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

 

[Ken Fabian]

@Catastrophe - I think "close enough to be observed for a few months before receding into the solar system." is misleading.

These objects are in regular orbits around the sun, like Earth is; at times, for a while, they are close and visible and other times 'recede' further away and are not visible, but they will be close and visible again when their orbit and Earth's coincide again. But wherever they are in that orbit they are reachable with similar fuel requirements.

Reaching them is less about how far away they are (that distance keeps changing) than about matching velocity and course with them. The differences in velocity between almost any destinations in space is very large - and getting in and out of a gravity well is considered a velocity change too (escape velocity). Other destinations require a lot more velocity change.

Typically rockets will use multiples of their payload mass in fuel even for getting between 'close' objects in space - a reason I think capturing and moving asteroids won't work and mining and refining - possibly partial refining as a compromise - onsite will be necessary. I expect it to be done without astronauts - automated, robotic. NEO's have smaller velocity difference to overcome than most destinations but it is still a lot. Which is why I think the ability to make rocket fuel will be a major part of any asteroid mining.

Lots of people offer up their speculations here. I have some of mine around asteroid mining.

There have been some 'startups' looking toward asteroid mining and survey and sampling probes feature as an early step. None have been successful so far. Most go bust - a current one has had it's probes fail.

I have disagreed with their approaches (though details of what they are doing are usually very scant) but disagreeing is easy from my comfortable non-involvement. I do think it will need very large investments, a lot of (expensive) preparation and a willingness to work and spend money for a long time before getting any results

 

[Catastrophe]

As I pointed out, I am not against the idea of mining NEOs. I said that I would like information on practicalities. Subsequently, I have found out that there are very many (thousands) of NEOs, which, of course, increases the possibilities of suitable choices for mining.

Having said that, there are many factors causing suitable candidates to be fewer. Nevertheless, there should still be plenty of candidates. Of course, it is prerequisite that we assess the amount of mineable material, and what % might be economic. Similarly, the means of setting up facilities remotely. Obviously, not an easy task robotically.

The period of orbit, and the time to reach the target, are obviously of prime importance, as well as size of the target body.

NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) can be anywhere from relatively close to Earth to much farther away, even beyond the Earth's orbit. According to NASA, a NEO is defined as an asteroid or comet that orbits the Sun within 195 million kilometers (121 million miles) and comes within 48 million kilometers (30 million miles) of Earth's orbit. However, this doesn't mean they are always close; it just means their orbit allows for the possibility of a close approach.

At 36,000 mph It would take approximately 32.89 days and about
96,358.5 lbs of fuel. (About 43 tons)

Orbital Science's Cygnus spacecraft costs about $43,180 per pound to send things up just from earth to orbit.

Fuel for the return trip would be needed, more because of the weight of metal/ore. Also a considerable amount of fuel for slowing down and turning around. Allowance for time to load product, so vessel would have to come close to a standstill, relative to the asteroid. Also, whilst there is very low escape velocity, fuel is needed to accelerate the loaded vessel to the chosen 36,000 mph.

the cost per pound to accelerate a loaded vessel in space is a dynamic figure influenced by various factors. While current costs can be substantial, advancements in reusable rocket technology and new launch systems are expected to drive down these costs significantly in the future.

In general, there is sometimes a lot of unthinking nonsense blown out on this sort of subject. For example, giant tissue-light light sails are suggested, but such could be shot to ribbons by collisions, even by small particles, at 36,000 mph. Also, on the way back, they cannot be used. Just junk them?

So there are many difficulties to be overcome.

Cat