4 ms·

Funny, I was just listening to a podcast where Andy Weir (author of The Martian) was interviewed about his new book, regarding a potential city on the moon. To

Funny, I was just listening to a podcast where Andy Weir (author of The Martian) was interviewed about his new book, regarding a potential city on the moon. To justify a book about that Weir had to think of an economic reason why there would be a city on the moon, because cities need economic rationales. He theorized that the price of space travel had been driven down enough that it could support a tourist economy, so the economics of a Moon city could be modeled on Caribbean tourist cities. Conveniently, 85% of the moon rocks are anorthite- which smelts into aluminum, oxygen, and silicon among other things. All of which would be very helpful for building a moon city. Weir didn't have much to say about international treaties mentioned in this NYT article. But a key connection between the article and how he ask and answers the question is that they both seem to regard a budding space tourism industry as a foundational next step.

BuildTheRobots 9y ago
He's actually written "a 3,000-word (and spoiler-free) treatise laying out the economics behind his fictional moon city" available on business insider [1] edit: I read this last week and 30 minutes later signed up to audiable to get it as my free book (ebook reader broke, amazon delivery too slow). It's an enjoyable book, but i wouldn't go into it expecting another Martian - it's fluffier. Apart from that, if I couldn't afford the $70k holiday cost, then I'd probably have to get a temp job working up there for a bit - though the economics of migrating between aren't discussed. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/andy-weir-artemis-moon-city-economics-the-martian-2017-11 http://uk.businessinsider.com/andy-weir-artemis-moon-city-ec...
- rtpg 9y ago
  One thing I'd worry about working on the noon would be finding myself in the sort of indentured servitude many cruise line workers and domestic helpers find themselves across the world. I bet you won't be making $20/hour on the moon, if certain people have their way.
  - ianai 9y ago
    Asimov was really good for questions like this. I bet somewhere out there he wrote about why people would go to such places. -edit- He even wrote a book titled “space colonies”. First I’ve heard of it.
douglaswlance 9y ago
I think aging wealthy folks will move to space in droves once the amenities are developed. Low-G is great on the knees.
- kylek 9y ago
  Pending the trip up there doesn't pulverize your bones.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Getting to space is a relatively peaceful experience. It's the coming back down part that can be a bit more intense since 'aggressive atmospheric braking' is one of the most efficient forms of reentry. To put some numbers here the Space Shuttle only hit about 3g during exit. For comparison roller coasters can briefly hit around 6gs. Technology like SpaceX's BFR could potentially bring the g forces even lower. As its current design entails in orbit refueling, efficiency in launch is not all that important. The cost of fuel, relative to the costs involved in space flight, is negligible.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Weir didn't have much to say about international treaties mentioned in this NYT article The assumption about these treaties, at least in the private space circles in which I used to find myself, was that they will be broken and re-written. (There is strategy in the timing of said breach, which is why everyone who matters is happy to leave it in place for now.)
joshontheweb 9y ago
I listened to this as well. Another interesting thing he mentioned was that you could use calcium as a conductor on the moon. Apparently it is a better conductor than copper and is abundantly available. It doesn’t work on earth because it reacts poorly with the oxygen atmosphere.
gaius 9y ago
The economic case for the moon is harvesting He3, once you have figured out fusion of course.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  This is a science-fiction premise, and not entirely accurate (although I did enjoy watching Moon). Without Star Trek level tech to mine and move, the moon isn’t an economically viable source of He3. We have everything we need for fusion here on Earth, except the know-how.
tsukikage 9y ago
One economic case for the moon is as a source of mass in Earth orbit for staging exploration/utilisation of the rest of space. Low gravity and no atmosphere makes it more attractive for raw materials than Earth is. Large Andy Weir style human settlement isn't required; this is a case for automated moon-based facilities for harvesting raw materials, performing whatever automated processing/fabbing is required, then launching them to where they're actually needed for considerably less than the current $25k/kg cost of getting them out of Earth's gravity well. Ultimately the only thing that absolutely needs to come all the way up out of Earth's gravity is canned homo sapiens; automated production of everything else can be arranged remotely.
rurban 9y ago
A tourist-based space economy is bollocks. "Space tourism is not a market, merely a way to kill rich wastrels until parents, heirs and trustees organize to stop them." http://launchloop.com/UpwardBound http://launchloop.com/UpwardBound Keith Lofstrom There's real money and economy up there. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGcvv3683Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGcvv3683Os

BuildTheRobots 9y ago

He's actually written "a 3,000-word (and spoiler-free) treatise laying out the economics behind his fictional moon city" available on business insider [1] edit: I read this last week and 30 minutes later signed up to audiable to get it as my free book (ebook reader broke, amazon delivery too slow). It's an enjoyable book, but i wouldn't go into it expecting another Martian - it's fluffier. Apart from that, if I couldn't afford the $70k holiday cost, then I'd probably have to get a temp job working up there for a bit - though the economics of migrating between aren't discussed. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/andy-weir-artemis-moon-city-economics-the-martian-2017-11 http://uk.businessinsider.com/andy-weir-artemis-moon-city-ec...

rtpg 9y ago
One thing I'd worry about working on the noon would be finding myself in the sort of indentured servitude many cruise line workers and domestic helpers find themselves across the world. I bet you won't be making $20/hour on the moon, if certain people have their way.
- ianai 9y ago
  Asimov was really good for questions like this. I bet somewhere out there he wrote about why people would go to such places. -edit- He even wrote a book titled “space colonies”. First I’ve heard of it.

douglaswlance 9y ago

I think aging wealthy folks will move to space in droves once the amenities are developed. Low-G is great on the knees.

kylek 9y ago
Pending the trip up there doesn't pulverize your bones.
- indubitable 9y ago
  Getting to space is a relatively peaceful experience. It's the coming back down part that can be a bit more intense since 'aggressive atmospheric braking' is one of the most efficient forms of reentry. To put some numbers here the Space Shuttle only hit about 3g during exit. For comparison roller coasters can briefly hit around 6gs. Technology like SpaceX's BFR could potentially bring the g forces even lower. As its current design entails in orbit refueling, efficiency in launch is not all that important. The cost of fuel, relative to the costs involved in space flight, is negligible.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Weir didn't have much to say about international treaties mentioned in this NYT article The assumption about these treaties, at least in the private space circles in which I used to find myself, was that they will be broken and re-written. (There is strategy in the timing of said breach, which is why everyone who matters is happy to leave it in place for now.)

joshontheweb 9y ago

I listened to this as well. Another interesting thing he mentioned was that you could use calcium as a conductor on the moon. Apparently it is a better conductor than copper and is abundantly available. It doesn’t work on earth because it reacts poorly with the oxygen atmosphere.

gaius 9y ago

The economic case for the moon is harvesting He3, once you have figured out fusion of course.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
This is a science-fiction premise, and not entirely accurate (although I did enjoy watching Moon). Without Star Trek level tech to mine and move, the moon isn’t an economically viable source of He3. We have everything we need for fusion here on Earth, except the know-how.

tsukikage 9y ago

One economic case for the moon is as a source of mass in Earth orbit for staging exploration/utilisation of the rest of space. Low gravity and no atmosphere makes it more attractive for raw materials than Earth is. Large Andy Weir style human settlement isn't required; this is a case for automated moon-based facilities for harvesting raw materials, performing whatever automated processing/fabbing is required, then launching them to where they're actually needed for considerably less than the current $25k/kg cost of getting them out of Earth's gravity well. Ultimately the only thing that absolutely needs to come all the way up out of Earth's gravity is canned homo sapiens; automated production of everything else can be arranged remotely.

rurban 9y ago

A tourist-based space economy is bollocks. "Space tourism is not a market, merely a way to kill rich wastrels until parents, heirs and trustees organize to stop them." http://launchloop.com/UpwardBound http://launchloop.com/UpwardBound Keith Lofstrom There's real money and economy up there. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGcvv3683Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGcvv3683Os