Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

craeftsmith t1_ixd3epw wrote

Cool, now do that asteroid that would remake the world's economy

9

Gari_305 OP t1_ixcv9t7 wrote

From the Article

>NASA's successful Moon rocket launch last week will be a boon for private companies, experts tell Axios.
>
>Why it matters: As global economic growth slows, space and Moon exploration could become a source of ignition for new ventures and jobs.
>
>The successful launch of Artemis I is "opening the door for expanding the lunar economy," says Takeshi Hakamada, CEO of ispace, which is planning to launch its first private mission to the Moon on Nov. 28.
>
>Driving the news: NASA's un-crewed Artemis I mission showed companies looking to do business on and around the Moon that they would likely have a major customer there in the coming years.

Which leads to an important question, with the idea of having people living on the moon this decade being the goal for NASA, along with the fact of other countries vying to mine Helium 3 on the Moon are we going to see a scenario of a Moon Industrial Complex and renewal of great power play between the US and China?

8

sorped t1_ixe3c2c wrote

Just another theatre to vie for dominance, thus wealth and power.

1

ismashugood t1_ixegkln wrote

Which will inevitably lead to the ruination of the moon in some way. Just spreading our filth and scarring across the solar system.

2

clangan524 t1_ixd7m79 wrote

Didn't read the artice but...WE'RE WHALERS ON THE MOON

7

TheLianeonProject t1_ixd0p98 wrote

>The successful launch of Artemis I is "opening the door for expanding the lunar economy," says Takeshi Hakamada, CEO of ispace, which is planning to launch its first private mission to the Moon on Nov. 28.

At roughly $4 Billion a pop marginal cost, Artemis I's launch doesn't mean jack from a "lunar economy" perspective. I question anyone's credentials who would make such a claim. If we wanted to send things to the Moon, there already were far cheaper options available.

That said, there is hope for SpaceX Starship, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and China's ChangZheng-9.

These are superheavy-lift launch vehicles that have sufficient payload capacity to the Moon, but also are cheap enough (and at least partially reusable) to make a "Lunar economy" possible.

Time will tell.

4

kaminaowner2 t1_ixg641l wrote

The moon is believed to be full of hydrogen, and we have the ability to mine that from the soil with simple automated machines. We probably won’t have people permanently on the moon but I’d be surprised if trips to mars don’t start with a overnight trip to the moon.

1

therearenuances t1_ixdg1ye wrote

It seems obvious (and strange) that spacex' starship was deliberately excluded from this article. Any thoughts on why?

2

FuturologyBot t1_ixd2btz wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the Article

>NASA's successful Moon rocket launch last week will be a boon for private companies, experts tell Axios.
>
>Why it matters: As global economic growth slows, space and Moon exploration could become a source of ignition for new ventures and jobs.
>
>The successful launch of Artemis I is "opening the door for expanding the lunar economy," says Takeshi Hakamada, CEO of ispace, which is planning to launch its first private mission to the Moon on Nov. 28.
>
>Driving the news: NASA's un-crewed Artemis I mission showed companies looking to do business on and around the Moon that they would likely have a major customer there in the coming years.

Which leads to an important question, with the idea of having people living on the moon this decade being the goal for NASA, along with the fact of other countries vying to mine Helium 3 on the Moon are we going to see a scenario of a Moon Industrial Complex and renewal of great power play between the US and China?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z1un3x/the_coming_moon_economy/ixcv9t7/

1

Status_Fox_1474 t1_ixd5ebx wrote

So a very serious question: There is a lot of waste and chemical burn and pollutants that are shot up into the atmosphere for a launch. What is up there that is so much better than what exists on Earth? How would anything be financially worth it? And if there are regular launches (weekly?) to bring stuff back and forth, what kind of damage will that do long-term to our existing planet?

I can understand few launches to study what's outside the Earth, but I think that should be the limit.

1

iNstein t1_ixex55b wrote

We can move heavy industry to space and possibly even farming. That means we no longer pollute the one place we know has life and we allow farms to rewild. Earth can be saved this way.

> There is a lot of waste and chemical burn and pollutants that are shot up into the atmosphere for a launch

Actually Artemis uses a combination of Oxygen and hydrogen, so the end result is..... Water. Similarly, SpaceX uses Methane and Oxygen which they will be making from CO2 and water. They need to start doing that asap and we should push for that rather than just complain about rockets in general. We need to shape future technology, not just try to stop it.

1

Seidans t1_ixdtl90 wrote

it's more about the cost or limited interest than the "damage" done to earth

people talk about space tourism, a completly useless business that would end quickly as soon the economy suffer

the only thing worth is a space based industry and especially moon, asteroid and planet mining and "worth" is the most important thing here because for now it's completly impossible or at a completly absurd cost that make it not worth it

USA and China are fighting to place the first human base on the moon, it's more of a cold-war competition than anything else, unfortunaly physic tell us that humanity living outside earth and exploiting space is extreamly difficult and not worth it (for now?)

0