[quote author=grakenverb]
You certainly won't get many "little people" to volunteer if you call them "midgets" which is considered offensive
[/quote]

Point well taken! Thank you.

I do hope to get across to this group the powerful advantage they have as "compact astronauts".

I strongly believe that the next humans on the moon will be members of some "special identity group". Many such groups could mobilize the funding I am talking about - comparable to an "Americas Cup" sailboat racing team.

Lightweight, low cost Moon landings were of course extensively researched by NASA.

NASA Langley 1961 Solo Lunar Lander

This is among the "Roads Not Taken", but researched by NASA, and validates low cost concepts for those without NASA sized funding.

The 1961 NASA Langley image lists 500 pounds mass empty, plus a 220 pound suited astronaut.

This mass could of course be reduced with modern controls, and lighter structure. This 720 pound empty mass would weigh only 120 pounds on the Moon – far less than the weight carried with a “Jet Pack” system, and supported by the users legs! Landing on the Moon is much easier (effectively in slow motion) compared to landing with a Jet Pack on the Earth. Slashing the “Controls and Structure” group to 30 pounds (with a landing on the astronauts boots), with ½ the engine, tankage and fuel mass, would bring the dry mass to 360 pounds, weighting 60 pounds on the Moon. Splitting the fuel mass ratio (equal Delta V for ascent and descent) gives 401 pounds of ascent fuel remaining after touch down. The 761 pound total (dry mass plus fuel) would weigh just 127 pounds on the Moon: much less than handled by “Jet Pack” users at an air show!

Scale this mass down for a “compact astronaut” and you begin to see why my cost estimates make sense.