Can we actually build a thriving economy on and around the moon?

[Admin]

Building a sustainable economy on the moon won't be easy, but we at least have some ideas about how to get started.

Can we actually build a thriving economy on and around the moon? : Read more

 

[Ken Fabian]

I remain unconvinced - deeply pessimistic - and I find it hard to take these pundits seriously. Savant-idiocy, so smart yet not.

"Cislunar cash cows" - is that the same breed that jumps over the moon? I think the problems begin with what they think an economy is and how it works and I see strong indication that they have no idea.

"I don't see an inner solar system in which we don't significantly develop the moon if you're going to go anywhere."

Where are "we going" in the inner solar system? What for? How will that undefined destination pay not only it's own way but pay for moon operations as well? Feel-good 'make humans an interplanetary species' feels good but it isn't a self-sustaining economic activity, it is an economic drain. I fail to see how pursuing a cislunar 'economy' is a stepping stone to anything.


The thing that they do get right is the absolute dependence on government(taxpayer) funding - but how that gets displaced by commercial private enterprise that isn't based on profits from taxpayer funding goes unexplained, how that public investment produces results that ultimately enrich the public here on Earth goes unexplained.

"The basis of an economy has to be something that Earthlings will pay for."

That needs to be something tangible, that is purchased - not taxpayer subsidy for vicarious 'feel-good' intangibles. I consider myself 'woke' but that is too woke for me.

Helium-3? When something depends on strong commercial demand from an energy technology that doesn't exist that is a red flag, not a green one.

I am not entirely devoid of hopes for humanity gaining substantial ongoing benefits from ambitious government space programs (meteor defense) and from ambitious private space programs (asteroid metals), but what makes moon resources better than pursuing asteroid resources directly?

Asteroids - near Earth asteroids, not Asteroid Belt ones - are much easier to get to and from compared to the moon due to much lower delta-v and very low gravity; we have high confidence they will contain extremely valuable Platinum Group Metals in relative abundance, for which there is currently growing demand. There is abundance of chemical feedstocks for refineries and for making in-space rocket fuels. We are way short of the capabilities required but the resources are there and are high value - genuinely of commercial interest.

I suspect the best moon resources won't be found in regular moon rocks, it will be be found in the meteor craters, ie they will mine asteroid materials.

Aiming high is fine but aiming shorter at more realistic stepping stones and avoiding extravagant waste is sensible.

 

[Catastrophe]

From what I see, costs of travel are extremely large, cost of materials thus likewise - but I have not seen any detailed costings including repayment of loans, amortisation, selling prices, et cetea.
Are any availab;e? Otherwise, are any realistic costings available anywhere?

Or is this another case of uncosted fantasies being proposed without sound basis?

Cat

 

[Ken Fabian]

From what I see, costs of travel are extremely large, cost of materials thus likewise - but I have not seen any detailed costings including repayment of loans, amortisation, selling prices, et cetea.
Are any availab;e? Otherwise, are any realistic costings available anywhere?

Or is this another case of uncosted fantasies being proposed without sound basis?

Cat

Is this referring to the Space.com article or my assertion that 'asteroid mining as a goal' makes more sense? If the former I agree - the "cash cow" is Earth taxpayers.

If the latter - I think asteroid mining is a more reasonable and potentially achievable goal; it is more innately capable of achieving commercial viability.

Current Platinum Group Metals prices are eye-watering -
Palladium (US$30M per ton), Iridium ($150M), Ruthenium ($22M), Rhodium ($190M). Osmium is the most valuable at ($1.78B - down a bit since I last looked. Yes, that is Billion). Platinum itself (at $32M).

 

[Catastrophe]

I have some research to do, but are "near Earth" asteroids near the Earth for long enough? I don't know.

Do NEAs just come close for a short time in a highly elliptical orbit, or do they stay within acessible distance for long periods? I don't know.

I assume there would be no humans 'permanently' on the 'NEAs'. Just set up and leave?
If you have these answers handy, can you please post them?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Here is a start: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/

There are a lot, which is helpful.

From the stats, it is evident that, as one might expect, the ellipticities are variable. See the difference between nominal and minimal distances.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

How long do NEAs stay near Earth?

Google Search

Near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) don't stay near Earth indefinitely. Their duration near Earth varies, but they typically pass close enough to be observed for a few months before receding into the solar system. An example is asteroid 2024 YR4, which was observable through early April 2025.

So mining time might be limited, before asteroid leaves - for how long.

However, there are so many, that some might be viable.
Do we have the means to select from these, any with viable prospects?

There is a start.

Cat