Mankind's Playground: The Surface of Selene

[spacester]

VSE may be dead, and with it NASA'a plans for a lunar base. CEV, an inherently lunar capable vehicle, may survive, but the South Pole Station may be out. <br /><br />Rampant speculation, maybe, but that's what the outlook seems to be. <br /><br />So folks may easily conclude that chances for private activity there is out as well. <br /><br />As far as moon industry goes, there still is a compelling and effective rationale to support it. The trouble is, the first step is for everyone who matters to take my word for it. LOL<br /><br />Let's say we've tentatively identified Tourism as our target industry to become the biggest on the Lunar surface. For that activity to become more than a series of encampments, to become an actual industry-sized industry as it were, will require some kind of positive-feedback - viral perhaps - to fuel growth.<br /><br />So if the seed is the encampment of early-adopting private lunar pioneers, what is the fruit? How does that mission boot-strap into large permanently staffed facilities?<br /><br />What is it that tourists do?<br /><br />1. Be There. <br /><br />2. Recreate. Do things for fun.<br /><br />See where I'm going with this? Not yet?<br /><br />What do you need to have, to support all this activity?<br /><br />A playground, that's what you need.<br /><br />Now expand that thought a bit. Not just a specific playground, but the idea that it is ALL a playground. That's what it's there for. That is the destiny of the lunar surface: Mankind's Playground.<br /><br />So this is the mindset I invite others to adopt. If everyone shared this mindset, profitable business plans would suddenly appear.<br /><br />The Moon is our Playground. We go to the moon to have fun.<br /><br />It is not beneath mankind's dignity to go there for that purpose. Play is essential, individually and collectively.<br /><br />In this case, the economic growth generated by all this play, could be a cornerstone - along with energy technologies - of the Next Great Economic Boom. That's how essent <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

In terms of natural resources, the moon <i>is</i> sort of like a giant sand pit <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />And what does a sand pit need? Tonka Toys!<br /><br />Have you seen the threads about robotic exploration? I think this will come first because it is so much cheaper and less risky. Apart from science they could do many other things eg write messages by pressing shapes into the moon dust. There might be more money charging $10k to write a message on the moon celebrating a wedding for example than charging $10mil for a visit. This would be about the simplest use of in-situ resources. The messages would last practically forever.<br /><br />Then there is simple exploration. A modern robotic explorer could last practically forever and be driven much faster than the mars robots because the lag is only about 3 seconds. Every bit of footage would be downloaded in HD and you could log on at any point and see what the robot was doing right now.<br /><br />Im not saying people shouldnt follow but this would be a great way to ramp up the technology and the interest. The more the robots develop there the more inviting the place would become. They may even luck out and find something totally unexpected. A vein of diamond? Though on the moon, that would probably be more valuable for its carbon <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />It seems like everyone who hangs out on these boards wants to go into space, but we can't agree on where. Just about everyone seems to think that the only way it is going to happen is if private investors pony up the cash for the whole thing, no matter which destination we are talking about. (I am studiously ignoring the 'robots only in space' fringe as being irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Personal preference.) Government is viewed as incapable of opening up this frontier, based upon the track record of NASA over the term of its existence.<br /><br />This is all well and good, but I see a serious problem with it. Private investors are not clamoring to jump on the bandwagon of off planet exploration, resulting in what private firms that are trying to build launch vehicles making little headway. To date, I am unaware of any proposed private launch vehicle which would be able to carry more than one person into orbit, and I have not heard of any successful flights of any private launch vehicles. (Definition of successful flight: Insertion of payload into Earth orbit.)<br /><br />To my knowledge, private organizations have proposed building launch vehicles capable of putting several humans into Earth orbit since the 1980's, yet none has done so. It is not that the private sector lacks the capital, as several trillion dollars is currently at play in various stock and bond markets. But that capital is very risk-averse, meaning that it will not be invested in enterprises which do not promise some return in a short time. Obviously, space exploration is considered a very risky enterprise, in terms of losing personnel and vehicles, and almost completely without any returns on investment.<br /><br />The private sector is waiting for someone to perfect launch technology so that it does not take several hundred people, perfect weather conditions, and absolutely flawless performance to get off the ground. They are waiting for someone to show how to g <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"To date, I am unaware of any proposed private launch vehicle which would be able to carry more than one person into orbit..."</font><br /><br />See Dragon/Falcon 9.<br /><br />Also Atlas V. <br /><br />Interorbital Neptune.<br /><br />Others -- /> Masten Space systems, Rocketplane Kistler (<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />), Scaled Composites (SpaceShip Three), SpaceDev, T/Space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[spacester]

KelvinZero,<br /><br />That was a fun post to read. Agreed on all points, because that is my strategy as well. <br /><br />I want to take it a step further, and use robotics to build a large tourist facility. If it takes ten years to build the structure, so be it. But make it large, and while the structure is being built, figure out all the details of outfitting it as a luxury resort. Then the people who helped build it get special rates on their lodging.<br /><br />And a free drink in the bar. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

swampcat,<br /><br />Thank you, I was unaware that the Falcon 9 and the Atlas V had that capability. I have not heard of the Interorbital Neptune, probably because they have not yet flown a significant flight. I consider the Atlas to be derived from a military booster, and therefore outside the set of 'private' launch vehicles.<br /><br />I would love to see the proposal for the SpaceShip Three, if one can be found. I was tantalized by a remark Rutan is attributed to making regarding a carrier wing with 8 747-sized fanjets, but I have seen nothing about it. My money would be on him, if he had real money, to be the first to make orbit with a manned vehicle. Airborne launching eliminates a huge number of difficulties, (admittedly creating others,) and materials technology has advanced to the point where wing-loading flatly impossible 20 years ago is now routine, while airframes can be built far lighter than previously possible.<br /><br />But I digress. The money to fly a developmental vehicle over and over again is obviously lacking in the launch vehicle development business. Without high flight rates, development times stretch into decades, it would seem. I doubt that any private launch enterprise has 1 billion dollars committed to it in cash, which is about what I think that it will take to work the bugs out of a new launch system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spacester]

halman,<br /><br />The destination debate is easy to solve: support them all. If everybody supported everything, the pie would be bigger and everybody's slice would be bigger.<br /><br />Private Investors *OR* Gummint programs: another false choice. It's going to be BOTH, obviously. The discussion is or should be on just how that works. Complementary efforts, a sum greater than its parts, viral growth, with grass roots components: there are lots of undiscussed ideas along those lines, because the false choice stands as a barrier to that discussion.<br /><br />The 'cost barrier' (qso1's theme) is real and it explains a lot. You describe well the current obstacles to investment.<br /><br />To make this analysis based on what has happened 'to date' is silliness to me. These things take time. I say: base your analysis on likely outcomes of current activities. E.g. why wait until Falcon 9 flies before you begin to take into account how that changes things?<br /><br />The private investors who jump in early, but not too early, are the ones most likely to be the future tycoons of space.<br /><br />The investors need people to believe in, in order to take the risks needed to be the big winner. There is an abundance of people of good character, with the talent, knowledge and drive to provide that leadership in the market. They are on schedule for their big coming-out party in 2010. But if investors wait til 2010, they'll be behind the curve. The future is forming right now.<br /><br />Big Gummint Spending does not seem like the right path to me. Those days are gone. What NASA is faced with is the opportunity to find ways to <i>leverage</i> their dollars to spur the private sector to start down growth curves with the various technologies needed to become a space-faring species. NASA also faces the risk of becoming irrelevant as the private sector finds ways to defeat the cost barrier without significant help from the gummint. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

swampcat, a good list, but you didnt get them all, theres quite a few more.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">" I consider the Atlas to be derived from a military booster, and therefore outside the set of 'private' launch vehicles."</font><br /><br />That's true for the booster, but the crew capsule they have proposed would be built and used by private enterprise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...a good list, but you didnt get them all, theres quite a few more."</font><br /><br />Well, I kinda stole that list from Wikipedia <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> .<br /><br />So, add to the list <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>> " I consider the Atlas to be derived from a military booster, and therefore outside the set of 'private' launch vehicles."<br /> /> That's true for the booster, but the crew capsule they have proposed would be built and used by private enterprise.</i><br /><br /><br />"All technology is military technology." - Marc Pauline<br /><br />The critical difference is not in the rocket's origin but in it's availability in exchange for cash. Atlas' origins don't matter as long as you can buy a ride. You can buy an Atlas flight now.<br /><br />I like the premise of this thread, it is similar to the idea that the Moon is best as a platform for hotels and telescopes. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />United States investors control over 6 trillion dollars in equity, money market funds, etcetera. Worldwide, over 100 trillion dollars is being played with on stock exchanges, hedge funds, commodities, and other financial markets. If private investment beyond a few dedicated, enlightened visionaries were happening, we would be reading about launches several times a week, and success would be imminent. But there just is not any substantial private investment in space technology right now, because no one knows what direction things are going to go in, and the risks far outweigh any potential payoffs.<br /><br />The government encouraged the development of aircraft by subsidizing the moving of special mail by air. The government encouraged the development of railroads by giving the companies that built the roads the land on either side. The government encouraged the development of airlines by subsidizing the construction of airports, and developing and operating the Air Traffic Control system. The government built the Interstate highway system, spanning huge distances where there was little population so that commerce as well as troops could move quickly around the country.<br /><br />Over and over again, the government has been responsible for the first steps in establishing a new technology, paying for the learning necessary to make utilization straightforward, as well as underwriting projects beyond the ability or desire of the private sector to accomplish, but which will benefit large numbers of people.<br /><br />All it would take would be a 25 year commitment on the part of the government, at about 30 billion a year, and we could establish the direction of wealth creation soundly and indisputably. Within 5 years, we would see several billion a year pouring into off planet development through the private sector, and that figure would grow rapidly after that, I am sure. There is so much capital desperate for investment in wealth creation it al <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>