Moon exploration dead?

[BReif]

I just don't see private industry doing this long term. Where is the Return on Investment and profit that would give incentive for private industry to enter into this "market"? Launching satellites is one thing, and there is a market there, but humans in space? No way that will ever be profitable for private sector businesses. I just don't see it.

 

[qso1]

You may well be right. There is no guarantee that private industry will take the reigns of human spaceflight from NASA. If that turns out to be the case, human spaceflights days may well be numbered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Launching satellites is one thing, and there is a market there, but humans in space? No way that will ever be profitable for private sector businesses.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />In direct contradiction:<br />http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=5131<br /><br />And thats just scratching the very surface of the possibilities.

 

[BReif]

How many people do you think will be able to foot a $20 million bill to ride to orbit and back? Maybe there are some very rich people who can afford to do it once, but how many people fall into this category (the very rich who can afford to spend that much on a spaceflight),, and how many repeat customers will you have doing it again and again? If I was asked to invest in a company providing the "space-tourist" product, there is no way I would invest in it.

 

[no_way]

I would invest. And if they'd be hiring pilots, flight attendants, heck even ground servicemen, i'd sign up.<br />Look, $25 mil is the absolute upper end of that market, and just one offering, i.e. monopoly. The price is bound to drop in years to come, when competition steps up.<br />I'd plonk down $10-20K for a subrobital hop myself, even though im just a regular joe and its a good chunk of my income. I believe i will have the opportunity to do exactly that in a few years, when VTVL craft like Armadillo and Masten will be flying.<br />There is a reason to believe that all sorts of possible price brackets, with different spaceflight experiences will be offered, up to lunar surface rides in a few decades. <br /><br />EDIT: and regardless. As you see, there is more demand than there is supply for the product right now, and that info is from the guys who are selling the product. Backed up by a few market surveys as well. So regardless of whether you think its worthy of investment or not, serious people are investing in the idea.

 

[willpittenger]

It isn't a question of "if" but "when". It will happen it just might take several more centuries. The keys to private human spaceflight success:<li>Low cost trips to and from orbit<li>Less risk during the journey; no more than a conventional airline flight<li>Fast turnaround (days rather than months) to maximize overall fleet efficiency<li>Something like an orbital hotel or colony so that you have a destination<li>Volume; 3-4 passengers per flight won't be enough for good economy of flight; You need at least 30-40</li></li></li></li></li> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[no_way]

Your prerequisites are not absolutes. For comparison, id consider a private skydiving industry around the world quite successful, and i have been a regular customer of that industry for quite a while.<br />- Low cost is relative. Whats affordable to "regular Joe" in US isnt affordable to random peasant in a less developed country. There is no set barrier when something becomes affordable all of a sudden for everybody. private spaceflight is already affordable to some folks, as demonstrated. <br />- risk is relative and subjective. lots of people go skydiving and rollerskating without thoroughly analysing the dangers. rollerskating happens to be far more accident-prone sport for example than skydiving<br />- orbital artificial destination isnt so important. suborbital market is likely quite big, without any such "destination". so would be orbital, especially if you can build comfortable ships accommodating a few passengers. Orbit is a destination with significant symbolic value of its own, and anything beyond orbit, like lunar sorties are of even higher value. Skydiving is done without any destination. The journey is the destination, so to speak.

 

[kelvinzero]

What is this several centuries business? that is just wallowing in self pity!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Of course it 'might' happen, if we have really stuffed things up and apes rule the planet. Sometimes that seems to be the case right now.<br /><br />My bet is that within 30 years suborbital is simply the fastest way to hop between continents.

 

[BReif]

If its a public program its a matter of "politics"and "money". If its private, its a matter of "money" and "return on investment." Its not a matter of "if" and "when". Very few people really actually care about space exploration, and that in itself is very discouraging. What is even more discouraging is that our political leaders don't really care about space exploration.

 

[j05h]

"When" is the operative, not "if" unless true disaster happens. By 2100 there should be bases, cities and settlements throughout the Inner and possibly entire Solar System. The question is the scope, relation and ownership of them. <br /><br />Low cost flights are largely a question of frequency. Relative to air travel or ocean freight, space is always going to be expensive. Long-term it should stabilize at perhaps $200-500/kg with enough volume, but wouldn't bet on it being any cheaper than that without magic space elevators. <br /><br />Fast turn-around assumes LEO taxis - a craft of 30 people may be on a direct trajectory to it's destination, kitted out on Earth and thrown by ULV or HLV. Reusability is not guaranteed, as there is incredible value in hardware launched (stages, engines and avionics esp). Unless these are exclusively tourist flights, much of what goes up will stay up and be reused in space. I'm mostly thinking of mass settlement, the effect of people going to stay and build. The kind of flight frequency to achieve cheap access may not see much in the way of people coming back to Earth (except tourists). <br /><br />A destination is really important, both for starts (Mir, originally with MirCorp, then ISS, Tito, etc) and for sustained, long-term development. The best thing that could ever happen for space development would be another hotelier announcing the Shackleton Hilton using Bigelow hardware. Destinations count. <br /><br />Large passenger compliments make a lot of sense for both tourism, worker or settlement flights. Elon Musk has talked about a Mars ship that carries 24 people for perhaps $9M each. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

I hope we find something more robust that tourism.<br /><br />My favorites are SSP or ISRU. There are so many developments in these fields, even ones none of us have considered, that could suddenly open space to us.<br /><br />There can't be any sudden revolution in rocketry. With time it may get there but it has to take decades and hundreds of billions. But tomorrow someone may hold a press release saying they have a foil that can reflect sunlight as microwaves or a lawnmower sized device that can print acres of solar panels or an oven sized device that can 'bake' up a cpu chip in 'only' a week atom by atom and also bake up all its own components over a year.<br /><br />Inventions like this could not merely make space profitable, by making it profitable, nations would be forced to race for it, or be left behind. We could have a vast space population in a single generation. <br /><br />(edit)<br />Another revolution will be robotics. We are going to get robots as dextrous as humans, no question. For some tasks they are far more dexterous. Space or no, the technology for this is marching on; for manufacture, for prosthetics. It is unstopable. With robots like that you never need to send entirely new specialised craft. You just send replacement parts. You will probably be able to send ten robots for the same mass of humans. These robots may delay sending people into space, but when they do go, they will go to fully constructed habitats. These robots will provide a good reason to send people to mars. To oversee the workforce from a base on phobos for example.<br /><br />Rocketry can be set back by bad luck and unimaginative Presidents. Only a true species threaterning event can prevent one of these other technologies opening space for us.

 

[phaze]

It isn't something I'm familar with... but $20 million ain't what it used to be.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Very few people really actually care about space exploration, and that in itself is very discouraging. What is even more discouraging is that our political leaders don't really care about space exploration.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Interest in space will change the more people travel to space. I look at space tourism as the begining since peoples imaginations will be challenged.<br /><br />Politicians never cared about space exploration....just political expedincy, you can be sure of that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[BReif]

"By 2100 there should be bases, cities and settlements throughout the Inner and possibly entire Solar System."<br /><br />My hope is that you are right, but after watching space exploration for the last 40 years, my hope is running a little thin. In all actuality, manned space exploration stopped in 1972 when we retreated back to LEO. There just isn't any real interest, or will, to leave LEO again. And LEO is, well boring.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>By 2100 there should be bases, cities and settlements throughout the Inner and possibly entire Solar System.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe. But I just can't help thinking how much that statements sounds like the ones were men were standing on Mars by the end of the 1980s. That did not happen. In fact, we retreated to LEO and may retreat further. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[halman]

jsmoody,<br /><br />"I don't think we should send manned missions to the Moon nor to Mars at the expense of other, more fruitful scientific missions. Too many important scientific endeavors have been cancelled or delayed already because of it. The macho, Buck Rogers syndrome to get men on the Moon and Mars is just that, show-off and "just so we can say we did it" nonsense.<br /><br />I see several problems beyond the EXTREME expense of such endeavors, not the least of which is the radiation hazard. Cosmic rays will kill an astronaut long before they could get to Mars and back. And they're almost impossible to stop. Currently we don't have the technology to protect agains them.<br /><br />But what is the all-fired rush to get people on the Moon and Mars. We did that (to the Moon) with Apollo. People got bored with it and saw no realy scientific payoff so it was cancelled. What's the hurry????!!! Sometime in the future we'll have better technology. Cheaper, more efficient, faster, safer technology, so why waste hundreds of billions of dollars and risk people's lives unnecessarily???? I don't get it. And I certainly don't buy the "Because it's there!" or "So we can say we did it." nonsense. And so far, that's all I can see as a reason for going.<br /><br />Let's send more robots. They're doing a wonderful job. We don't need to squander resourses and risk lives, the robots will do it at a tiny fraction of the cost."<br /><br />To my mind, you have just explained why off planet exploration is in jeopardy. It is all about science, learning things like how the Solar System formed. If we knew the exact process, timeline, etcetera, how would it change our lives? In a country where the Athletic Department of most institutions of higher learning has a budget larger that the combined budgets of the Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Geology Departments, how much support for scientific exploration can we expect? To a person whose livelihood is Astrophysics, anything which takes away f <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[MannyPim]

Eloquently stated !<br /><br />Exactly on target ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[BReif]

Right on the money there. There is so much more to this than just science!

 

[kelvinzero]

I just wanted to add that developing the technology to live on another world <i>is</i> science. Furthermore it is science very relevant to the problem of learning to live on <i>this</i> world once unrenewable resources run out.

 

[vulture2]

>>And LEO is, well boring.<br /><br />I've heard that before, but never from anyone who had actually been there!

 

[alokmohan]

We can never live in moon.Mars is better place.Try mars.

 

[alokmohan]

Mars will be ideal place of living after terforming.So no more moon.

 

[halman]

alokmohan,<br /><br />It amazes me how anxious people are to have somewhere to live besides Earth. A great many people are willing to go to Mars right now, even though they know it would be a one way trip. Escapist fantasy has cultivated the concept of living on Mars from a tiny seedling into a huge, elaborate, planet wide adaptation of Mars to Earth standards. I get the impression that there are many people who have written the Earth off and want to go somewhere else, not to benefit Earth, but to escape from it and its problems. They don't see space exploration as a way to change or improve things here on Earth, just as a way to get away from it.<br /><br />For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that there will be any substantial number of humans living permanently off planet for many hundreds of years. Everything that I have learned about establishing a biosphere that will support humans indefinitely tells me that we have a great deal to learn before we will be able to maintain large colonies anywhere off planet. And I also believe that we are more likely to build our colonies in space, rather than on a planet, because we would have more control over the environment in space. We can control the acceleration that centrifugal force exerts, we can control the temperature, we can even learn to control the level of radiation.<br /><br />But for the foreseeable future, I believe it is strongly unlikely that colonists will be embarking to homestead on another planet. But I do strongly believe that there will be many people who will spend time living and working off planet, assuring that the Earth will be able to enjoy a high standard of living without choking itself. The Moon is the first step in making that a reality, because it is rich in resources, has no atmosphere, and a low surface gravity. Exporting resources from the Moon to Earth or to other orbits will be extremely cheap once magnetic launchers have been built, and those resources will be what lures lar <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[nuaetius]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>by 2100 the Earth will be almost dead (or killing us) with global warming and that stuff... unless we learn to finally get out of here NOW!!!... but with all the demagogic political stuff goin around lately.. ill doubt we will advance no more than nostalgic '70s videos of Apollo.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Come now, I think you have watched “Day after Tomorrowâ€, and “An Inconvenient Truth†about 5 times too many. <br /><br />Worse case scenario for human caused climate change is the ocean levels would raise 1 foot in the next 100 years, and climatic patterns would change markedly. Earth would still be livable. <br /><br />Life is resilient. If we had a full scale nuclear exchange, followed by MASSIVE climate change, and them a meteor strike on an Extinction Level Event level. I would bet good money the only two creatures to climb out of the rubble would be us and the roaches. <br />

 

[BReif]

Mars is indeed the world that has the most potential, but I wouldn't write off the Moon entirely, there are resources there than can be utilized, and the technology does exist that can enable humanity to live there, and technology is likely to improve making it easier as we progress.