-
-
mining, space port services, etc
it makes sense to subcontract routine work like maintaining loading bays or w/e to companies so NASA is not tasked with facilities maintenance for commercial shipping
government funded janitors are going to get silly eventually. also private corporation wont be effected by government politics so much, like shutting down government. or congressional saber rattling.
-
#76 Reply
Posted by
rdl
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:01
-
People go on week long cruises all the time. No reason why they wouldn't go to the Moon if it was possible. By far the hardest and most expensive part of going to the Moon and back is just getting into orbit around the Earth. If getting to orbit becomes reasonably cheap and easy (which is a big if), then hotels on the Moon will be almost inevitable.
-
#77 Reply
Posted by
apis
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:03
-
Should the moon have a government? should it be run by the UN?
If it was a bigger colony with permanent residents then it should probably be run by the people living there, Luna could be a member of the UN though.
-
-
how are land claims handled? within x feet of a structure? how do you prevent troll structure land grabs?
how do you approve stuff? what prevents someone from building a ton of shanties and taking over the moon? approved lunar building code requirements for territorial gains? proof of residency? who is gonna take census?
oh man this could turn into a shit storm so easily.
-
#79 Reply
Posted by
cdev
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:10
-
Corporations only have one reason they do everything, for money. So that is why they would go to the Moon. Since there are corporations offering space services, countries are required to use them (see link below).
Space missions are managed by national space agencies but they are actually implemented by various corporations. Lots of astronauts are subcontractors already.
I can think of plenty of science you could do there. And I can imagine a few tourists (billionaires) who would pay to go there. Are there military reasons some would send people there? Except for mining though, I can't really think of a reason why corporations would go there. On the other hand, people are talking about mining in space already so maybe some rich people are willing to try and invest in that.
-
#80 Reply
Posted by
james_s
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:11
-
I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.
There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.
People make longer and more boring trips on Earth.
Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.
-
-
if you just give lunar lands away to people who build, you will end up with von neumann machines designed just to build to acquire real estate.
-
-
i wonder what the prime lunar real estate looks like now, the best places to build bases and land on etc.
-
#83 Reply
Posted by
cdev
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:18
-
One point of going to the Moon for many wealthy people would be the exclusivity of it. The fact that the typical tourists could never afford it. It would be a very short list at the beginning of people who had visited the Moon as tourists. They could even (for a fee) have a crater or other landmark named after them. Like bricks in a church or synagogue named after generous donors. This would likely become the main way the space program was funded.
I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.
There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.
People make longer and more boring trips on Earth.
Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.
Adventure tourism is really popular now. And people would love the idea of having a lunar landmark named after THEM.
So I think space tourism would 'take off'.
-
#84 Reply
Posted by
coppice
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:24
-
One point of going to the Moon for many wealthy people would be the exclusivity of it.
That is certainly a driver for a certain kind of person, just as some rich people actively push the price of artworks up, so they end up paying the kind of staggering price that makes them noteworthy. However, if you look at the number of tourists who have taken a much cheaper trip to the ISS on a Soyuz, the market seems very small.
-
#85 Reply
Posted by
cdev
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:30
-
More likely- many people will go to the Moon virtually using that nerve sensory recording and playback technique that guy in Sydney is developing or similar.
The space version of 'The Matrix' or Queen Mu's 'teledildonics'.
Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.
-
#86 Reply
Posted by
apis
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:38
-
how are land claims handled? within x feet of a structure? how do you prevent troll structure land grabs?
how do you approve stuff? what prevents someone from building a ton of shanties and taking over the moon? approved lunar building code requirements for territorial gains? proof of residency? who is gonna take census?
oh man this could turn into a shit storm so easily.
If the moon nation (what should it be called?) is independent then they would deal with it just like on earth. However colonies are usually not independent in the beginning. So it might start as a Chinese colony for example, or it could be some sort of international project like the ISS. In a international station everything would have to be decided by a comity. If it was a Chinese colony they would distribute land as they would back on earth, basically treat it as Chinese land. The problem is, I think there are international agreements that no nation may claim land on the moon (or in space in general). So legally it would probably have to be international. Say China go there first and build a base and Chinese companies start mining there and it turns out to be lucrative. Then eventually maybe the US/Russia/India will begin being interested and other corporations want to begin mining there. Then there could be a conflict. Which answers the question if there is a reason for military to have a presence there I suppose.
-
-
yea but cant you say like 1/4 of the moon is my property? how do you determine whats reasonable. its for earth so you need a body on earth to approve it
if you define it by structures how do you prevent someone from driving around building the cheapest psuedostructure wig-wam bullshit just to get land claims?
think of a patent troll but with land on the moon. and then consider the submarine patent troll.
if someone is good they can get a boring machine to make miles and miles of tunnels to lay claim to the best realestate. Then not use it for fifty years.
i think there might be some kind of lunar troll scenario where stuff is just made to occupy space and fit some kind of legal definition but be in essence a bullshit placeholder.
-
#88 Reply
Posted by
cdev
on 08 Jan, 2019 02:48
-
Actually, thinking about this, I think you are right.
If any REALLY valuable resources are found or it seems are likely to be found it might play out like the situation in the South China Sea, with national interests trying to occupy more land with the typical signs of occupancy recognized by
customary international law. (Or whatever they call it.)
If the moon nation (what should it be called?) is independent then they would deal with it just like on earth. However colonies are usually not independent in the beginning. So it might start as a Chinese colony for example, or it could be some sort of international project like the ISS. In a international station everything would have to be decided by a comity. If it was a Chinese colony they would distribute land as they would back on earth, basically treat it as Chinese land. The problem is, I think there are international agreements that no nation may claim land on the moon (or in space in general). So legally it would probably have to be international. Say China go there first and build a base and Chinese companies start mining there and it turns out to be lucrative. Then eventually maybe another US will begin being interested and US corporations want to begin mining there. Then there could be a conflict. Which answers the question if there is a reason for military to have a presence there I suppose.
-
-
imagine you go to the moon then it turns out some autonomous hot dog stand is gonna give you shit?
how is the first moon uprising going to look like? are they gonna send space police if someone does not wanna let someone dock or whatever? or lunar extortion.
does a private company need approval to go there?
i think each country will need some kind of space force or something. do you just rely on PMCs? what if two belligerents start fighting on the moon over claims of bogus claims or interference.
-
#90 Reply
Posted by
Gr8fulFox
on 08 Jan, 2019 03:12
-
yea and what prevents nuclear drives and stuff from getting there?
Umm... the immense amount of radioactivity those engines leave in their wake?
-
#91 Reply
Posted by
apis
on 08 Jan, 2019 03:26
-
It all depends on how it will be governed, and there are to many options to be able to predict an answer.
how is the first moon uprising going to look like?
Someone realise that earth is at the bottom of a well and there is nothing preventing them from throwing rocks at us.
are they gonna send space police if someone does not wanna let someone dock or whatever? or lunar extortion.
In the end, law lies at the end of a spear, as they used to say around here.
-
-
Many people forget that something other than the Cold War was partly responsible for getting to the moon. At the time the decisions were made the people in power had lived through one of the most amazing eras of technology growth there has ever been. Many could remember seeing the first automobiles in their community, and the first airplane. They had watched cars change from cranky (literally) open air jitneys that were barely better than horses to comfortable, fast, air conditioned creations. The had watched airplanes make the same sort of transition, and watched speed barriers fall at every moment. They had watched nuclear power transformed from a science fiction dream into something that promised to power much of the country and let military vessels run for years without refueling. They had watched the diseases that killed their brothers and sisters in childhood driven into retreat. It was easy to believe that anything was possible.
It was also an era when experts predicting what was possible and impossible had been proved wrong often and in compelling ways.
The media and public had also bought into this expansive view of the future when anything not only was possible, it was likely.
The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution. Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting. You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it. You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.
So part of the answer about how to get a buzz about spaceflight is to get optimism about the future back into the zeitgeist. In Vacuo Veritas perfectly embodies much of the public. Everything is too hard, too expensive. We must save our limited resources to continue doing what we are doing now. Get off my lawn, dammit!
A physics breakthrough showing that the laws of physics known today aren't the whole story, or just a new breed of media writer might do the trick.
-
#93 Reply
Posted by
apis
on 08 Jan, 2019 04:19
-
The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution. Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting. You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it. You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.
That's a bit unfair isn't it? People now walk around with super computers in their pockets, wirelessly connected to a global international data network, there are self driving cars around the corner, etc.
Medical science has made lots of breakthroughs, DNA sequencing of the human genome for example, we are beginning to understand how the cells work on a molecular level which opens up the possibility of curing cancer etc.
Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.
-
-
Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.
Certainly, but of course 40 years ago people had digital watches, and they still weren't happy.
-
#95 Reply
Posted by
cdev
on 08 Jan, 2019 04:48
-
They have abandoned curing ANYTHING, just mentioning that concept elicits protests from the industry, now they just want to
manage serious illnesses with expensive drugs. And push those prices sky high with
market spiral pricing techniques.
Buy or die.
-
-
Swarms of small independent habitats (รก la Belters) being essentially subcontractors for Earth-based companies seems much more preferable to me than a moon base, in the long run.
On the moon, surface harvesting for He3 is likely to make it a highly coveted resource; like sitting on oil or mineral resources here on Earth. Always having to worry about being overrun by someone who has enough weaponry, and the willingness to use them, for short-term gains.
-
#97 Reply
Posted by
james_s
on 08 Jan, 2019 05:53
-
I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park. We send a small number of guys there a handful of times at absolutely immense expense, there are not enough people who are wealthy enough to pay for a ride there to make it a viable business. There are "only" some 2200 billionaires in the world, and of those only a portion are wealthy enough to conceivably pay for a moon ride, and of that pool how many are going to be interested in it? I just don't see it happening without some kind of major unforeseen breakthrough.
-
-
The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution. Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting. You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it. You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.
That's a bit unfair isn't it? People now walk around with super computers in their pockets, wirelessly connected to a global international data network, there are self driving cars around the corner, etc.
Medical science has made lots of breakthroughs, DNA sequencing of the human genome for example, we are beginning to understand how the cells work on a molecular level which opens up the possibility of curing cancer etc.
Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.
The vast majority of those pocket supercomputers are running Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, while the two way wrist radio that effectively is transmitting and endless stream of natter.
The global data network has enabled, not quashed the various anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Holocaust deniers and the like.
Is it really exciting to gossip with people all over the world instead of just those in your neighborhood? Except for weirdos like us who don't find similar interests locally.
-
#99 Reply
Posted by
Magiciaen
on 08 Jan, 2019 06:20
-
I'm with CatalinaWOW on this one. The simple fact of the matter is the West has lost it's curiosity. What made the West such a successful civilisation is the tripod of curiosity, rationality and justice. Only a few other civilisations in the past have implemented the same formula. Rising powers China and Russia are curious and rational, but they are not just. Here in the West, all three legs of the tripod are being eroded, and the end is clearly in sight. The Space Race was a window into what is possible by humanity when we strive to be our best. It was only open for a short time though. I'm sure some civilisations in the universe overcome the challenges we are facing and reach a spiritual, ethical and technological level that allows them to persist for millions of years out amongst the stars. That likely won't be humanity's fate. All sorts of things have to exist in the universe, and we just happen to be an example of something that won't quite get there.