Commercial Lunar Settlement Proposal idea

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJay_A

Guest
<p>I have an idea on how to open the moon up for U.S. commercial human settlement through NASA's existing Constellation program! The key points of my proposal on how to make this work are as follows:</p><p>1.&nbsp;Create a new class of&nbsp;astronauts with specialty "commercial services" training, whom would be assigned&nbsp;1 or 2 (of the 6) lunar-bound Orion passenger seats. These astronauts would be assigned special work paid for by the private industry for various private lunar assembly projects.</p><p>2. Allow the private industry to buy partial or&nbsp;full Araine V lunar-bound payload capacity at subsidized rates.</p><p>3. Create a "Base Armstrong" (base name was dictated by Congress in latest spending bill) Urban Commercial Land Use Planning Commission, an Urban Commercial Land Sales & Taxiation Authority, and an Urban Commercial Infrastruction Improvement District. Private construction interests would first propose projects to these new quasi-government agencies. If approved, the land needed would be available for purchase and the land-use plan would be ammended for each various project.</p><p>4. Commercial projects could include anything the private industry can dream of and finance, including housing, medical facilities, research facilities, power plants, transportation systems, agriculture, etc.</p><p>5. NASA astronauts would be given the option not to return home to Earth after their 6-month work term expires. They would have pre-arranged a privately-financed home rental unit through one of the commercially built housing projects.</p><p>6. Eventually, lunar settlement astronauts would couple-up and have children and internally grow the base population.</p>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
<p>Who is going to pay for it?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PJay_A

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who is going to pay for it? <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV></p><p>As I said, these would be privately-financed projects with some government assistance for launch services, etc. Also, the new agencies will sell lunar land and collect taxes from the participating private industry that will have ownership of the various projects. These agencies would then use the money they collect from selling land and collecting taxes for infrastructure, including roads, water-suage, power grid, and air.</p>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
<p>Private industry is experiencing a financial meltdown, good luck getting a car loan.&nbsp; I love the idea of working on the moon, but there isn't a whole lot of money to be invested right now.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PJay_A

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Private industry is experiencing a financial meltdown, good luck getting a car loan.&nbsp; I love the idea of working on the moon, but there isn't a whole lot of money to be invested right now. <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV><br /><br />That is "right now". The economic meltdown is a temporary situation. Hopefully Obama's stimulus plan, if passed after he is inaugerated, will result in an rapid-growth economy.
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is "right now". The economic meltdown is a temporary situation. Hopefully Obama's stimulus plan, if passed after he is inaugerated, will result in an rapid-growth economy. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>Actually, I agree with you.&nbsp; I would love to see the government take the lead on this, though.&nbsp; Not that I'm a fan of "big government"&nbsp; but sort of like the construction project of the great depression were good for&nbsp;the economy.&nbsp; maybe we don't need a bail-out to stimulate the economy, maybe we need a real expensive project that will pay off a million times in the long run.&nbsp; I believe a huge moon project will do that.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, I agree with you.&nbsp; I would love to see the government take the lead on this, though.&nbsp; Not that I'm a fan of "big government"&nbsp; but sort of like the construction project of the great depression were good for&nbsp;the economy.&nbsp; maybe we don't need a bail-out to stimulate the economy, maybe we need a real expensive project that will pay off a million times in the long run.&nbsp; I believe a huge moon project will do that. <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV><br /><br />If President Obabma could do that, he'd go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If President Obabma could do that, he'd go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever. <br /> Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV></p><p>Private industry is highly sensitive to both cost and profitability. The main commercial application for human spaceflight is tourism; there have been several customers for orbital flight at $20 million, but the Ares is an expensive system; a single lunar flight will probably cost over $1 billion, and there is little prospect of profit at that price. I think commercial interests will either wait or work on less expensive approaches. As long as lunar flight is a "national prestige" mission there will be little reason for any country to buy a ride on another country's vehicle. </p><p>President Obama must rebuild the profitability of US industry, so he must focus on export markets and high-productivity manufacturing.&nbsp; That means, in the aerospace field, that aircraft are more important than spacecraft, and commercial spacecraft&nbsp; and launch services&nbsp; (today comsats and a few imaging satelites, and perhaps Virgin Galactic) are more important than national prestige missions. You're worried about commercial human lunar flight? We have had perhaps one commercial comsat launch from US soil in the past two years. I remember when Cape Canaveral led the world in commercial launches; it wasn't that long ago. Today even the Europeans with their 35-hour work weeks are beating the pants off us in commercial space. THAT should worry Mr. Obama, and us! </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
M

mouseonmars

Guest
Talking of Europe, the ESA just agreed a very encouraging finance package from various countries. 10 billion Euro in total. My own country, Britain, agreed a 1 billion package despite all the doom and gloom here about financial problems. So PJay_A's idea ain't so far off the mark ! The very real payback from space research and exploration has been seen by goverments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am your God. I am all knowing." Baal, Stargate SG-1 </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Private industry is highly sensitive to both cost and profitability. The main commercial application for human spaceflight is tourism; there have been several customers for orbital flight at $20 million, but the Ares is an expensive system; a single lunar flight will probably cost over $1 billion, and there is little prospect of profit at that price. ...Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Actually, I'd have to disagree there.&nbsp; The main commercial application for "early" human spaceflight wouldn't be tourism.&nbsp; That's just a high-profile exploitation of space.&nbsp; The first true, commercial, application of spaceflight (besides satelite and earth sciences, of course) would be drug manufacture. (Along with other high-value manufacturing) </p><p>A consortium of drug companies could easily, with their normal research budgets, fund the operation of the ISS.&nbsp; That's not a small sum either.&nbsp; But, the last time I cooked the numbers (in another thread) it would take three prominent drug companies to comfortably fund the operating budget of the ISS using figures from their latest drug research budgets.</p><p>The advantages with microgravity are not with simple research alone or combining new products.&nbsp; The savings in production for certain high-volume applications has been estimated to be 15% in some cases along with improved strains.&nbsp; Those are definitive profit-potentials just waiting to be utilized.</p><p>So, someone build a pharmaceutical lab section and ship it up to the ISS and let's get it funded in perpetuity... :) </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have an idea on how to open the moon up for U.S. commercial human settlement through NASA's existing Constellation program! ..Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>As others have suggested, profit is a motivator.&nbsp; All of the dreams of a permanent settlement on the Moon are going to revolve around one of two things:</p><p>1) The public being willing enough to help fund the establishment of a permanent base evolving around scientific research.</p><p>2) There's a financially convincing reason to lure commercial industry to the Moon.</p><p>Most likely, the first base will be centered around research with any commercial applications either being geared towards supporting that research installation or, after a fairly long time has passed, supporting other human endeavors as we reach beyond Moon's orbit into our solar system. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
S

schmack

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As others have suggested, profit is a motivator.&nbsp; All of the dreams of a permanent settlement on the Moon are going to revolve around one of two things:1) The public being willing enough to help fund the establishment of a permanent base evolving around scientific research.2) There's a financially convincing reason to lure commercial industry to the Moon.Most likely, the first base will be centered around research with any commercial applications either being geared towards supporting that research installation or, after a fairly long time has passed, supporting other human endeavors as we reach beyond Moon's orbit into our solar system. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />3) There are no catastrophic failures causing loss of life or property. This would SURELY (given this days tendancy to hike&nbsp;insurance costs) inhibit any attempts at moon settlement and exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>
 
O

oscar1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have an idea on how to open the moon up for U.S. commercial human settlement through NASA's existing Constellation program! The key points of my proposal on how to make this work are as follows:1.&nbsp;Create a new class of&nbsp;astronauts with specialty "commercial services" training, whom would be assigned&nbsp;1 or 2 (of the 6) lunar-bound Orion passenger seats. These astronauts would be assigned special work paid for by the private industry for various private lunar assembly projects.2. Allow the private industry to buy partial or&nbsp;full Araine V lunar-bound payload capacity at subsidized rates.3. Create a "Base Armstrong" (base name was dictated by Congress in latest spending bill) Urban Commercial Land Use Planning Commission, an Urban Commercial Land Sales & Taxiation Authority, and an Urban Commercial Infrastruction Improvement District. Private construction interests would first propose projects to these new quasi-government agencies. If approved, the land needed would be available for purchase and the land-use plan would be ammended for each various project.4. Commercial projects could include anything the private industry can dream of and finance, including housing, medical facilities, research facilities, power plants, transportation systems, agriculture, etc.5. NASA astronauts would be given the option not to return home to Earth after their 6-month work term expires. They would have pre-arranged a privately-financed home rental unit through one of the commercially built housing projects.6. Eventually, lunar settlement astronauts would couple-up and have children and internally grow the base population. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>A Moon colony would have to, like any country on Earth, be able to pay for its imports. To be able to do that, it would need to generate Earth exchange (Moon dollars would be useless outside the colony). Tourism could provide a few percent perhaps, and also the making available certain research facilities, but by and large it would need one or more products it can viably export and/or one or more services it could offer. The only thing I can think of would be the mining and enriching uranium, to be available in 50 to 60 years time, and the storage (in some Moon canyon far away from the colony) nuclear waste from Earth, a service/facility the Earth could do with right now. But foodstuffs are out, unless it would be possible to easily cultivate truffles on the Moon, and actually everything else&nbsp;the&nbsp;Earth&nbsp;produces and manufactures is [out]. The trouble is that a good number of scientists believe that we will ultimately be able to master nuclear fusion, so that nobody would want to invest [really] long term in anything to do with nuclear fission, that's not mentioning the objections the greens would have. In short, I don't think we are in business where the Moon is concerned.</p>
 
M

mouseonmars

Guest
<p>I've just heard, McDonalds are going to fund everything, apparently they will make millions selling cheezburgers to future Lunar consumers !</p><p>Siriusly there is a lot of speculation about these issues. There must be a number of future economc models to support the funding of return to the Moon, and the ISS ... (hmmm .. plans research trawl ).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am your God. I am all knowing." Baal, Stargate SG-1 </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">Platinum = lucrative lunar economy.</font> </p><font size="2"><p><font size="2"><font size="2">Fuel-cell powered devices getting closer</font></font></p><p>Tiny fuel cells powered by combustibles could power a laptop for days</p><p class="textBodyBlack">SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Laptop, cell phone and iPod owners tired of having their devices run out of charge after a few hours have been patiently waiting for the next portable power source to arrive.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">Tiny fuel cells, powered by combustible liquids or gasses, have long been touted as the eventual solution. Potentially, they could power a laptop for days between refills.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">But fuel cells have perennially remained a year or two away from reaching the market as companies have worked on making them small, cheap and long-lasting, while making sure they don't overheat.</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p>"<font size="2">Platinum = lucrative lunar economy."</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">With platinum selling for $800 per oz, how do you plan to make a profit?</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;Pretend the suff were just laying on the lunar surface in bars, so you didn't need to dig or process. You fly up and land and scoop up 200 pounds and return home. You just netted 2.5 million dollars. How much does it cost for the round trip??? Just a tad more that what you brought home!</font></p><p><font size="2">A lunar trip is a political stunt. A lunar base would be a money pit. There is no profit beyond LEO.</font></p>
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
<p>Meh, it ain't that difficult to make money with the Moon.</p><p>Build a small robot with a camera, four wheels, a solar panel, an antenna and a set of types. Send it on a small cheap rocket. Advertise: "Write your name, the name of your beloved one, or the name of your pet on the Moon for $1000". Send the names to the robot. The robot prints the names on the regolith with the types and takes a photo. Etc.</p><p>5 names per minute, 300 names per hour, 3000 names per day, 90,000 names for a 3 months mission, total $90,000,000. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Platinum = lucrative lunar economy."&nbsp;With platinum selling for $800 per oz, how do you plan to make a profit?&nbsp;Pretend the suff were just laying on the lunar surface in bars, so you didn't need to dig or process. You fly up and land and scoop up 200 pounds and return home. You just netted 2.5 million dollars. How much does it cost for the round trip??? Just a tad more that what you brought home!A lunar trip is a political stunt. A lunar base would be a money pit. There is no profit beyond LEO. <br /> Posted by samkent</DIV></p><p><span style="font-size:small" class="Apple-style-span">Why did you choose 200 pounds? &nbsp;The Apollo missions returned 2 men with heavy suits and rocks. &nbsp;I am sure the men weight almost 200 lbs alone. &nbsp;If there is a base, humans dont have to return with the platium. I would imagine any serious Lunar Platinum Business Plan Return Craft could be loaded with at least a ton of material. &nbsp;That would net $25 million a pop.&nbsp;</span></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why did you choose 200 pounds? &nbsp;The Apollo missions returned 2 men with heavy suits and rocks. &nbsp;I am sure the men weight almost 200 lbs alone. &nbsp;If there is a base, humans dont have to return with the platium. I would imagine any serious Lunar Platinum Business Plan Return Craft could be loaded with at least a ton of material. &nbsp;That would net $25 million a pop.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by danhezee</DIV><br /><br />And you think a mission can be launched to the Moon, mine and process enogh soil to refine a ton of platinum, and return it to earh for less than 25 million? Do you know what the percentage of platinum in lunar soil is? I don't because it's not in the top 10 lists...</p><p>Surely you jest!!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
O

oscar1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you think a mission can be launched to the Moon, mine and process enogh soil to refine a ton of platinum, and return it to earh for less than 25 million? Do you know what the percentage of platinum in lunar soil is? I don't because it's not in the top 10 lists...Surely you jest!! <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I would add 'there's no business that's Moon business'!<br /></p>
 
S

samkent

Guest
Suspose&nbsp;the round trip cost of constallation comes to 1 billion dollars. And if platinum stays at $800 per oz. You would have to return 1.25 million pounds per trip to break even. I don't understand why people still think there's money to be made out there.
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
<p>I am not sure why you think it would cost 1 billion a trip.&nbsp; The way I see it being done is that there would be a series of Tugs that go from lunar orbit to Earth orbit.&nbsp; These tugs would be nuke powered.&nbsp; They would be able to transfer an empty Shell container to the moon where it would be filled and pulled back to orbit.&nbsp; Thrusters on the cargo vessel would take the ship slowly back into orbit and then de-orbit it.&nbsp; It would land on land by parachute.&nbsp; And if it were to crash, so what it is a vessel of bare metal.&nbsp; </p><p>Of course the infrastructure has to be built for it and that would be expensive but once in place it could be used for many different things, not just metal.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not sure why you think it would cost 1 billion a trip.&nbsp; The way I see it being done is that there would be a series of Tugs that go from lunar orbit to Earth orbit.&nbsp; These tugs would be nuke powered.&nbsp; They would be able to transfer an empty Shell container to the moon where it would be filled and pulled back to orbit.&nbsp; Thrusters on the cargo vessel would take the ship slowly back into orbit and then de-orbit it.&nbsp; It would land on land by parachute.&nbsp; And if it were to crash, so what it is a vessel of bare metal.&nbsp; Of course the infrastructure has to be built for it and that would be expensive but once in place it could be used for many different things, not just metal.&nbsp; <br />Posted by JeffreyNYA</DIV><br /><br />If the U.S. really wanted to boost it's economy it would go into World War II industrialization mode.&nbsp; That's what got us out of the depression.&nbsp; Instead of building tousands of B-17's we hundreds of Space Shuttles....the cost is about the same, because the real measure of cost is in man-hours.&nbsp; We were floating a new Essex Class aircraft carrier about one a month, how much did that cost in man-hours?&nbsp; A lot more than any space program.&nbsp; But if we put that effort into our spae program we'd hace the space infrastructure to make living on the moon affordable, and even profitable.</p><p>It' working in the 1940's, it will work again, now, also.&nbsp; The only problem would be if the American working keeps buying more foreign produced stuff instead of American produced stuff.&nbsp; We'd have to keep the newly generated money in the US for a while to build up the rest of the economy is built, like we did in&nbsp;the,&nbsp;1950's and 1960's.&nbsp; That's why our economy was so good back then, we kept our money that we just printed in the economy and bought products built in the U.S..&nbsp; I don't know if we have the brains to do that now.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p>Building carriers involved a lot of lower skilled labor. Shuttles take many fewer people but with vastly higher skills.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>plus</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Building space tugs doesn't make lunar goodies any cheaper.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It's all just childhood dreams. It's time to wake up and do your chores.</p>
 
M

mouseonmars

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Building carriers involved a lot of lower skilled labor. Shuttles take many fewer people but with vastly higher skills.&nbsp;plus&nbsp;Building space tugs doesn't make lunar goodies any cheaper.&nbsp;It's all just childhood dreams. It's time to wake up and do your chores. <br /> Posted by samkent</DIV></p><p>Indeed. Very little research on this thread. There are many, many documents out there examing commercial exploitation of space as well as agreements like the "General Exploration Strategy". Now we have the "we need a war" argument which frankly I find disgusting that anyone would suggest that we need millions of deaths just to stimulate the economy and get into space. Common people. You can do better than this !</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am your God. I am all knowing." Baal, Stargate SG-1 </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts