet!! This forum wouldn't be the same without you I'll be back soon, I think, been rather busy. Wish there was more science posts, though ... would be nice ... Been one year now almost ... anniversary party Angela???

Darryl and Abi are right - Paul, you would be sorely missed as you've shown such enthusiasm for the project over the last year. I appreciate your frustration - unfortunately the level of direct communication of LM1 with the community has been scant. The odd response when a criticism or concern is raised is inadequate, and a far more sustained dialog would have nurtured good will and excitement in the project.

I continue to believe LM1 can be a great success, despite the lethargy of the last few months and the possible new mission Abi has alluded to:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34504067

Recent events may however stall (or perhaps have already stalled) plans for that mission. Can anyone find anything recent at all on the Europe and Russia mission?

www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions

In contrast, as an international venture LM1 is potentially not as vulnerable to political change, however that may alter (read on...). I view any similar missions in a positive light - we can learn from one another. Note David Iron's remark "...we are looking to collaborate with the Russian programme...":

lunarmissionone.com/whats-happening/movi...th-lunar-mission-one

A once a month LM1 public update (or thereabouts), together with Facebook posts are not sufficient to drive community momentum. The most recent updates being a pointer to the Skylight opera (which is an externally associated contribution) and the detailed review of the industrial leadership of the space mission:

lunarmissionone.com/whats-happening/luna...of-the-space-mission

The document is "a statement of work for a Request for Information (RFI) issued by Lunar Mission One, in order to facilitate initial discussions with interested industrial partners.". Yet again, it is disappointing that no dialog with the community about this document appears to have been sought. Of course the LM1 team have expertise, however seeking ideas from the community would have brought valuable ideas to the fore. Towards the opening you'll note what appears to be a significant shift in direction from LM1:

"Lunar Mission One is also seeking to form a Public Private Partnership (PPP) between a Government agency, which will act as the political authority for the mission, and an industrial consortium with a lead company as the contracting authority for the mission’s implementation.".

This seems to imply the mission is not viewed of as viable in its concept as a publicly funded, international, non-governmental, non-commercial project. So, what of this "political authority"? We need to hear exactly what this phrase means - over to you LM1. Please define the scope of this authority clearly.

There isn't a more enthusiastic supporter of LM1 than Paul, and yet he seems disappointed - I certainly am. As I have said in the past, I believe communities are not negatively affected by challenges or changes of direction, they are without doubt however discouraged by a lack of transparency and communication. I've stated this repeatedly, and although there have been rhetorical responses from LM1, little to no meaningful open engagement with the broader community has been forthcoming over the months. Take the LM1 club as an example, the last entry being July 03, 2015!

Going on a recent email I and others received in the UK, it seems that LM1 wish to extend their "Chapter" strategy as a means of developing the project. A Chapter being a sub-section of the main group. In my case this is a UK group that followed on from my interest in volunteering which I together with others stated way back in London on 30th May during an LM1 event. Six months on and I'm afraid it is now far, far too late to send a message as a follow up. LM1 have missed several windows of opportunities since the fully funded Kickstarter campaign on December 16th 2014.

In my opinion, better that LM1 engage in an open manner rather though the closed doors of project Chapters. I've a hunch the adoption of Chapters has more to do with control and marketing rather than a genuine desire to engage in an exchange with its community. Chapters by their nature tend to close and fragment an organization into a pyramid structure, and I would far rather more transparent and open engagement was sought. Perhaps however this is exactly how the future of LM1 will unfold. That is, less engagement and an increasing top down approach - which I view as contrary to the spirit of what Kickstarter supporters were so fired up by and contributed towards.

So, how can the community and LM1 move forward? Active engagement: in the forum, with open surveys, and with web-caste presentations and conversations. It's very simple: discuss ideas openly - it will benefit the project no matter what LM1's strategies for its future are. LM1 continues to publish the following:

"We want anyone, anywhere to be able to support the project and become closely involved as it progresses.".

If a fundamental shift in strategy is emerging as appears from recent changes to the web site, the LM1 community deserve to hear about it. We're all ears...

Mike

I can agree that Mike has raised a couple of rather valid points there.

I think I've figured out what the problem is and it's us! Social media is where its at these days and LM1's facebook and twitter pages are far more updated than this site. To be honest, who can really blame them for focusing their campaign on social media, forums like these are becoming archaic in the online world of today.

I used to be a regular viewer and contributor of the Empire magazine websites forum and there was huge activity but now on their flash new website, designed mainly to be viewd on mobile devices, has actually deleted the forum altogether.

Hi Darryl, with respect, social media is a very different medium to a forum where the community can far better have extended conversations and the opportunity to discuss and debate issues. In contrast, social media is quite light and used as a marketing medium by LM1.

I think forums are becoming rarer as they allow the community to have their say, and that's perceived of as a risk for commercial organizations who would far rather control things. I don't think forums (a meeting or medium where ideas and views on issues can be exchanged) are archaic. LM1's forum provides a far more open and broad view of the community for everyone as compared with social media. That said, I'm not suggesting Facebook and Twitter don't have value, but if you read through the posts, do you see any exchanges about the project with the community? I see a lot of announcements, but not a lot of discussion.