3 ms·
> That’s how you go from proof of concept to economic viability I don't think this is particularly coherent in this case. It's commercial, but there is no priv
by ke88y 4y ago
> That’s how you go from proof of concept to economic viability
I don't think this is particularly coherent in this case. It's commercial, but there is no private sector customer.
All of the customers are government scientific agencies. It's all still very much science and/or nation-state prestige-driven. What's more, it's unclear what the commercial case for lunar landing would be in the near term, where "near term" means "any reasonable expectation of return on capital that doesn't come from taxpayers".
- opportune 4y agoThat’s a fair criticism, but one important distinction is that this develops infrastructure and expertise for purely economically/recreationally motivated projects down the line. As for economic motivations in the near term, a lot I can think of are indeed still based on public funds, but one important thing about commercial landing being viable is that those publically funded endeavors don’t need to work the bureaucracy engine to get a government launch/can span governmental boundaries. If some US or UAE entity wants a telescope array on the moon, if they have the money for it, they could just pay for a commercial lunar lander. If the DOE wants to test he-3 mining they don’t need to go through congress to get NASA to deliver their payload.