4 ms·

They mention a few kinds of research that will be conducted. But where's the money in it? Is there something worth mining? You've got infinite dust, from which

They mention a few kinds of research that will be conducted. But where's the money in it? Is there something worth mining? You've got infinite dust, from which can be made a kind of concrete. Infinite solar power. Possibly water. What else? What are the advantages of building a base on the moon vs building it in orbit?

bryanlarsen 5y ago
What are the advantages of building a base in Antarctica? Benefits are fairly nebulous but still real. Building a base in lunar or a halo orbit is pretty stupid. Very few advantages over earth orbit; substantially higher costs mean we'll use it a lot less. An earth orbit station has been very useful. However once it ages out the best replacement is probably just fitting out a Starship to orbit for many months and return.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  The bases in Antarctica are important because once there is a clear economic incentive, the Antarctic Treaty will end and each country will try to grab a piece. You can let the morons build bases there and nuke them at the last second, but it's more friendly to keep a few bases and use that as a antecedent to pick your part when the negotiations starts.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > the Antarctic Treaty will end and each country will try to grab a piece Why not make a new treaty? It couldn't be more clear that it's doable and effective.
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      In the paper, the treaty if forever. But once there is a clear economical or military reason to have a non scientific base there, the treaty will melt in no time. Imagine that all the nuclear powers (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel?, Japan??, South Africa???) decide to split the Antarctica in equally sized pieces. (Perhaps replace North Korea with Germany.) What are the other countries going to do? [Hi from Argentina!] Invade the Antarctica? Launch a conventional war? Blockade Antarctica? An economical blockade of the nuclear powers? Make a very long speech in the UN so the nuclear powers get so bored that decide to return to the previous status?
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Most international issues are resolved without war these days - and throughout history. That's why it's called the 'Rules-based international order'.
        gus_massa 5y ago
        I agree. That's why each government force the local mapmakers to include every piece of land they are claiming in the maps, in spite it's controlled by other country, or the legal status is not clear like a piece of the Antarctic. Also, peaceful activities in the are like a research base of a small local population are considered in the discussions. Anyway, in these discussions it's nice to use a photo of your nuclear silos as the background of your video in Zoom. A lot of small border disputes are resolved peacefully, but it's usually about an area that nobody cares too much, or that is small enough that does not justify the cost of a war. > 'Rules-based international order' Yep, but for some unclear reason the first 5 countries in the list have veto power in the UN. IIRC one had nuclear weapons before, and the other 4 decided that making their own nuclear weapons were a good idea. I don't expect this to escalate to a global thermonuclear war. Some countries will just decide to abandon the treaty, occupy whatever part they like, with some negotiation about the border. And perhaps have some conventional naval and terrestrial forces nearby in case it's needed.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > Some countries will just decide to abandon the treaty, occupy whatever part they like, with some negotiation about the border. And perhaps have some conventional naval and terrestrial forces nearby in case it's needed. Why? They signed the treaty, and many more, in the first place. > each government force the local mapmakers to include every piece of land they are claiming in the maps They do? It's hard to imagine a democratic government even having that power. > A lot of small border disputes are resolved peacefully, but it's usually about an area that nobody cares too much, or that is small enough that does not justify the cost of a war. Every dispute between democratic countries is resolved without war.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Would there be a commercial benefit for an earth orbit station? I believe not at current prices, otherwise companies would have launched one. As soon as you consider private investment (as opposed to essentially charity funding of pure research/exploration), then looking at analogies vs an Antarctic site or deep ocean site may be quite relevant - those are also sites that are somewhat difficult to reach and build on but easier than Moon on Mars; so for any commercial argument in the form of "mining resources" there has to be an answer why suffer the difficulties on the moon instead of (lesser) difficulties in Antarctica.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Out of top of my head. 1. If humans are a future part of the picture, buried structures on the Moon will protect them against cosmic rays - much harder to do that in an orbital station. 2. Same goes for gravity. While a huge rotating station is technically possible, Moon has its 0.16G naturally everywhere. Might be better for health, is certainly better for plumbing and other sorts of equipment. 3. Water is actually pretty important. The spots on the Moon where it can be produced may turn "hot", as different countries try and claim them.
kitsunesoba 5y ago
Zooming into building on the moon vs. building in orbit, one big difference is that with some bootstrapping, on the moon a number of materials can be sourced locally. Some things will still need to be shipped in, but eliminating many of the most cumbersome materials (water, aluminum, iron, and titanium among others) will cut the number of supply missions down considerably. In contrast, everything in orbit needs to be launched from Earth, and shipping up raw resources doesn't make sense because you don't really have the space for processing and manufacturing facilities. That said, this assumes a more robust and steadily growing presence. If all you want is a tiny antarctic style outpost a lot of that doesn't matter.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 5y ago
  All the resource questions essentially may make building the base cheaper by sourcing some materials locally and bootstrapping, but it does not answer the main question about the economic purpose of the base. What benefit exactly does having that base give back to whoever built it; who wants to pay for the existence of that base and why? Insofar that the base provides materials and experience for building future bases, that just postpones answering the real question - what exactly is the expected benefit from those future bases? Because the exact answer matters a lot for any discussions on where and how to do things. If the eventual answer is "research and exploration", then suddenly it's very important to consider exact needs of the sponsors of that research which can't be done on earth - e.g. if it's zero-g research, then a moon base doesn't help that and you need orbit, no matter what the cost difference is. If the eventual answer is "eternal glory to the sponsor", which arguably was the goal which funded a big part of the space race, certainly more than any pure scientific goals, then the appropriate metric is some sort of "PR per dollar" ratio, and there a Moon base probably wins over orbital bases simply because orbital bases have been built but a Moon base has not. If the eventual answer is "make humanity interplanetary", then suddenly it's very important to consider what exactly the sponsors of that social project want (because in that scenario that's a subsidized colony that exists to fulfil the desires of some Earth people/organization spending resources to allow it to exist), but in any case it would look like that an orbital base likely does not fill that need and neither does Moon except as support for a potential Mars base, so again the cost difference doesn't matter because the other options simply don't fill the need. If the eventual answer is "because it will be commercially self-sustaining" then that would need an explanation of what resources exactly would be cheaper to mine from there (at great cost and difficulty) for the purposes of Earth (because any non-Earth uses go right back to question of why would Earth fund those uses instead, they're just a discount on that purpose) as opposed from existing resources, or ocean floor, or Antarctica, etc because with current technology (hopefully changing due to Starship et al), if there were pallets of processed gold bars sitting on a prepared landing pad on the Moon, it would not be worth the cost to fly there to pick them up, much less ship mining equipment to do anything realistic.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bryanlarsen 5y ago

What are the advantages of building a base in Antarctica? Benefits are fairly nebulous but still real. Building a base in lunar or a halo orbit is pretty stupid. Very few advantages over earth orbit; substantially higher costs mean we'll use it a lot less. An earth orbit station has been very useful. However once it ages out the best replacement is probably just fitting out a Starship to orbit for many months and return.

gus_massa 5y ago
The bases in Antarctica are important because once there is a clear economic incentive, the Antarctic Treaty will end and each country will try to grab a piece. You can let the morons build bases there and nuke them at the last second, but it's more friendly to keep a few bases and use that as a antecedent to pick your part when the negotiations starts.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > the Antarctic Treaty will end and each country will try to grab a piece Why not make a new treaty? It couldn't be more clear that it's doable and effective.
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    In the paper, the treaty if forever. But once there is a clear economical or military reason to have a non scientific base there, the treaty will melt in no time. Imagine that all the nuclear powers (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel?, Japan??, South Africa???) decide to split the Antarctica in equally sized pieces. (Perhaps replace North Korea with Germany.) What are the other countries going to do? [Hi from Argentina!] Invade the Antarctica? Launch a conventional war? Blockade Antarctica? An economical blockade of the nuclear powers? Make a very long speech in the UN so the nuclear powers get so bored that decide to return to the previous status?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Most international issues are resolved without war these days - and throughout history. That's why it's called the 'Rules-based international order'.
      - gus_massa 5y ago
        I agree. That's why each government force the local mapmakers to include every piece of land they are claiming in the maps, in spite it's controlled by other country, or the legal status is not clear like a piece of the Antarctic. Also, peaceful activities in the are like a research base of a small local population are considered in the discussions. Anyway, in these discussions it's nice to use a photo of your nuclear silos as the background of your video in Zoom. A lot of small border disputes are resolved peacefully, but it's usually about an area that nobody cares too much, or that is small enough that does not justify the cost of a war. > 'Rules-based international order' Yep, but for some unclear reason the first 5 countries in the list have veto power in the UN. IIRC one had nuclear weapons before, and the other 4 decided that making their own nuclear weapons were a good idea. I don't expect this to escalate to a global thermonuclear war. Some countries will just decide to abandon the treaty, occupy whatever part they like, with some negotiation about the border. And perhaps have some conventional naval and terrestrial forces nearby in case it's needed.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > Some countries will just decide to abandon the treaty, occupy whatever part they like, with some negotiation about the border. And perhaps have some conventional naval and terrestrial forces nearby in case it's needed. Why? They signed the treaty, and many more, in the first place. > each government force the local mapmakers to include every piece of land they are claiming in the maps They do? It's hard to imagine a democratic government even having that power. > A lot of small border disputes are resolved peacefully, but it's usually about an area that nobody cares too much, or that is small enough that does not justify the cost of a war. Every dispute between democratic countries is resolved without war.
PeterisP 5y ago
Would there be a commercial benefit for an earth orbit station? I believe not at current prices, otherwise companies would have launched one. As soon as you consider private investment (as opposed to essentially charity funding of pure research/exploration), then looking at analogies vs an Antarctic site or deep ocean site may be quite relevant - those are also sites that are somewhat difficult to reach and build on but easier than Moon on Mars; so for any commercial argument in the form of "mining resources" there has to be an answer why suffer the difficulties on the moon instead of (lesser) difficulties in Antarctica.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Out of top of my head. 1. If humans are a future part of the picture, buried structures on the Moon will protect them against cosmic rays - much harder to do that in an orbital station. 2. Same goes for gravity. While a huge rotating station is technically possible, Moon has its 0.16G naturally everywhere. Might be better for health, is certainly better for plumbing and other sorts of equipment. 3. Water is actually pretty important. The spots on the Moon where it can be produced may turn "hot", as different countries try and claim them.

kitsunesoba 5y ago

Zooming into building on the moon vs. building in orbit, one big difference is that with some bootstrapping, on the moon a number of materials can be sourced locally. Some things will still need to be shipped in, but eliminating many of the most cumbersome materials (water, aluminum, iron, and titanium among others) will cut the number of supply missions down considerably. In contrast, everything in orbit needs to be launched from Earth, and shipping up raw resources doesn't make sense because you don't really have the space for processing and manufacturing facilities. That said, this assumes a more robust and steadily growing presence. If all you want is a tiny antarctic style outpost a lot of that doesn't matter.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 5y ago
All the resource questions essentially may make building the base cheaper by sourcing some materials locally and bootstrapping, but it does not answer the main question about the economic purpose of the base. What benefit exactly does having that base give back to whoever built it; who wants to pay for the existence of that base and why? Insofar that the base provides materials and experience for building future bases, that just postpones answering the real question - what exactly is the expected benefit from those future bases? Because the exact answer matters a lot for any discussions on where and how to do things. If the eventual answer is "research and exploration", then suddenly it's very important to consider exact needs of the sponsors of that research which can't be done on earth - e.g. if it's zero-g research, then a moon base doesn't help that and you need orbit, no matter what the cost difference is. If the eventual answer is "eternal glory to the sponsor", which arguably was the goal which funded a big part of the space race, certainly more than any pure scientific goals, then the appropriate metric is some sort of "PR per dollar" ratio, and there a Moon base probably wins over orbital bases simply because orbital bases have been built but a Moon base has not. If the eventual answer is "make humanity interplanetary", then suddenly it's very important to consider what exactly the sponsors of that social project want (because in that scenario that's a subsidized colony that exists to fulfil the desires of some Earth people/organization spending resources to allow it to exist), but in any case it would look like that an orbital base likely does not fill that need and neither does Moon except as support for a potential Mars base, so again the cost difference doesn't matter because the other options simply don't fill the need. If the eventual answer is "because it will be commercially self-sustaining" then that would need an explanation of what resources exactly would be cheaper to mine from there (at great cost and difficulty) for the purposes of Earth (because any non-Earth uses go right back to question of why would Earth fund those uses instead, they're just a discount on that purpose) as opposed from existing resources, or ocean floor, or Antarctica, etc because with current technology (hopefully changing due to Starship et al), if there were pallets of processed gold bars sitting on a prepared landing pad on the Moon, it would not be worth the cost to fly there to pick them up, much less ship mining equipment to do anything realistic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]