I've expressed some skepticism about this venture, and others like it, (see my posts below). Although I certainly wish these folks the best of luck, and I would love to see them succeed, I just don't see it happening in our lifetimes without some quantum advances in space technology. I would be leery about betting my future on this enterprise.

But don't just take my word for it. Let me present to you some comments from someone on another space site I contribute to.

Unfortunately the past 10 - 15 years has seen and heard hundreds of
"business plans" from these "visionary startups". I really wouldn't
pay any attention to them. As ER says it is utterly impractical and
absolutely, will come to nothing. Consider the physics and
engineering. In 1969 - 72 we needed a rocket almost 400 feet tall and
weighing 7000 tons, to lift and deliver 2 men in a 20 ton lander to
the Lunar surface. Mind you this Lunar module was so thin and flimsy,
the windows actually bulged outwards when it was pressurized. The
longest off-world stay ever was Apollo 17, in which 2 men spent 3 days
on the surface, and their spacesuits already were beginning to wear
through from the effects of lunar dust, which has the abrasive
consistency of fine ground glass. And, these expeditions were much
more risky and tricky than the public realized - I strongly recommend
Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz's book "Failure is not an Option".
He shows how close Apollos 11 and 14 came to catastrophic failure. My
point now, is that rocket technology has only advanced at most,
incrementally since the Saturn V masterpieces. A crewed expedition to
an asteroid would cost at least many tens of billions - not even
considering the idea of actually mining the thing. Look at how hard it
was for the Japanese to retrieve their asteroid sample-return probe a
few years ago. The sample mechanism jammed while on the asteroid - we
have been extremely lucky to retrieve a few hundred micro-grains of
material (luckily even these are proving to be valuable). This is
where at right now. If NASA's MSL-Curiosity lander doesn't crash and
burn on August 5th (It will use a risky completely automated "Sky
Crane" rocket platform which will winch the rover down to the surface)
- then we can be delighted and space science will have made a huge
advance. But for crewed expeditions, the only next step which is
sensible and achievable, is to go for longer-duration stays on the
moon, and to begin prototyping technology to mitigate the dust (maybe
by heating it into a glass via solar heating tech). A research base
could be started, using inflatable habitats proposed by NASA in the
60s and now taken up by Bigelow Aerospace. NASA has a lot of ideas and
plans for a prototype Lunar base which could proceed in hand together
with private industry - i.e. those few startups like SpaceX, Bigelow
and Orbital Sciences who are actually developing and flying stuff, and
not just blowing out hot air through their nether regions.
Unfortunately the US Administration doesn't care to encourage or fund
any of this, and NASA remains on a budget of 0.5 percent of GDP.
Anyhoo - I would advise to be wary of these other "promises" and
"business plans" - they are just like those Martian dust devils imaged
by the MER rovers. They look spectacular, but are actually very thin
and nebulous, and disappear pretty quickly.