3 ms·
In terms of what there is to gain, Habitation of the moon would promote the development of more self sustainable technology, new and improved materials (lightwe
by jacoblambda 10y ago
In terms of what there is to gain, Habitation of the moon would promote the development of more self sustainable technology, new and improved materials (lightweight rad shielding, cheap building materials such as regolith construction, etc), higher semiconductor yields, and cheaper methods of producing previously very expensive compounds and structures for the pharmaceutical industry.
- throwaway91111 10y agoIIRC the economics of a moon base (which is presumably what you're referring to) don't make sense in terms of fuel costs vs potential revenue. Could you illustrate what a "cash crop" might be for the moon?
- jacoblambda 10y agowell, the moon would likely only serve for research purposes until space faring society is a bit more established. The most likely "cash crop" for the moon would be serving as a drydock for spacecrafts. The low gravity would majorly reduce the cost and remove the size and profile constraints of said spacecrafts.
- throwaway91111 10y agoI think you're interpreting me wrong: the gravity well is the source of the cost. It'd make more sense to land and mine asteroids than the moon.
- jacoblambda 10y agoThe gravity well is partially a cost and partially a benefit. By having low gravity, the capacity to manipulate objects is greatly improved but having at least some gravity enables a lot of manufacturing processes that would otherwise be complicated by the lack of gravity. One example is laser sintering which needs some force to hold the powder in place. This process in particular is beneficial as it is very heavily utilised in rocket engine production. Also I agree that asteroid mining needs to happen however the moon would serve as a very good base of operations for such industries.
- RugnirViking 10y agoThe economy doesn't come into it. Consider the continued operation of such things as the IIS, which have no compelling reason to continue to exist. Research alone is a good enough reason, plus the potential for sponsorship/tv rights etc also recouping some of the costs for such things
- throwaway91111 10y agoThat is depressing as hell: we'll just throw money at something that makes good propaganda rather than makes sense to invest in.