Why do people think the Moon is a safer choice than Mars?

[vger]

I guess we would have to be very desperate to be motivated by the first, which leaves the latter. so, how can we convince the fat cat corporations of earth that going to the moon is evil profitable enough to put loads of money into this?

I've had thoughts about that before. Even had an idea or two about possible ways to monetize research missions so that even without a "space industry," those who help fund it would have a chance at a return on their investment.

But since NASA is tied into the government, there's probably WAAAY too much bureaucratic nonsense to make it possible, even if enough funding could be theoretically be attained. The US Post Office has to deal with such limitations and it's practically putting them out of business.

[EzinX]

I've had thoughts about that before. Even had an idea or two about possible ways to monetize research missions so that even without a "space industry," those who help fund it would have a chance at a return on their investment.

But since NASA is tied into the government, there's probably WAAAY too much bureaucratic nonsense to make it possible, even if enough funding could be theoretically be attained. The US Post Office has to deal with such limitations and it's practically putting them out of business.

The government isn't very efficient. With that said, a falcon 9 launch is currently $4600 a kilogram to low earth orbit. Yes, it may get cheaper with re-usability - getting that down to $1000 a kilogram sounds possible with greater volume of launches and reusing the lower stages. That's still not particularly cheap.

What, other than orbital imagery and communications, can you reasonably do if it costs a grand per kilogram into space? Note that with communications, you are limited by available RF bandwidth, and have to compete with cellular networks (which are a lot cheaper to operate) and wi-fi to wired bridges (which are almost free to operate). So there's a finite amount of market need for comm satellites in the first place, since fiber optic is so much more efficient and cheaper except to remote locations.

Note that with some kind of mining scheme, you have the problems of :

1. You have to pay $1000 a kilogram for every bit of rocket fuel and equipment needed to relocate an asteroid. And you're gonna need a lot.

2. How do you get the ore down? You can't pay to package each piece, the only practical method sounds like a controlled impact into a desert where you can mine the crater. That's horrendously risky in that your predictions of where it lands depend on a model of the asteroid, an irregular object with an irregular interior, that probably can't be made accurate enough to eliminate the risk of hitting a populated area.

3. Even if you can solve #1 and #2, if you suddenly show up with 10x the world's current production of platinum or iridium, you cannot sell those metals at the market price. You'll essentially crash the market.

Self replicating factories, something that does pass the pencil test, requires radically more advanced technology than we have today (especially the fully self replicating models which would need the capability to make the microchips used in their own systems. This would almost certainly require general purpose atomic level manufacturing)

Edited March 8, 2015 by EzinX

[PB666]

Because it's there Humans always want to know what is behind that hill. Ot that big forest. Or that expanse of salt water. We can stall for some time, familiarising ourselves with new place, reshaping it to our liking and getting comfortable - but finally there will be enough curious individuals with too much time and resources on their hands to make another leap.

That is because there is a potential reward, that undescovered grazing land or pool of fish, or fruit tree. Its not just humans, all foraging and hunting animals have some curiousity about nature.

The problem is that the more we become familiar with Mars, the less we really want to go get trapped there. It is likely the that first americans got here (across the McKenzie range) as an accidental sea voyage, the genetics indicate a bottleneck for South American groups, the Bounty is another example. But for most other discoveries the discoverers tend to leave themselves with a way out. The trip to Mars at present is described as a one-way trip. Psychologically it would be bad mojo for NASA or ESA to strand folks in an gamma-ray machine without a way home. You could send them food, but in the end you would be sending them euthenasia drugs or narcotic pain relievers to deal with their ultimate fate.

[vger]

The trip to Mars at present is described as a one-way trip. Psychologically it would be bad mojo for NASA or ESA to strand folks in an gamma-ray machine without a way home.

In my opinion, the silicates in the soil is the biggest hurdle to having a Mars habitat now. If even a tiny bit of that gets into your lungs, you're going to have a very bad day. And it's not like they can just sweep it out the front door after they track it into the airlock. As anyone who has ever lived in a desert can tell you, sand gets in, and it gets everywhere. No matter how hard you try to keep it out.

[tater]

Yep. I'm about to experience that (springtime in New Mexico)

[mardlamock]

The government isn't very efficient. With that said, a falcon 9 launch is currently $4600 a kilogram to low earth orbit. Yes, it may get cheaper with re-usability - getting that down to $1000 a kilogram sounds possible with greater volume of launches and reusing the lower stages. That's still not particularly cheap.

What, other than orbital imagery and communications, can you reasonably do if it costs a grand per kilogram into space? Note that with communications, you are limited by available RF bandwidth, and have to compete with cellular networks (which are a lot cheaper to operate) and wi-fi to wired bridges (which are almost free to operate). So there's a finite amount of market need for comm satellites in the first place, since fiber optic is so much more efficient and cheaper except to remote locations.

Note that with some kind of mining scheme, you have the problems of :

1. You have to pay $1000 a kilogram for every bit of rocket fuel and equipment needed to relocate an asteroid. And you're gonna need a lot.

2. How do you get the ore down? You can't pay to package each piece, the only practical method sounds like a controlled impact into a desert where you can mine the crater. That's horrendously risky in that your predictions of where it lands depend on a model of the asteroid, an irregular object with an irregular interior, that probably can't be made accurate enough to eliminate the risk of hitting a populated area.

3. Even if you can solve #1 and #2, if you suddenly show up with 10x the world's current production of platinum or iridium, you cannot sell those metals at the market price. You'll essentially crash the market.

Self replicating factories, something that does pass the pencil test, requires radically more advanced technology than we have today (especially the fully self replicating models which would need the capability to make the microchips used in their own systems. This would almost certainly require general purpose atomic level manufacturing)

I highly disagree with pretty much everything you said. First off, if you have a cost per kg of $1000 it is a lot cheaper to send a bunch of satellites to handle communications than to build a tower on the ground, and controling satelites the satellites is as easy if you have the right software. You ve got a lot more coverage with satellites and you can provide your services internationally (cuz you rotatin), if you have a large enough constellation you can totally get constant coverage on a certain location. And the market can grow, a lot, we are seeing more and more requests for a faster mobile internet with greater coverage, satellites could do that.

As for the asteroid mining part:

1-You dont need to send all the equipment and fuel to the asteroid, if you made your moves right you could use the resources found there and not have to send all the fuel, and if you develop space manufacturing processes, you dont need to send ''all'' the equipment.

2-Sending it back piece by piece could actually be rentable, it currently costs 40k/kg to return mass from orbit using the dragon spacecraft, that could be cut to 10k/kg if we assume 1k/kg to launch, the current price of gold is 37k/kg, you ve already got a return percentage of 300% (of course that is not counting all other costs, but you can totally do it IMHO,and the price of gold is prolly gonna go up in the upcoming recession).

3-So what if you crash the market price? It will never go below the operational costs, because you wouldnt sell it otherwise, just as there is almost no scarcity of bread there is also no scarcity of bread producers. The increased supply in those metals would also open up room for highly efficient and cheaper electronics, which could even be reflected in a surge of demand.

[Stargate525]

I guess we would have to be very desperate to be motivated by the first, which leaves the latter. so, how can we convince the fat cat corporations of earth that going to the moon is evil profitable enough to put loads of money into this?

The same way that we 'convinced' the corporations of Earth that offshore oil rigs, fraking, early steam engines, and trans-atlantic colonies were profitable enough; we let them in on the ground floor, showed them the potential numbers of a profitable venture, and let them bask in the publicity of the thing. Before steam locomotives were ubiquitous, they were short haul freight movers, and before that they were circuit tourist attractions (much like modern spaceflight is becoming).

There are tons of minerals and ores on the moon that would be excellent for possible mining operations. We'll need the helium up there for research purposes soon enough. If we can ever get beamed power to work, it's also a nice safe place to stick nuclear reactors without pissing off Greenpeace. It would be an excellent place to stick some very large telescope arrays, especially on the dark side. Hell, get a coalition of Universities together to set up an array on the dark side, and watch the new exoplanets roll in.

[xcorps]

we 'convinced' the corporations of Earth

Who is we, and how did "we" convince oil companies that offshore drilling was the way to go? Pretty sure that the oil companies decided to invest in mineral exploitation without any mysterious "we". Casing perforation (fracking) is about as old as drilling. There was no "we" involved in it.

bask in the publicity of the thing.

What?

Edited March 13, 2015 by xcorps

[Stargate525]

Who is we, and how did "we" convince oil companies that offshore drilling was the way to go? Pretty sure that the oil companies decided to invest in mineral exploitation without any mysterious "we". Casing perforation (fracking) is about as old as drilling. There was no "we" involved in it.

What?

Oil companies didn't do offshore drilling until it was profitable, we convinced them by buying enough of their product to have them search out new avenues of acquisition. In the same way, rare earths and other hard-to-find-on-earth materials will, soon enough, mean that mining asteroids and the moon will turn enough of a profit for corporations to attempt it. Already there are asteroids valued in the tens of trillions of dollars worth of material.

What I was referring to with publicity is that there's more to a company than its figures; publicity and popular opinion is also a huge factor. Imagine the PR that would come from the first asteroid mining operation, or the spin from a large iron production going completely green by moving offworld?

[GreenWolf]

Oil companies didn't do offshore drilling until it was profitable, we convinced them by buying enough of their product to have them search out new avenues of acquisition. In the same way, rare earths and other hard-to-find-on-earth materials will, soon enough, mean that mining asteroids and the moon will turn enough of a profit for corporations to attempt it. Already there are asteroids valued in the tens of trillions of dollars worth of material.

What I was referring to with publicity is that there's more to a company than its figures; publicity and popular opinion is also a huge factor. Imagine the PR that would come from the first asteroid mining operation, or the spin from a large iron production going completely green by moving offworld?

What I can imagine is the incredibly bad PR they would get for destroying the world economy by dumping several trillion dollars of mineral resources into it at once.

[tater]

"We" is the market. If there is a market, and the moon (or a comet, or an asteroid) is the most effective way to serve the market, it will happen.

It fusion were to become a thing, and tritium was part of whatever technique in play, the moon might well become useful rather quickly.

[Stargate525]

What I can imagine is the incredibly bad PR they would get for destroying the world economy by dumping several trillion dollars of mineral resources into it at once.

If by 'at once' you mean 'as quickly as the company decides to dole them out' then yes. You're also seeming to think that these resources will simply appear one day by magic. Organizing and launching the operation will take a few years, and the mission itself could take years more, depending on the asteroid. The markets would know about the additional supply for at least weeks, more likely months, and any company capable enough to do this would also go diamond cartel on the whole operation and regulate supply.