3 ms·

I see a few problems with those points: * Yes, but unless all resources and future astronauts are all from said moon base then they have to leave Earth anyway.

I see a few problems with those points: * Yes, but unless all resources and future astronauts are all from said moon base then they have to leave Earth anyway. Stopping at the moon would take even more energy. * Close to Earth yes. But not really to anything else (the moon is relatively right next to earth compared to any other object really worth landing on). * Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. It'd be relatively waaaaay cheaper to send more space station modules then to either send raw resources + specially designed building equipment, or moon base modules. Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for it and pay my share in taxes to develop and build a self sustaining base on the moon. My reasoning is more of a engineers "because we can" mentality to a fun (IMO) challenge. We'd also benefit on Earth from the technology developed.

nordsieck 8y ago
> Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. There are a number of very smart people who believe that the next big thing is industry in space with materials not from earth.
- penagwin 8y ago
  Okay, I can see this. I know that a fair number of resources are extraordinarily rare on earth but space bodies are often almost exclusively made of - iridium for example). My knowledge beyond that is limited, I don't know how much those resources are worth, or if there are future uses for them we haven't discovered because of current cost barriers due to rarity. I'd say though, lets pretend that an entire "flight" to intercept an comet/asteroid/material-rich-spacebody (Sorry I don't know the technical terms here) could be reduced to 100million USD. That material would have to be worth that 100million USD, not to mention all of the R/D. Again personally I want humans to one day achieve it just for the heck of it - why not? But others are money driven and I'm not sure it makes actual financial sense (in terms of money making)
  - DerSaidin 8y ago
    If you need that material to be in space, for use in space, remember competing materials (from Earth) need to pay a large get-it-out-of-the-gravity-well tax. I think something currently in the order of $1k per kg.

nordsieck 8y ago

> Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. There are a number of very smart people who believe that the next big thing is industry in space with materials not from earth.

penagwin 8y ago
Okay, I can see this. I know that a fair number of resources are extraordinarily rare on earth but space bodies are often almost exclusively made of - iridium for example). My knowledge beyond that is limited, I don't know how much those resources are worth, or if there are future uses for them we haven't discovered because of current cost barriers due to rarity. I'd say though, lets pretend that an entire "flight" to intercept an comet/asteroid/material-rich-spacebody (Sorry I don't know the technical terms here) could be reduced to 100million USD. That material would have to be worth that 100million USD, not to mention all of the R/D. Again personally I want humans to one day achieve it just for the heck of it - why not? But others are money driven and I'm not sure it makes actual financial sense (in terms of money making)
- DerSaidin 8y ago
  If you need that material to be in space, for use in space, remember competing materials (from Earth) need to pay a large get-it-out-of-the-gravity-well tax. I think something currently in the order of $1k per kg.