Seeing The Moon As A Resource

Paul is completely correct in his statement. The one key thing he doesn't refer to in relation to the Moon's significance is...quantity.

The Moon's key advantage over other inner solar system's objects is its size. It's not just a close resource, it's a vast resource - and that is key overall.

I'm looking forward to AA, Masten and XCOR, developing their current units to multi-axis thrust articles to learn the 'knowledge' that will be required for commercial applications.

They certainly don't need to be reminded that if "they" don't, "their" competitors will.

Sigh. Most of what Paul is writing about is the expense of putting things in space. I agree with that. But then he lapses into this business of resource development on the Moon. Look, you want water? I can go out on the Earth and get water in a bucket. Sure, it takes more life to loft that bucket of water off the Earth than off the Moon, but it's SO EASY to get that bucket of water on the Earth. In fact, it's trivially easy. Just taking a bucket to the Moon costs a bundle.

The object that has the greatest advantage to resource development is the closest one. It's the Earth. It's a vaster resource, and we're not in danger of running out of anything on it. Well, maybe oil, but you won't get that on the Moon. Platinum group metals? C'mon. There is loads on the Earth. It just gets more expensive to extract it. At a level of expense that is hugely less than it would be on the Moon.

Paul's reasoning has some merit only once it's really easy to put stuff on the Moon. Bulldozers, tractors, refineries. That's not going to happen for a long time. What the Moon has the most of is rock, which has limited usefulness. So statements like this are pretty tiresome. We've got more important things to worry about.

I think what you say is correct.

Unless we are planning a major space installation - we are talking a colony of hundreds of people on the moon or even elsewhere ion the inner solar system, then no one is going to be looking for resources on the moon. In order to get at the resources and then in order to use the resources to manufacture things, you are talking major tonnage on the lunar surface, and this is going to require enormous tonnage launched from earth in the first place.

I have no doubt that if there were a compelling reason and if private investors wanted to support the effort, it could be done, but there is no such reason and so far there are no investors at this magnitude. They would make the Space-X and Scaled Composite investments look like gnats against the gargantuan levels of support this would require. Even if it were the kind of thing the US government would support (it isn't) the magnitude of the amount of taxpayer dollars that would be required would be tremendous as compared with NASA's current budget.

A good analogy is probably antarctic exploration, colonization or utilization. The antarctic is isolated, though not nearly so as the moon. The antarctic is abiotic - there are no significant lifeforms that can be used for nourishment, though in the southern ocean surrounding the continent there are plenty of species and whaling was one of the major reasons for antarctic expeditions in the 1800s. Until the development of modern aircraft in the mid-1900s, access to the central continent was difficult and costly in terms of life, and the resources invested were mostly private. As a continent the antarctic has plenty of mineral resources but there is no driving reason to try and harvest them.

The antarctic is isolated and was therefore the last continent on earth to be explored.

People first knew about the existence of the antarctic around 1800. And it was within just a couple years that the first landing occurred there around 1821. But the first exploration party did not winter over until 1899. A series of exploration expeditions followed with the Scott expedition all dieing on the continent in 1912. Modern aircraft first flew over the pole in the 1920s. The US Navy tried to set up a base there in 1947 but had to pull out because of logistical difficulties and expense. The first long term outpost was e4stablished on the continent in 1957 as part of the IGY and the first nuclear power plant followed 4 years later. Tourism began in the mid-1960s. The first birth occurred on the continent in 1978. A new modern outpost was constructed at the south pole beginning in 1998.

So it has taken about 200 years, and even now the number of people on the continent is relatively small. There are no permanent residents. Harvesting the continent's resources is not a significant activity or occupation. Mainly people are there for a few months at a time doing scientific research, or for a few days visiting as tourists.

Travel there is relatively inexpensive. You have to bring most of what you need to survive, but mainly that is food, clothing, heating, fuel and ground transportation. Air is already there for breathing, water is readily available for drinking, shelter is available and you are not exposed to significantly more hazardous conditions than at other places on earth, except for the cold and lack of commercial sales outlets for supplies.

Until a couple decades ago, communication was difficult with anyone in the antarctic, but now there are regular phone and internet connections so this is no longer an obstacle.

But even this limited travel to the pole and central antarctic did not happen until modern technology (airplanes) made travel there reasonably safe, inexpensive and readily available. And no one was developing airplanes specifically for antarctic travel.

I suspect that at best, this is the model that might be used for lunar exploration or exploitation in the years ahead.

Sending 2 or 4 people to the moon for a week long stay, as was proposed by Constellation-what is the compelling reason for it? Cost were outrageously prohibitive, and even at that it was a several decades long proposition. Every week long expedition was going to take several Shuttle-launch masses and you were going to throw it all away every time? Using in situ resources on the moon to build your shelter, sustain life, and then harvest for fuel or consumables for travel elsewhere in the solar system; now you need huge quantities of resources there in the first place to establish the foothold. What is the compelling reason for taxpayers to pay for this?

"......What is the compelling reason for taxpayers to pay for this?"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376

Sigh, again. That's the reason no one cares about. You mean competition with the Chinese, no? You didn't really make any cogent response. You just handed off a reference.

So the Chinese are threatening to do what we did forty years ago? Oh me. Oh my. I hope they don't desecrate Neil's footprints.

But maybe they're going to lay claim to all that 3He that no one knows how to use. As the story goes, He3 makes people talk funny.

The Chinese are threatening us in so many more important ways. In particular, their economy is eating us alive. And we're worried about them going to the Moon??

You know, in a race to return to the Moon, we'd quite possibly lose. So is that a race we really want to stimulate?

If they're just trying to do what we once did, I don't really care. If they're taking the first steps toward colonizing the Moon, I'd just tip my hat to them and wish them well.

Your "analysis" of the link I posted is precisely why I posted the link. Readers can go there and take a few minutes to follow the reasons why I believe there is a compelling reason for lunar return.

Rather than relying on your spin, they can access a comprehensive essay on the importance of the Moon.

For those who are interested, here are two more sources.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1334