[HN Gopher] Private companies will launch a new fleet of moon la...
___________________________________________________________________
Private companies will launch a new fleet of moon landers
Author : swayvil
Score : 34 points
Date : 2021-09-19 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| Zenst wrote:
| Slight tangent, but I'm wondering and kinda dreading the day that
| some company pops some large advert upon the Moon so it can be
| seen on Earth.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I wouldn't be too worried. Copernicus crater is 93km in
| diameter... Which is the circle on left hand side of moon.
|
| Anything truly visible from Earth would be absolutely massive
| and we haven't done anything like that scale on Earth even
| yet...
| [deleted]
| nohuck13 wrote:
| Thanks. Picture for anybody else curious:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_(lunar_crater)#/m.
| ..
| edgyquant wrote:
| That sounds like it would be impossibly expensive
| rektide wrote:
| i heard at one point Carl Sagan was approached by some element
| of the US government about possibly calculating what kind of
| nuke thet'd have to set off to be visible on earth.
|
| oh! seems he was a grad student at IIT Chicago and indeed
| worked on Project A119! i didnt know it was early in his
| career, or that he'd accepted.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119#Research
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Astrobotic in Pittsburgh has very good people. So proud!
| akamoonknight wrote:
| Might be a long ways out, as this article still seems mainly
| about research purposes, but if there's things like the Outer
| Space Treaty (which to my understanding theoretically limits
| country-based ownership of things like the moon), then to some
| extent it feels like there's no "law" on the moon, so will we see
| company's landers sabotaging other company's landers as they
| compete for resources? I guess I'm picturing something like the
| gold rush of the mid 1800's. Maybe orbits around earth are an
| example of where something similar is sort of "working out" ?
| simonh wrote:
| The treaty means you can't claim territory, but you can
| establish bases, and extract and use resources. What it means
| in practice is you can't make a claim, you just go and take
| what you need, and once you vacate a site others can come along
| and occupy it. They just cant interfere with any equipment you
| leave in place.
| hkon wrote:
| Can't wait to see and ad for Coca Cola or Red Bull on the moon.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If private companies don't, nobody will. Most gov'ts are just not
| interested. Gov'ts move slower than a herd of turtles. The best
| thing the gov't involvement could be would to establish ground
| rules, er moon rules. Rules/treaties for Antartica could be a
| starting point.
| simonh wrote:
| > If private companies don't, nobody will.
|
| All these efforts are literally being paid for by NASA.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sure, start with the easy government money, but once you get
| a track record, you get non-gov't customers.
| skissane wrote:
| The article is about private companies being paid to do it _by
| NASA_. Would these particular companies be doing it if NASA
| wasn 't paying for it? Probably not.
|
| I think the first purely commercial missions to the Moon are
| likely to be tourism. These particular companies are a long way
| away from being able to transport people - as opposed to
| scientific experiments. SpaceX is much closer. Blue Origin and
| Dynetics also have a chance, but I doubt they will be able to
| compete against SpaceX in the lunar tourism market unless they
| can drop their costs significantly.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I know this sounds ridiculous, but "Moonball" is really promising
| as a televised professional sport. Think about it: who wouldn't
| watch professional athletes in 1/6 gravity? That means, 4 second
| long, 10ft high jumps. Assuming everyone would watch it, it's a
| real business opportunity.
|
| It's not terribly hard, either. There are enormous moon lava
| tubes[1], so it would be possible to just inflate a sporting
| arena in the radiation sheilded underground. Importantly,
| atheletes could play without a special life support suit.
| However, you'd need awesome shoes with good ankle support for
| landing those jumps. I assume Moonball will first be played by
| mission astronauts, to keep fit. But within 20 years, I predict
| televised sports will be the biggest source of moon revenue,
| aside from govt income.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube
| dylan604 wrote:
| > expect it to be the biggest source of revenue
|
| maybe 2nd after advertisers building giant billboards visible
| from earth
| trothamel wrote:
| The moon is really small, visually - half a degree in
| diameter. That's the size of a dime at six feet, likely means
| such billboards would not be noticeable enough to be worth
| the effort.
| muthdra wrote:
| Just advertise for telescope enthusiasts.
| cbanek wrote:
| Now I'm thinking telescope + QR code on the moon, who
| knows, maybe it'd be a set of lights that could generate
| QR codes
| [deleted]
| ahevia wrote:
| If I see this being done within my lifetime I know now
| which HN poster to blame
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Pepsi logo might work
| chiph wrote:
| Or broadcasting. No pesky national rules regarding power
| output or content.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| A competitive team sport in a chamber taking advantage of the
| lunar gravity was a very minor part of the world building of a
| moon base in The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov, honestly I
| thought he spent too long explaining it but you may enjoy it
| keeping in mind he only had the science of 1972 to work with.
| :)
| generalizations wrote:
| Consider how quickly fads change on earth; I imagine the
| novelty of 'moonball' would quickly fade.
| prox wrote:
| That's what all you earthlings say :P
| ithkuil wrote:
| > However, you'd need awesome shoes with good ankle support for
| landing those jumps.
|
| How does that work?
|
| The energy (force times distance) your legs can impart pushing
| the ground up, must match the force time distance the ground
| will impart on your feet while you land. So, if any of that is
| significantly different from the dynamics in Earth's gravity,
| the same effect should matter on liftoff and not only on
| landing.
|
| I assume the biggest risk on landing is that you risk losing
| balance, is that what you need better shoes, so you're more
| tolerant to a bad foot position on landing?
| pomian wrote:
| The concept reminds me of the great book by Andy Weir, Artemis.
| (He of; The Martian, fame.) Audiobook is very good too.
| swayvil wrote:
| They mention a few kinds of research that will be conducted. But
| where's the money in it? Is there something worth mining?
|
| You've got infinite dust, from which can be made a kind of
| concrete. Infinite solar power. Possibly water. What else?
|
| What are the advantages of building a base on the moon vs
| building it in orbit?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Zooming into building on the moon vs. building in orbit, one
| big difference is that with some bootstrapping, on the moon a
| number of materials can be sourced locally. Some things will
| still need to be shipped in, but eliminating many of the most
| cumbersome materials (water, aluminum, iron, and titanium among
| others) will cut the number of supply missions down
| considerably.
|
| In contrast, everything in orbit needs to be launched from
| Earth, and shipping up raw resources doesn't make sense because
| you don't really have the space for processing and
| manufacturing facilities.
|
| That said, this assumes a more robust and steadily growing
| presence. If all you want is a tiny antarctic style outpost a
| lot of that doesn't matter.
| [deleted]
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| What are the advantages of building a base in Antarctica?
| Benefits are fairly nebulous but still real.
|
| Building a base in lunar or a halo orbit is pretty stupid. Very
| few advantages over earth orbit; substantially higher costs
| mean we'll use it a lot less.
|
| An earth orbit station has been very useful. However once it
| ages out the best replacement is probably just fitting out a
| Starship to orbit for many months and return.
| gus_massa wrote:
| The bases in Antarctica are important because once there is a
| clear economic incentive, the Antarctic Treaty will end and
| each country will try to grab a piece. You can let the morons
| build bases there and nuke them at the last second, but it's
| more friendly to keep a few bases and use that as a
| antecedent to pick your part when the negotiations starts.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Out of top of my head.
|
| 1. If humans are a future part of the picture, buried
| structures on the Moon will protect them against cosmic rays -
| much harder to do that in an orbital station.
|
| 2. Same goes for gravity. While a huge rotating station is
| technically possible, Moon has its 0.16G naturally everywhere.
| Might be better for health, is certainly better for plumbing
| and other sorts of equipment.
|
| 3. Water is actually pretty important. The spots on the Moon
| where it can be produced may turn "hot", as different countries
| try and claim them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-19 23:00 UTC)