6 ms·

Sure, becoming 100% self sufficient wouldn't be a reasonable short term goal but I can't imagine there being any product worth trading in the long term over suc

Sure, becoming 100% self sufficient wouldn't be a reasonable short term goal but I can't imagine there being any product worth trading in the long term over such distance and given such cost for logistics?

wefarrell 8y ago
Tourism will probably be the first private industry.
stubish 8y ago
Maybe nothing worth shipping back to earth, but perhaps resources for shipping to orbit. Fuel, space ship components, or entire ships or satellites. If nothing else, there is real estate. Might not be worth much, but there is a lot of it.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  > Maybe nothing worth shipping back to earth Helium 3 is certainly worth shipping even at a premium.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Moon-mined Helium 3 is currently a non-solution in search of a problem.
  - RobLach 8y ago
    Unless there are widespread helium-3 fusion reactors, the demand for it is about $2000/liter for mostly scientific and imaging purposes. Even then it’s a sort of a niche driven price since when the US was willing to bother decaying tritium for it it was like $100 a liter. Making a helium-3 fusion reactor is a tougher problem than mining on the moon. And even then making helium-3 on earth is cheaper than going to the moon to mine it. Mining the moon for Helium-3 would be something someone would do once a colony is established, not a reason to establish one. Probably the most lucrative thing to mine on the moon is water.
pfisch 8y ago
I imagine people used to think that when it was France trading with China beyond things exclusively in China like silk. Prices go down over time. Also it might be worth it for gold.
richardknop 8y ago
Water possibly could be of great value in the future? Moon has plenty of drinking water. Maybe gold, not sure if there’s gold on the Moon?
- krisoft 8y ago
  What happened here on earth in your imagined scenario where it's worth importing water from the moon? (and how did we survive that long enough for a market to develop?)
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    To be fair, I hesitate to spend €1 on a liter of spring water today. However for a single drop of moon water I might trade my car, sex, or significant work. Refined aluminum was once scarcer than gold, and aluminum jewelry was extraordinarily expensive.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  Desalination is expensive but i think it might be cheaper than moon water.
  - aristophenes 8y ago
    I was about to upvote you, then realized desalinization is not even expensive anymore. Shipping water from the moon to earth is just a really really bad idea. Ha, even burning the fuels to send the rockets into space would create more water here on earth than we could bring back. Fuel + Oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water
- pjc50 8y ago
  Ah yes, the entirely viable project of moving water from a bone dry vacuum rock to a planet 2/3 covered by water. I'm not sure it would be viable to return gold from the moon even if the moon was made of solid gold.
  - richardknop 8y ago
gaius 8y ago
He3 would be a very profitable export for the moon if we ever develop commercial fusion power on Earth
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  We put helium in children’s balloons and it’s down here with us at the bottom of the gravity well. It’s cheaper to refine the Earth’s helium than import it from the moon. And we have no use for Helium 3 now nor for the next 30 years. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshine.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshin... > Firstly, nobody's built a commercially successful fusion reactor yet. ITER plan to build a working test-bed; it's logical successor would be a working prototype first generation power reactor. There are huge obstacles to overcome, not least in developing neutron capture techniques and breeding D/T fuel. These are engineering problems (sorry, annoying paywall) and theoretically amenable to solution — but at a price of billions of euros and decades of work, and even then, it may turn out to be too costly to be a viable competitor for well-understood fourth generation fission technology and a mature waste disposal/fuel recycling chain. And that's before we look to a speculative second generation reactor, running on a different type of fuel, that — because of the higher Coulomb barrier between He nuclei — requires a far higher temperature (on the order of 500M to 1Bn degrees celsius, rather than the relatively chilly 100M degrees C required for D/T fusion). > Given the average generation time for a new reactor technology of 20-30 years, and development costs on the order of $50Bn-100Bn per generation, we won't be even thinking about prototyping an He3 reactor until 2060 at the earliest.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Looks like we both touched a nerve there but I’ve no idea why!
simion314 8y ago
I imagine that in the beginning you will have mostly scientific facilities , like telescopes on the dark side of the moon(you will need scientist, technicians and other stuff around this big telescopes). There could also be facilities for experiments that can't be done on Earth, like things that can grow better on low gravity, there may be materials/gases that are rare on Earth and we could grab from asteroids so having space stations and bases around the solar system would be helpful.
- KMag 8y ago
  > the dark side of the moon BTW, this isn't a real thing
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > BTW, this isn't a real thing Yes, the dark side of the Moon is a real thing. It's the side that doesn't get Earth-lit nights.
    - thebluehawk 8y ago
      That's an odd convoluted definition that I've never heard of before. I think the point the other poster was making is that "far side of the moon" is far more specific, accurate and useful term.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > That's an odd convoluted definition that I've never heard of before It's a “definition” in the sense that it is a description semantically equivalent to what the phrase “dark side of the moon” has always referred to; it is not, however, a description of the etymology of the term, which derives instead from the long established use of “dark” to mean mysterious, hidden from knowledge, obscure, occult, etc.
      - mLuby 8y ago
        In this case, silent side of the moon is more useful, since that's why it's so attractive to scientists.
kamaal 8y ago
That's the same dilemma some one making a new car like Tesla has to face. So you first make something the rich people want. Like luxury residences in spaces, Elysium like. Like really really affluent neighborhoods for ultra rich. Tourism is another part. Make people go to space, stay for a few earth-days, have them see some spectacular astronomical phenomenon. Sky size theaters, Toy space shuttles like we have dashing cars, Disney land like attractions etc etc. The other part of course is permanent science labs, where you do high quality research and development. Something like the Large Hadron Collider takes a lot of real estate and resources on earth to build. Eventually that kind of work can be done in space. That will make a lot of smart people want to work in space. Of course since resources are plenty in space, and energy is just pointing you array of panels at sun. I'm guessing due to the economics of it, a lot of other people might want to stay and work there. Like electricity strapped countries, might want to manufacture in space. The use cases are endless that way. Eventually you extend it to everybody else.
BurningFrog 8y ago
> over such distance and given such cost The moon is just a few days away. The costs are not a given. With new better tech, then can come waay down. Also note that the freight ships need not be manned.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
The most obvious trading I can imagine would be selling in-orbit manufacturing of spacecraft and space facilities to planet-based interests, in exchange for hi-tech electronics and food.
standerman 8y ago
digital entertainment

wefarrell 8y ago

Tourism will probably be the first private industry.

stubish 8y ago

Maybe nothing worth shipping back to earth, but perhaps resources for shipping to orbit. Fuel, space ship components, or entire ships or satellites. If nothing else, there is real estate. Might not be worth much, but there is a lot of it.

A2017U1 8y ago
> Maybe nothing worth shipping back to earth Helium 3 is certainly worth shipping even at a premium.
- vkou 8y ago
  Moon-mined Helium 3 is currently a non-solution in search of a problem.
- RobLach 8y ago
  Unless there are widespread helium-3 fusion reactors, the demand for it is about $2000/liter for mostly scientific and imaging purposes. Even then it’s a sort of a niche driven price since when the US was willing to bother decaying tritium for it it was like $100 a liter. Making a helium-3 fusion reactor is a tougher problem than mining on the moon. And even then making helium-3 on earth is cheaper than going to the moon to mine it. Mining the moon for Helium-3 would be something someone would do once a colony is established, not a reason to establish one. Probably the most lucrative thing to mine on the moon is water.

pfisch 8y ago

I imagine people used to think that when it was France trading with China beyond things exclusively in China like silk. Prices go down over time. Also it might be worth it for gold.

richardknop 8y ago

Water possibly could be of great value in the future? Moon has plenty of drinking water. Maybe gold, not sure if there’s gold on the Moon?

krisoft 8y ago
What happened here on earth in your imagined scenario where it's worth importing water from the moon? (and how did we survive that long enough for a market to develop?)
- dotancohen 8y ago
  To be fair, I hesitate to spend €1 on a liter of spring water today. However for a single drop of moon water I might trade my car, sex, or significant work. Refined aluminum was once scarcer than gold, and aluminum jewelry was extraordinarily expensive.
lawlessone 8y ago
Desalination is expensive but i think it might be cheaper than moon water.
- aristophenes 8y ago
  I was about to upvote you, then realized desalinization is not even expensive anymore. Shipping water from the moon to earth is just a really really bad idea. Ha, even burning the fuels to send the rockets into space would create more water here on earth than we could bring back. Fuel + Oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water
pjc50 8y ago
Ah yes, the entirely viable project of moving water from a bone dry vacuum rock to a planet 2/3 covered by water. I'm not sure it would be viable to return gold from the moon even if the moon was made of solid gold.
- richardknop 8y ago

gaius 8y ago

He3 would be a very profitable export for the moon if we ever develop commercial fusion power on Earth

barry-cotter 8y ago
We put helium in children’s balloons and it’s down here with us at the bottom of the gravity well. It’s cheaper to refine the Earth’s helium than import it from the moon. And we have no use for Helium 3 now nor for the next 30 years. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshine.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshin... > Firstly, nobody's built a commercially successful fusion reactor yet. ITER plan to build a working test-bed; it's logical successor would be a working prototype first generation power reactor. There are huge obstacles to overcome, not least in developing neutron capture techniques and breeding D/T fuel. These are engineering problems (sorry, annoying paywall) and theoretically amenable to solution — but at a price of billions of euros and decades of work, and even then, it may turn out to be too costly to be a viable competitor for well-understood fourth generation fission technology and a mature waste disposal/fuel recycling chain. And that's before we look to a speculative second generation reactor, running on a different type of fuel, that — because of the higher Coulomb barrier between He nuclei — requires a far higher temperature (on the order of 500M to 1Bn degrees celsius, rather than the relatively chilly 100M degrees C required for D/T fusion). > Given the average generation time for a new reactor technology of 20-30 years, and development costs on the order of $50Bn-100Bn per generation, we won't be even thinking about prototyping an He3 reactor until 2060 at the earliest.
- gaius 8y ago
  Looks like we both touched a nerve there but I’ve no idea why!

simion314 8y ago

I imagine that in the beginning you will have mostly scientific facilities , like telescopes on the dark side of the moon(you will need scientist, technicians and other stuff around this big telescopes). There could also be facilities for experiments that can't be done on Earth, like things that can grow better on low gravity, there may be materials/gases that are rare on Earth and we could grab from asteroids so having space stations and bases around the solar system would be helpful.

KMag 8y ago
> the dark side of the moon BTW, this isn't a real thing
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > BTW, this isn't a real thing Yes, the dark side of the Moon is a real thing. It's the side that doesn't get Earth-lit nights.
  - thebluehawk 8y ago
    That's an odd convoluted definition that I've never heard of before. I think the point the other poster was making is that "far side of the moon" is far more specific, accurate and useful term.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > That's an odd convoluted definition that I've never heard of before It's a “definition” in the sense that it is a description semantically equivalent to what the phrase “dark side of the moon” has always referred to; it is not, however, a description of the etymology of the term, which derives instead from the long established use of “dark” to mean mysterious, hidden from knowledge, obscure, occult, etc.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      In this case, silent side of the moon is more useful, since that's why it's so attractive to scientists.

kamaal 8y ago

That's the same dilemma some one making a new car like Tesla has to face. So you first make something the rich people want. Like luxury residences in spaces, Elysium like. Like really really affluent neighborhoods for ultra rich. Tourism is another part. Make people go to space, stay for a few earth-days, have them see some spectacular astronomical phenomenon. Sky size theaters, Toy space shuttles like we have dashing cars, Disney land like attractions etc etc. The other part of course is permanent science labs, where you do high quality research and development. Something like the Large Hadron Collider takes a lot of real estate and resources on earth to build. Eventually that kind of work can be done in space. That will make a lot of smart people want to work in space. Of course since resources are plenty in space, and energy is just pointing you array of panels at sun. I'm guessing due to the economics of it, a lot of other people might want to stay and work there. Like electricity strapped countries, might want to manufacture in space. The use cases are endless that way. Eventually you extend it to everybody else.

BurningFrog 8y ago

> over such distance and given such cost The moon is just a few days away. The costs are not a given. With new better tech, then can come waay down. Also note that the freight ships need not be manned.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

The most obvious trading I can imagine would be selling in-orbit manufacturing of spacecraft and space facilities to planet-based interests, in exchange for hi-tech electronics and food.

standerman 8y ago

digital entertainment