6 ms·

Apollo's Sequel Will Be a Gold Rush

15 points by Hooke 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
What a hellspawn shitty era. Such a vast human potential, using absurd national laws of property to try to gobble up & dominate something vast. There should be reasons to try for the moon & ideally further. But theres something sick & detestable about the land rush of control going on. These flag planting exercises in no way justify such large scale dominion. This is pathetic & revilesome.
- tempodox 3y ago
  Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. -- Gordon Gekko
  - i_am_a_peasant 3y ago
    Oh I've wanted to watch a movie that's along those lines. thanks!
- sokoloff 3y ago
  There’s no lack of reasons to explore. There is often lack of funding. Explorations leading to colonization of other places here on earth were funded with an economic return in mind, largely of necessity, because that’s how those projects get enough different people aligned behind a common goal. It’s great to abstractly want to explore the moon. That requires tons of resources that need to paid for somehow.
Animats 3y ago
What's the revenue model? The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller. China's Tiangong space station can hold 6 people, but currently has only 3. Humans in space just aren't that useful.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Believe it or not, people actually want to go and live on other worlds.
- skissane 3y ago
  > What's the revenue model? (1) Lunar holidays for the ultra-rich. (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon. (3) Professional sports–first ever professional [insert your favourite sport here] game/match/race/etc on the moon. (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours, we have to build one even bigger in response! (5) Scientific research – e.g. can mammals reproduce in lunar gravity? > The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller There is more than one successor planned. And I think with SpaceX Starship, launching much larger stations/modules is becoming a very real possibility. Once Starship is demonstrated to be operationally viable (not quite there yet but could happen this year), a lot of current plans will change, since the mass and volue budgets suddenly get a lot bigger.
  - evgen 3y ago
    > (1) Lunar holidays for the ultra-rich An incredibly small market given the cost of getting a human to the moon and keeping them there. There will be no economy of scale here for quite a while so this is an unlikely driver of any revenue. Tourism is barely a thing for orbital trips and not even close to being sustainable for such a small energy expenditure compared to a lunar visit. > (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon. Never going to happen. Chicken-egg problem here and a complete fantasy. > (3) Professional sports So rediculous it does not even rise to the level of fantasy. > (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours, Possible, but not quite the national motivation it was in the midst of the space race. In the 60s and 70s existential conflict with a competing super-power could barely get flags and footprints on the moon. What passes for modern nationalism is not enough to sustain a lunar presence. > (5) Scientific research This is the most likely of any options presented so far, but is still completely reliant upon the government teat to drive action. This is the exact same revenue model we have now and mining government contracts and lobbiest-driven funding is not exactly fertile ground for a 'gold rush.' The point remains that there is no revenue model at all for this, no is there likely to be one within our lifetimes.
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
I've read a lot of mixed seemingly credible reports on the viability of extracting useful minerals or materials from the Moon and I'm not sure how to think about the problem. How are people thinking about the future of the Moon? Is the colonization of the Moon economically driven (we make money by being on the Moon) or ideologically driven (we just want to start expanding beyond Earth)? If it turns out that economic opportunities are limited, will we still see attempts at building a Moon base?
- reaperman 3y ago
  I think exploration is often curiosity- or ego-driven, but expansion has nearly always been economically-driven.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If it turns out that economic opportunities are limited, will we still see attempts at building a Moon base Alone, no. In concert, yes. This is why anyone cheering for America’s space programme should celebrate China’s wins. Beyond being decent, it’s the competition that keeps the broad population engaged. (Apollo was not a popular programme.)
johnea 3y ago
The gold rush, with no gold 8-( Not the first time though, California had one of those too. Although I don't see any future in getting muricans, jacked up on fake news, to populate the moon, even though it worked with California. The big moon news people should be paying attention to is gateway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway This isn't another small startup with a lander on it's side. This is one of NASA's primary missions, aimed at establishing and supporting a military presence on the moon 8-( Because of course, we HAVE to go to the moon, so meatheads with laser blasters can have a shootout to see who's the "hero".

15 points by Hooke 3y ago

What a hellspawn shitty era. Such a vast human potential, using absurd national laws of property to try to gobble up & dominate something vast. There should be reasons to try for the moon & ideally further. But theres something sick & detestable about the land rush of control going on. These flag planting exercises in no way justify such large scale dominion. This is pathetic & revilesome.

tempodox 3y ago
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. -- Gordon Gekko
- i_am_a_peasant 3y ago
  Oh I've wanted to watch a movie that's along those lines. thanks!
sokoloff 3y ago
There’s no lack of reasons to explore. There is often lack of funding. Explorations leading to colonization of other places here on earth were funded with an economic return in mind, largely of necessity, because that’s how those projects get enough different people aligned behind a common goal. It’s great to abstractly want to explore the moon. That requires tons of resources that need to paid for somehow.

Animats 3y ago

What's the revenue model? The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller. China's Tiangong space station can hold 6 people, but currently has only 3. Humans in space just aren't that useful.

adastra22 3y ago
Believe it or not, people actually want to go and live on other worlds.
skissane 3y ago
> What's the revenue model? (1) Lunar holidays for the ultra-rich. (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon. (3) Professional sports–first ever professional [insert your favourite sport here] game/match/race/etc on the moon. (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours, we have to build one even bigger in response! (5) Scientific research – e.g. can mammals reproduce in lunar gravity? > The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller There is more than one successor planned. And I think with SpaceX Starship, launching much larger stations/modules is becoming a very real possibility. Once Starship is demonstrated to be operationally viable (not quite there yet but could happen this year), a lot of current plans will change, since the mass and volue budgets suddenly get a lot bigger.
- evgen 3y ago
  > (1) Lunar holidays for the ultra-rich An incredibly small market given the cost of getting a human to the moon and keeping them there. There will be no economy of scale here for quite a while so this is an unlikely driver of any revenue. Tourism is barely a thing for orbital trips and not even close to being sustainable for such a small energy expenditure compared to a lunar visit. > (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon. Never going to happen. Chicken-egg problem here and a complete fantasy. > (3) Professional sports So rediculous it does not even rise to the level of fantasy. > (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours, Possible, but not quite the national motivation it was in the midst of the space race. In the 60s and 70s existential conflict with a competing super-power could barely get flags and footprints on the moon. What passes for modern nationalism is not enough to sustain a lunar presence. > (5) Scientific research This is the most likely of any options presented so far, but is still completely reliant upon the government teat to drive action. This is the exact same revenue model we have now and mining government contracts and lobbiest-driven funding is not exactly fertile ground for a 'gold rush.' The point remains that there is no revenue model at all for this, no is there likely to be one within our lifetimes.

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago

I've read a lot of mixed seemingly credible reports on the viability of extracting useful minerals or materials from the Moon and I'm not sure how to think about the problem. How are people thinking about the future of the Moon? Is the colonization of the Moon economically driven (we make money by being on the Moon) or ideologically driven (we just want to start expanding beyond Earth)? If it turns out that economic opportunities are limited, will we still see attempts at building a Moon base?

reaperman 3y ago
I think exploration is often curiosity- or ego-driven, but expansion has nearly always been economically-driven.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If it turns out that economic opportunities are limited, will we still see attempts at building a Moon base Alone, no. In concert, yes. This is why anyone cheering for America’s space programme should celebrate China’s wins. Beyond being decent, it’s the competition that keeps the broad population engaged. (Apollo was not a popular programme.)

johnea 3y ago

The gold rush, with no gold 8-( Not the first time though, California had one of those too. Although I don't see any future in getting muricans, jacked up on fake news, to populate the moon, even though it worked with California. The big moon news people should be paying attention to is gateway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway This isn't another small startup with a lander on it's side. This is one of NASA's primary missions, aimed at establishing and supporting a military presence on the moon 8-( Because of course, we HAVE to go to the moon, so meatheads with laser blasters can have a shootout to see who's the "hero".