Moon Travel is Getting Cheaper

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It only costs $10 million to go to the moon? I'll take two round trip tickets please. You know, since it's so cheap. Speaking of mining on the moon, I like the guy's quote about there being "$16 quadrillion worth of minerals" on the moon. That number seems like something he mined straight out of his ass. :D

“The total cost from the company’s inception to the first landing on the moon is going to be under $50 million. And that means including developing everything. Going forward, the cost is going to be $10 million [per mission]. And that’s what makes it a great business,” he said. Moon Express just became the first private company given permission by the U.S. government to leave the Earth’s orbit and go to the moon, representing an immense victory for mankind.
 
In before "we haven't been to the moon".

Lots of minerals up there but damn that shipping cost lol
 
Lets just say minerals isn't the only good reason to do this. There's still some significant health issues with long term space travel and lack of gravity.
 
I'll believe it when they actually manage to get to the surface in once piece. Getting anything back is an entirely different story. And I should know, I'm a rocket surgeon!
 
Darunion said:
In before "we haven't been to the moon".

Lots of minerals up there but damn that shipping cost lol
Click to expand...
Just wait until Amazon Prime covers it!

viscountalpha said:
Lets just say minerals isn't the only good reason to do this. There's still some significant health issues with long term space travel and lack of gravity.
Click to expand...
A 3day trip to the Moon is hardly "long term space travel" and there most definitely is gravity there.
 
viscountalpha said:
Lets just say minerals isn't the only good reason to do this. There's still some significant health issues with long term space travel and lack of gravity.
Click to expand...


I believe the bigger issue is extended time in orbit, where gravity is pretty light. The moon has enough gravity to help keeps our spines compressed. Muscle atrophy is another story though, and that's whey you use cycling and resistance-based workouts.
 
alxlwson said:
I believe the bigger issue is extended time in orbit, where gravity is pretty light. The moon has enough gravity to help keeps our spines compressed. Muscle atrophy is another story though, and that's whey you use cycling and resistance-based workouts.
Click to expand...

It's more about radiation and dealing with being shielded from it in space. There's some real issues with cosmic radiation and not being properly shielded from it.
 
If it only cost $10 million to go to the moon, I guarantee you there would be private citizens on the Moon right now.


Well the truth is, is that there are private citizens on the Moon at this moment. I just can't say anything about it publicly. In fact I have said too much.
 
westrock2000 said:
If it only cost $10 million to go to the moon, I guarantee you there would be private citizens on the Moon right now.


Well the truth is, is that there are private citizens on the Moon at this moment. I just can't say anything about it publicly. In fact I have said too much.
Click to expand...

Lifeforms not from earth don't count.
 
defaultluser said:
That's why you spend trillions of dollars building a catapult. We'll make our money back in only one or two eons :D
Click to expand...
or cannons both are more energy efficient than rockets. Rockets have a horrible energy efficiency for space travel... it just has a much nicer acceleration control. :D
 
Last edited:
SvenBent said:
or cannons both are more energy efficient than rockets. Rockets have a horrible energy efficiency for space travel... it just has a much nicer acceleration control. :D
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that if we ever actually make a real attempt to mine the moon, the large infrastructure devices built to transfer those materials cheaply will not be paid for by private enterprise, because the return on investment is "really long, or possibly never."

It was just my serious side, after seeing this company pretending they can go to the moon for 10 million a trip, and somehow return with any usable amount of cargo. They're not the only startup company delivering loads of bullshit in exchange for your investment dollars.
 
westrock2000 said:
If it only cost $10 million to go to the moon, I guarantee you there would be private citizens on the Moon right now.


Well the truth is, is that there are private citizens on the Moon at this moment. I just can't say anything about it publicly. In fact I have said too much.
Click to expand...

In the middle of the sahara desert there are no private citizens, and it costs maybe one thousandt of the price to go there, and it's much more hospitable than the moon. So why would anyone want to go to the moon even if they could afford it?
 
defaultluser said:
I was just pointing out that if we ever actually make a real attempt to mine the moon, the large infrastructure devices built to transfer those materials cheaply will not be paid for by private enterprise, because the return on investment is "really long, or possibly never."

It was just my serious side, after seeing this company pretending they can go to the moon for 10 million a trip, and somehow return with any usable amount of cargo. They're not the only startup company delivering loads of bullshit in exchange for your investment dollars.
Click to expand...

My comment was not really on your point, just the catapult part. It reminded me of the fact that canons are better than rockets for energy efficiency (I'm not total sure on catapults) to send stuff into space. I just found it funny... my humor might be a bit "different"... :sorry:
 
This is probably going to happen once robotics and AI reach the point where you could automate the process and avoid sending humans. With the reduced gravity on the moon it shouldn't be terribly expensive to use electric projectile launchers to shoot raw materials into space, getting those materials back to earth without disintegrating in the atmosphere or landing where you want would probably be more difficult/costly part of the equation.
It would be cool if in the next 1,000 years Mankind turned the moon and into some kind of fully robotic spaceship factory used to send even more robots into space.
 
All the recent popularity of space exploration just sucks in my opinion as I've stated before in another thread (related to Tesla and Elon Musk) - personally here's my opinion:

I think we really need to focus on improving the quality of life here on this planet we call home before we spend billions or even trillions of dollars worrying about traveling to another planet, or the moon (it's a planet, of sorts), before we head off into the wild blue (actually black) yonder and start fucking up and infesting the rest of the universe with the scum of this Earth. :)
 
Tiberian said:
I think we really need to focus on improving the quality of life here on this planet we call home before we spend billions or even trillions of dollars worrying about traveling to another planet.
Click to expand...
Both are doable at the same time. Us humans are an active bunch of animals. We could stabilize Earth then have an asteroid come and take us all out anyway.

Or we could just continue setting up and populating Mars, building bases on the moon, and fixing Earth thus diversifying our humanity. Never put all your humans on one planet.
 
Going to the moon is a lot cheaper than when gaming icon Richard Garriott (Lord British) paid the Russians $30M to go to space. I'm still jealous...
 
M76 said:
In the middle of the sahara desert there are no private citizens, and it costs maybe one thousandt of the price to go there, and it's much more hospitable than the moon. So why would anyone want to go to the moon even if they could afford it?
Click to expand...

There is an appeal to the very fiber of human nature. The question you have asked is practical, but practical is not what pushed our species and societies forward. I can't answer your question because asking the question itself already poses a difference of perspective.
 
Tiberian said:
All the recent popularity of space exploration just sucks in my opinion as I've stated before in another thread (related to Tesla and Elon Musk) - personally here's my opinion:

I think we really need to focus on improving the quality of life here on this planet we call home before we spend billions or even trillions of dollars worrying about traveling to another planet, or the moon (it's a planet, of sorts), before we head off into the wild blue (actually black) yonder and start fucking up and infesting the rest of the universe with the scum of this Earth. :)
Click to expand...

Like social justice, can you ever say with a straight face that we have reached the final point of what is good living? Can we ever say "OK, there is nothing lett to improve in society and we can do other things".

As long as we have money, and it functions as the cornerstone of society, we can never have utopia. We can have dystopia, that's easy. But there will ALWAYS be poverty and suffering relative to the levels of society at that time. It's easy to say that we have the richest poor in the world, but it's hard to think that when you see others around you living an even richer life.

When Europeans came to America, they gave up a lot of luxuries and a lot of safety. But what they got was freedom and discovery. Those two things have always been the driving force of humanity. I think you would be surprised how much labor, turmoil and danger people would be willing to endure to experience that again. People would die, by choice, to explore the unknown.
 
Zuul said:
hahaha...hilarious
Click to expand...

It's a US company, and they need a US license to conduct operations like this. No different than needing "US government permission" to fly airplanes in the US.
 
viscountalpha said:
Lets just say minerals isn't the only good reason to do this. There's still some significant health issues with long term space travel and lack of gravity.
Click to expand...

sfsuphysics said:
Just wait until Amazon Prime covers it!
A 3day trip to the Moon is hardly "long term space travel" and there most definitely is gravity there.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he meant the moon at .16g was a good place to study the effects over time.
 
Bandalo said:
It's a US company, and they need a US license to conduct operations like this. No different than needing "US government permission" to fly airplanes in the US.
Click to expand...

No. Countries own their air space. They do not own space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
westrock2000 said:
There is an appeal to the very fiber of human nature. The question you have asked is practical, but practical is not what pushed our species and societies forward. I can't answer your question because asking the question itself already poses a difference of perspective.
Click to expand...
How would having rich people on the moon push our society forward? They wouldn't go there to perform scientific experiments that can't be done anywhere else. They'd go there for bragging rights.
 
M76 said:
How would having rich people on the moon push our society forward? They wouldn't go there to perform scientific experiments that can't be done anywhere else. They'd go there for bragging rights.
Click to expand...
The same way rich fucks are pushing electric cars forward? Are you really so daft?
 
Monkey God said:
No. Countries own their air space. They do not own space.
Click to expand...

Very true, no country owns space OR the moon. However they're a US company that wants to build their vehicle in the US, launch from US soil and use US-based ground-control facilities. So they need US government permission to do so. The exact same would be true regardless of what the country was.
 
Epic| said:
The same way rich fucks are pushing electric cars forward? Are you really so daft?
Click to expand...
Insults won't prove your point. Now go to the corner and think about how the two things are very different. I have nothing against spacex, or any different commercial endavour. I'm saying that paying money just to get yourself to the moon, doesn't bring anything to the table. If you still don't understand then I'm not sure I'm the daft one here.
 
M76 said:
Insults won't prove your point.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Although calling someone foolish, if with some merit, isn't really an insult, IMO. It's more of an impolite observation.
Now go to the corner and think about how the two things are very different.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm in the corner, how are they very different?
I have nothing against spacex, or any different commercial endavour. I'm saying that paying money just to get yourself to the moon, doesn't bring anything to the table. If you still don't understand then I'm not sure I'm the daft one here
Click to expand...
It literally brings onward movement toward a (new) destination. Which is always 'very' costly for the early pioneers. People paid to come to the Americas. People pay a premium now for electric cars. People that are paying the premium to get to the moon which will become commonplace in the future for everyone else are the real MVP's, period.

Streamlining getting to the moon/space/Mars is (human) progress.
 
I would say that there is a HUGE amount of minerals/Gas's on the moon to mine. Not sure how much, But I do know the Earth doesn't have a lot of Helium-3. Its pretty spendy and getting harder to find? (watch some documentary dont remember its name).

Guess what the Moon has a SHIT tons of? Helium-3.

So I do agree he is probably making some shit up, He is right that the moon has a lot of minerals/gas's etc that we could use.
 
M76 said:
Insults won't prove your point. Now go to the corner and think about how the two things are very different. I have nothing against spacex, or any different commercial endavour. I'm saying that paying money just to get yourself to the moon, doesn't bring anything to the table. If you still don't understand then I'm not sure I'm the daft one here.
Click to expand...
It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that private industry exists to profit and if getting people to the moon as tourists can be made profitable the technology can and will be carried over to other purposes. The same applies to other reasons to go there. This is no different than any other early adoption.

Is it an insult if it's accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top