Apollo's Sequel Will Be a Gold Rush
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller. China's Tiangong space station can hold 6 people, but currently has only 3. Humans in space just aren't that useful.
(1) Lunar holidays for the ultra-rich. (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon. (3) Professional sports–first ever professional [insert your favourite sport here] game/match/race/etc on the moon. (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours, we have to build one even bigger in response! (5) Scientific research – e.g. can mammals reproduce in lunar gravity?
> The ISS seems to have outlived its usefulness and is scheduled to be de-orbited in 2030. There's a successor planned, but it's much smaller
There is more than one successor planned. And I think with SpaceX Starship, launching much larger stations/modules is becoming a very real possibility. Once Starship is demonstrated to be operationally viable (not quite there yet but could happen this year), a lot of current plans will change, since the mass and volue budgets suddenly get a lot bigger.
An incredibly small market given the cost of getting a human to the moon and keeping them there. There will be no economy of scale here for quite a while so this is an unlikely driver of any revenue. Tourism is barely a thing for orbital trips and not even close to being sustainable for such a small energy expenditure compared to a lunar visit.
> (2) Entertainment industry–reality TV shows filmed on the moon.
Never going to happen. Chicken-egg problem here and a complete fantasy.
> (3) Professional sports
So rediculous it does not even rise to the level of fantasy.
> (4) Oh no, China's lunar base is bigger than ours,
Possible, but not quite the national motivation it was in the midst of the space race. In the 60s and 70s existential conflict with a competing super-power could barely get flags and footprints on the moon. What passes for modern nationalism is not enough to sustain a lunar presence.
> (5) Scientific research
This is the most likely of any options presented so far, but is still completely reliant upon the government teat to drive action. This is the exact same revenue model we have now and mining government contracts and lobbiest-driven funding is not exactly fertile ground for a 'gold rush.'
The point remains that there is no revenue model at all for this, no is there likely to be one within our lifetimes.
I dunno know, man. I hate reality TV but I would totally pay per view for a show like Big Brother: Jersey Shore in Spaaaaace where people get tossed in an airlock when they’re voted off.
Soon, it'll be just as cheap to send payload to orbit, as send freight via plane.
I think it’s fitting we won’t explore space until we're able to move past this depraved way of thinking.
Long term. Infrastructure that makes deeper-space endeavours more accessible. Granted, any society that embarks on that is virtually assured of a solid return on R&D (remote, possibly autonomous construction and manufacturing, et cetera), but the timeframes will be generational.
It is not like our economy is known for its obsession with useful things. All things considered I am far more favorable to exploring space than using the cantillon effect to transfer wealth from the people to bankers and oligopolists so they can waste bazzilions of joules into obsoleting people's jobs.
Not the first time though, California had one of those too.
Although I don't see any future in getting muricans, jacked up on fake news, to populate the moon, even though it worked with California.
The big moon news people should be paying attention to is gateway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway
This isn't another small startup with a lander on it's side. This is one of NASA's primary missions, aimed at establishing and supporting a military presence on the moon 8-(
Because of course, we HAVE to go to the moon, so meatheads with laser blasters can have a shootout to see who's the "hero".
How are people thinking about the future of the Moon? Is the colonization of the Moon economically driven (we make money by being on the Moon) or ideologically driven (we just want to start expanding beyond Earth)? If it turns out that economic opportunities are limited, will we still see attempts at building a Moon base?
Alone, no. In concert, yes. This is why anyone cheering for America’s space programme should celebrate China’s wins. Beyond being decent, it’s the competition that keeps the broad population engaged. (Apollo was not a popular programme.)
There should be reasons to try for the moon & ideally further. But theres something sick & detestable about the land rush of control going on. These flag planting exercises in no way justify such large scale dominion. This is pathetic & revilesome.
Explorations leading to colonization of other places here on earth were funded with an economic return in mind, largely of necessity, because that’s how those projects get enough different people aligned behind a common goal.
It’s great to abstractly want to explore the moon. That requires tons of resources that need to paid for somehow.