
A moon colony may be a reality sooner than we think - cornellwright
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/that-moon-colony-will-be-a-reality-sooner-than-you-think.html
======
spyckie2
The author is Wilbur Ross, current secretary of commerce, and it feels like he
was compelled to write this piece after this interaction:

>I can still remember when President John F. Kennedy declared that America
would put a man on the moon and when Neil Armstrong took that first step on
the lunar landscape. Glued to televisions, Americans were filled with
excitement and national pride during the Apollo missions.

> Last month I felt that same passion as I visited the Space Symposium in
> Colorado Springs with Vice President Mike Pence. “As we push human
> exploration deeper into space, we will unleash the boundless potential of
> America’s pioneering commercial space companies,” the vice president told
> the crowd.

It sounds like the space industry is growing and that's a good thing for space
technology. As much as we laud American accomplishes in space exploration, it
can be argued that the only investor and customer was the US, and the short
term value extracted out of space was negligible.

Today, there's much more market opportunities in space than previously. 15000
satellites by 2024 is an explosive growth of 20x in 5 years. Tickets selling
for low orbit tourism - that didn't exist in the past. Asteroid mining - that
still seems like a pipe dream, but I'm no expert, it may be more plausible
than I realize.

Regardless, it's a huge indicator of a healthier space industry if a
substantial part of the investment into space is coming from private companies
(SpaceX notably) rather than government grants.

~~~
DmenshunlAnlsis
It’s not really a space industry, it’s a Low Earth Orbit Industry. It’s
technically space, but only on the loosest sense. It’s good that we’re finally
driving down the price of lifting cargo to LEO, but sad that we’ve almost
given up on anything beyond that. The total world R&D budget for everything
beyond LEO would impoverish a single pharmaceutical company’s marketimg
budget, so we’re probably far from deserving backslapping and high fives.

Most of all, we’re far from colonies anywhere other than Earth, and barring a
massive change of priorities as reflected in funding, that’s the future.
Nothing about our ability to launch satellites a few hundred miles up
translates to living on the Moon, or Mars.

~~~
spyckie2
I'd argue that space research is a large enough expenditure that it can only
be supported (as in systematically support, not a billionaire gifting their
life savings) by the market. There's nothing sad about it, money has to come
from somewhere.

If you're talking between NGOs, government, or the market, which one has the
most well funded and successful ventures , the market wins every time. It
scales better than top down funding and provides longevity and sustained
results.

LEO is a great stepping stone and maturity there is a prerequisite IMO for
further space exploration. The goal is not just landing on Mars - the goal is
building up a space ecosystem, and this seems to be the right start.

~~~
DmenshunlAnlsis
You can argue that, but of course the only non-LEO missions have all been
government projects. It’s not as though Apollo missions were private endeavors
after all. All of the US and European missions beyond LEO aren’t the function
of the market. It’s also hard to see how the market would support long range
probes and so much else that doesn’t offer a short term monetary reward.

Still, maybe you’re right, and reality is just waiting to catch up to your
bold capitalist vision of market forces solving everything.

------
avmich
> Competition is already fierce, with Russia and China challenging the United
> States for leadership

That's incorrect. Russia hardly ever pushes new things in space lately. China
has carefully launched several manned flights, and works hard in government
space; but no commercial revolution in space of SpaceX scale anywhere on the
horizon, for good reasons.

The biggest opponent of USA in space today is USA itself.

~~~
friedman23
When US officials talk up other countries in areas such as military, space, or
general technology they do it because they are trying to get funding for
something.

------
ncmncm
Move along, nothing to see here.

It is quite stunning how lightweight and meaningless this editorial is. The
only real question is why NYT printed it. There is undoubtedly a reason
somewhere in the bowels of the newsroom, but it is certainly not a reason to
read it, much less to post a link to it.

------
nazz
The space race to put a man on Mars is no longer international. It's
completely domestic, between NASA and SpaceX. NASA's SLS (Space Launch System)
versus SpaceX's BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) is an interesting comparison to
examine. Both look promising despite the numerous possible setbacks. Looking
forward to upcoming information regarding the manned launches to Mars.

------
forapurpose
Much more info is available elsewhere. It seems like this is the _' deregulate
X' for all X_ formula applied to commercial space flight.

I'm not for or against regulations; I think that you can only have a
reasonable about particular regulations, and then the analysis is more complex
than 'for or against' (tighten this, loosen that, fund this, accelerate this
other thing, etc.). It would be great to hear an analysis of the costs and
benefits of the specific changes; I'm afraid the only voices are on one side;
this change as announced is all about one group's interests, big business; how
will it affect others - public interest, taxpayers, science, military, small
business, NASA research, astronauts, the use of space in other countries and
among partners, etc.?

Here's some much better info than the parent link, though still basically only
a detailed rehash of the announcement with no other points of view or
analysis:

[https://www.space.com/40692-president-trump-private-
spacefli...](https://www.space.com/40692-president-trump-private-spaceflight-
policy-directive.html)

A lot of background from a few days ago, also all one-dimensional
unfortunately:

[https://www.complianceweek.com/news/news-
article/spaceregula...](https://www.complianceweek.com/news/news-
article/spaceregulations-jpm)

And a timely money quote:

 _" Right now, we don't let self driving cars go everywhere although we do
allow it in a lot of places," Ketcham said. "Eventually, that technology will
mature (to a point) that no one will notice. And the same is true in space
flight."_

[https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/640565002](https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/640565002)

------
forapurpose
Lots of people on HN keep up with the space industry and news. Is there any
coverage of this story elsewhere?

I'd really like to see the other side(s) of this story. I don't trust op-eds
at all, especially by politicians, especially by this U.S. administration,
especially in regard to it helping its supporters (big business).

EDIT: And trying to hook people with moon colonies is transparent.

EDIT: added first paragraph, to get to the point promptly, and edited the
second.

~~~
jofer
See [http://spacenews.com/new-policy-directive-implements-
commerc...](http://spacenews.com/new-policy-directive-implements-commercial-
space-regulatory-reforms/)

I'm not sure there's really an opposing view in this case. In broad terms,
everyone seems to agree that some commercial space policies are no longer
serving their intended purpose and are in need of updates. Whether or not this
directive will improve matters is unclear, however.

~~~
forapurpose
> everyone seems to agree

I haven't heard from anyone but big business, who designed the policy, and who
are generally the primary beneficiaries of this administration. Have you heard
from science? Small business? Public interest groups? Anyone else?

------
Hextinium
So the government created a organization to help with commercialization of
space, I don't see how this will help because launch costs are still high and
they still have to go through the FAA to launch. Yes launch prices will come
down but it's still it's still probably 10-20 years before costs are low
enough to reach anything the size of the ISS is even feasible for anything
other than governments.

~~~
chii
> feasible for anything other than governments.

if there's profit involved, then it will be feasible for other entities than
gov'ts. For example, if a useful mineral that's hard to obtain is found on the
moon (unlikely as it is...), mining and processing it into goods might be the
impetus for such a change.

~~~
whatshisface
There _is_ revenue involved, but not enough to cover the costs. You can do
anything and you can sell anything, when engineers use the word feasible they
often mean "the prices are right."

------
jimmywanger
An underwater colony is far cheaper and more feasible than a moon colony. When
people talk about exploring outer space, they should think about exploring the
continental shelf and building colonies there rather than building colonies on
another planet.

~~~
eesmith
Or Bruce Sterling statement in 2004: "I'll believe in people settling Mars at
about the same time I see people setting the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is
about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper
and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well,
it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there
and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars
is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to
reach."

------
kumarvvr
Pondering over the uses of such an endeavor.

\- Tourism \- Minerals \- Building a space observatory \- Launchpad for
further manned planetary missions.

I did read somewhere that, just as easy it is to get off the moons surface,
it's equally or more difficult to get onto it.

~~~
avmich
In addition to selenology (which is a big deal because no celestial bodies
other than Earth are so far extensively explored) and places for telescopes,
Moon can be a source of some metals (Al, Ti, Fe), oxygen and some other
elements, perhaps hydrogen. By mass metals and LOX/LH2 could be the majority
of mass transported in Moon-Earth space in near future. Other important
payloads are electronics - relatively light - and humans.

So Moon can supply vast majority of material needed for operations in Moon-
Earth space. You can maybe launch the materials using a mass driver (some
demos here - [http://ssi.org/mass-driver-demonstration-
tapes/](http://ssi.org/mass-driver-demonstration-tapes/)), but even more
conventional technology will give you results.

------
yellowapple
I just appreciate that SPACE is a recursive acronym.

------
jack9
The Mars Colony that people have assured me will be in operation within the
next 50 years, is still 150 years away _at least_.

~~~
adrianN
We could start building a Mars colony pretty much right now if we wanted to,
but nobody is willing to pay for it. Check for example
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct)
for a feasible proposal.

