Google Wants To Go To The Moon by 2012

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

But again, costs way outweigh benefits at this point so no, it isn't as if the moon is a great opportunity for private industry.

I don't think anyone expects to make money at this point. It is work in progress.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It's good for helium extraction in a few decades, that's it.

So because it would only be valuable in a few decades (your assertion) we shouldn't try to start it now? If it will always only be valuable "in a few decades" we'll never actually get around to harvesting it.

Further, and more what I was talking about earlier, there are minerals and metals found on the Moon that can be used in manufacturing.

Zero-gee manufacturing is an industry that companies are very much looking into in the future, and if they can get their raw materials from the Moon instead of the Earth, their costs will be greatly reduced.

[Wiglaf]

So because it would only be valuable in a few decades (your assertion) we shouldn't try to start it now? If it will always only be valuable "in a few decades" we'll never actually get around to harvesting it.

No, it's the assertion of the article you provided. The reactors that the helium would power are a long time off.

I'm also confused by what else is so valuable on the moon.

[Kataphraktoi]

Space industries are nonsense until new and better propulsion systems(read:not this rocket crap) are used.

Besides we dont even know if those reactors will be feasible by then. Maybe something different will come up. Looking at how far we came in last 100 years, ''a few decades'' is a long time to be predicting things

[Whaleboy]

Does the moon's surface provide anything readily useful resource wise?

Water, by many accounts, is abundant on the Moon. Sure we have plenty on Earth but as someone has pointed out, it's expensive to sent stuff into space from Earth. Not so expensive from the moon where gravitational acceleration is about a sixth that of the Earth.

In water you have the two basic ingredients for rocket fuel; hydrogen and oxygen could be cheaply separated by electricity generated by solar panels (solar radiation being much stronger having not gone through a load of atmosphere). You can also drink the stuff which, if we were to ever establish some kind of permanent base there, would be essential for self-sufficiency (and thus economic viability).

Why would we even want to do this? Asteroids. Mineral-rich asteroids which could potentially be mined without concern for the environment. Sounds far-fetched but where there's profit to be had...

Considering the ever increasing price of nickel and iron is it so outlandish to think that we will be doing this in 100-200 years?

[Wezil]

So should we stop space exploration/science until better propulsion systems come along?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wezil
So should we stop space exploration/science until better propulsion systems come along?

Or perhaps we should encourage private companies to further space exploration, thus giving them incentive to research and develop better propulsion systems.

[DanS]

For this prize, you will be paying $7 million to SpaceX for the launch, or about one-third your prize proceeds.

The lander and rover will have to be very light, to be sure.

This is doable, although difficult. The way a contest should be.

[Zkribbler]

I wondering if the rockets on the lander/rover couldn't be dispenses of entirely. Rather, use a solar sail to go from Earth orbit to the moon, and then use one of those big balloon thingies to "bounce" the lander down to a soft landing.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Water, by many accounts, is abundant on the Moon. Sure we have plenty on Earth but as someone has pointed out, it's expensive to sent stuff into space from Earth. Not so expensive from the moon where gravitational acceleration is about a sixth that of the Earth.

There is no water on the moon
?

So should we stop space exploration/science until better propulsion systems come along?

I never implied that. I said space industries were nonsense. That has little to with exploration\science activities. And it will be governments that will make strides in space, not companies. Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
There is no water on the moon

Some has been discovered at the Moon's south pole.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes

Yeh, shutdown to the tune of $17 billion per annum.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Some has been discovered at the Moon's south pole.

Er, we have enough here.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
I never implied that. I said space industries were nonsense. That has little to with exploration\science activities.

Space industries are nonsense at this point precisely b/c the rest of the science/knowledge is not there (including the propulsion you feel we need).

And it will be governments that will make strides in space, not companies. Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes

I disagree. It will increasingly become more of a partnership.

[Aeson]

I win!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=los+angeles&daddr=Moon,+South+Dakota,+United+States&sll=34.05332,-118.24498&sspn=0.839684,1.2854&ie=UTF8&cd=2&ll=42.261049,-102.875977&spn=23.968244,41.132813&z=5&om=1

View Larger Map