Steve Jurvetson Launches New $200 Million Fund

by

Steve Jurvetson and Maryanna Saenko launched a new $200 million Future Ventures fund. They are focused on bold moon shots by the mission-driven founders who forge the future.

Jurvetson identified and backing industry-redefining companies like Tesla, SpaceX, Planet, Nervana, Mythic, and Memphis Meats. Those companies now have an aggregate value of $100 billion.

SOURCES- Future Ventures, Twitter

Written By Brian Wang

37 thoughts on “Steve Jurvetson Launches New $200 Million Fund”

  1. For 100 mill of that i would give him the keys to an extraordinary most interplanetary craft.

  6. Well that clearly did not go well. I assume you posted in the Advanced Concepts subforum at NSF, which would be the most receptive generally. Chris B bringing down the ban hammer quickly is pretty rare though. Were there any pointers, such as not posting self referential commercial topics, or just sudden ejection? Do you have any outstanding history with the moderating team there perhaps? Usually Advanced Concepts is kind enough to tear into a concept ruthlessly but accurately, which has allowed some people to refine their concepts to something viable. Even if an idea itself may not be viable, you never know when it might serve as inspiration for someone else.

  7. I’ve been banned from NASASpaceFlight.com:

    A topic you are watching has been removed by Chris Bergin.

    Regards,
    The NASASpaceFlight.com Forum Team.

  9. If you really want “cool,” Musk should develop M-1. Hydrolox engines seem to have easier time of development than hydrocarbon engines.

    Bezos, you listening?

  12. Flame temperature for kerolox is typically higher than methalox at the same pressure, so you might be right in comparison to the RD-180. But the Raptor will run a lot hotter than the Merlin, if only because the chamber pressure is so much higher.

  14. Just because I can:

    170 mTf = 7.70E16 st-fur/ftn^2.

    But you really should have used firkins instead of stone.

  15. Unless there’s combustion instability, in which case it might be in the chamber, or the injector, or on the impeller blades–but only until everything blows up.

  17. I was surprised at the first time I heard a German pronounce Uranium.

    I’d always heard it with a soft ‘ur’ – kind of like ‘Eur-anium’. He pronounced it with a hard r – “Ur-anium.” Makes me wonder how many other words I don’t really know the pronunciation to, lol…

  19. The chamber is where the fire happens, and the acoustic oscillations hopefully don’t happen. No part of a rocket engine is passive. They all contribute to how it works.

  20. Many years ago, an Air Force call for proposals specified “British units shall be used”. I wanted to use stone-furlong/fortnight^2 for rocket engine thrust, but my managers at Boeing wouldn’t let me 🙂

  22. I guess we are applauding the fuel/ox turbo pump design points, which have the capacity to feed enough mass at the desired pressure… The chamber is a rather passive component…

  23. Nearly 5,000psi is a truly impressive chamber pressure, but compare the complexity of the pictured engine above to the 10,000psi ultracentrifugal engine at halfwaytoanywhere dot com.

  24. Don’t peck about the snakes, “chains” will take the measure of them and keep m off furlong. A jill of vinegar for their hide. But what a fool am I. Off my perch, it is as if I just drunk a kilderkin of beer and I am as thick as a rod. I do not seam to make sense for a poppyseed.
    (Couldn’t resist)

  25. One other thing. Actually it would be a great weapon against any type of large, ground based target, like infrastructure, air defenses, land based ICBM bunkers, and military bases/air fields. The Tomahawk is used frequently, a few years ago in Syria we launched about 120 of them, they cost 1-2 million each. One Starhip heavy launch carrying 5-6 12 ton kinetic impactors would have done 5x the damage at 1/10th the cost. A B-2 strike from the US to somewhere in Asia runs about 3-5 million for a 20 ton drop of ordinance.

  26. It’s sort of a joke. You are missing the way it all comes together. The weapon is supposed to land in the shape of a a$$ hole with a rod going into it. Not meant to be serious. Just an idea for a weapon where you are “tearing them a new one” so to speak. Maybe it should be called gape that a$$.

  27. I think this might keep the Chinese from getting too frisky on their illegal islands. Heck, even a near miss would likely create a mighty tsunami in the shallow artificial reef. No nukes involved.

  28. Still, it’s better than “the US produced xx terawatts of energy last year”.

    I never think of newtons at all unless I’m doing rocket stuff, and then it would be so weird to compare a thrust to an object that it never occurs to me.

  30. Drop them on whom?

    The USA has no trouble destroying anything it can actually locate, and hasn’t had for many decades. It’s finding what to destroy that is the trouble in modern conflicts.

  31. I do also tend to relate to N via kg.

    But kgf/cm^2 is just a clumsy way of saying bars or atmospheres (within 2 significant figures) and EVERYONE knows what that is.

    And kg of power caused snakes to begin physically manifesting in my presence.

  32. The USAF should offer up 10 billion to SpaceX if the Hopper is successful for 12 Starship Heavy rocket cargo versions to be used as orbital bomber. It would be able to drop 5-6 12 ton cones from 1000km up that break apart into 5 sides plus a center core /w tip about 5 km above the surface, That’s 6 fragments total with the 5 with a elongated trapezoidal shape branching evenly out to the sides and the center and tip piece going down the middle to create an asterisk shape on impact with a cylinder w/rounded tip going down the middle. I call it “Project: Uranus” for the Titan god of the Sky.

  34. I don’t know. The first thing I automatically do when I read a value expressed in Newton, is divide it by ten, put ‘kg’ behind it and compare it to a real life object. That is after multiple decades of knowing better and being a continental. Newton just isn’t intuitive.

  37. “It had a pressure of 261.7 kilograms of power per square centimeter.”

    More unit fastidiousness, please. You need force there, not power. I think you’re trying to say 261.7 kgf/cm^2 (and kgf is not a thing–don’t pollute the metric system with the sins of english units!!!!). That would be 2566.5 N/cm^2, or 256.6 bar.

    Also: where are you getting those Raptor specs from? The Adelaide numbers were at 1900 kN thrust and 375 s Isp. “170 metric tons force” (aaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhh!) is 1667 kN. Ain’t no stinkin’ 3.5 MN-scale engines here, man.

Comments are closed.