[caidan]

No disrespect intended, but what is the point of using terminology like “moonshot” coupled with tiny amounts of funding like $3m. If moonshot is taken to be a loose reference to the Apollo program - which I imagine it is otherwise the name is poorly chosen - then the funding amounts are off by several orders of magnitude. In 1960 the US government got its feet wet with a 900 million (in 2020 dollars) spend on the Apollo program and ramped up to a high of 40,000 million a year by 1964. The total spent on the Apollo program between 1960 and 1973 was 283,000 million or almost one hundred thousand times as much as the 3 million investment under the moonshots fund.

Sure the 3 million is a seed round but the US spent 300 times as much on its exploratory “seed” round in 1960.

It is unlikely until he extreme that any real “moonshot” will achieve significant impact without the combined talents of a large percentage of the world greatest talents driven by goals of the highest social priority funded by limitless pockets and organized by the very best managers and leaders that society can produce.

3m will achieve none of that.

[d_silin]

For once, I disagree. When spent wisely, $3M can make a huge difference in a development of promising technology.

And I am not talking just about software - an aerospace, material science, fusion or biotech startup can work with that.

[hanniabu]

> can work with that

I think the more apt wording is it's enough to get to the next round of funding

[godelski]

Can confirm. Most government agencies have the SBIR program which funds 6 months of work for $100k. A phase II is $750k for 2 years. The Phase I is typically TRL 3/4 (though I've had a TRL 2 contract before). You'd be surprised what you can get done on such a small budget.

Edit: This was an aerospace company too

[fxtentacle]

I also wonder if a $15mio valuation (20% for $3m) is a good deal for founders that have a moonshot idea and a first step that is reachable within 2 years and a plan of how to get there.

I mean if I had a plausible 2-year plan on how to fix the image processing part of self-driving cars and autonomous drones, just the knowledge of how I consider that possible might be worth more than $15m to Google, Uber, Skydio, or the DoD.

So to me, this looks more like a glorified way for teams without connections but with a great prototype to get introductions to the "real" investors that'll pony up $100m+

[michelb]

But, say, 250m will achieve nothing for true moonshots (like the ones mentioned on the site) without political will? Honestly, the example moonshots listed on the site NEED political will to succeed at all.

[kgr]

This video explains why UNIX was a moonshot, and why it could be developed by a small number of people because of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ea3pkTCYx4

[garmaine]

3m for 20% is a Series A, not a seed round.

[onion2k]

Typically seed funding is to prove the concept. Series A is to start scaling it. With Apollo you need to already have a proven concept ("We expect you to have a big vision and a “Tesla Roadster”—a concrete first step") before Apollo will invest. That's what makes it a Series A.