3 ms·
Some of the justifications in the article are running against modern rocketry: Who really thinks we can mine water on the moon more cheaply than launching it fr
by greglindahl 10y ago
Some of the justifications in the article are running against modern rocketry: Who really thinks we can mine water on the moon more cheaply than launching it from Earth on a reusable rocket? Remember that it's not just SpaceX aiming at much lower launch costs, it's also Blue Origin.
- nine_k 10y agoThere are significant chunks of water ice on Moon. Evaporating and re-condensation of that water on Moon surface can be a cheaper and a more dependable source than shipping from Earth. Ideally, a Moon base should be able to produce key things, like energy, water, bulk building materials from local sources, and only depend on Earth for lighter-weight, high-tech supplies and machines.
- greglindahl 10y agoLess ideally, a Moon base could be an uneconomic way of doing all of these things, eating all of NASA's human spaceflight budget. So after getting ourselves stuck with the cost of the Shuttle and the cost of ISS, now we'll get ourselves stuck in the cost of a Moon base that's less reliable and more expensive than reusable launchers. The reusable launch thing will be proven out in 5-10 years, long before we could set up production on the moon.
- nine_k 10y agoI don't see a contradiction here. Reusable launchers bring stuff in from Earth. They are just relieved from doing water tanker missions. But, if there's need, they can definitely bring in some water, too. A partly self-replenishing Moon base is going to be cheaper to run than the ISS that depends on constant resupply from Earth.