Japanese Company Announces Long-Term Plan To Develop the Moon (arstechnica.com) 148
"On Wednesday, a Japanese company called ispace announced that it has two missions planned to the Moon within the next three years and that it has acquired ride-share launches on two Falcon 9 rockets to carry out those flights," reports Ars Technica. "The company's founder, Takeshi Hakamada, also said he has a long-term vision to have a city on the Moon visited by 10,000 people a year by 2040." From the report: The two missions ispace announced Wednesday are an orbiter launch in mid-2020 and a more complicated lander-and-rover mission a year later. Both will be secondary payloads on Falcon 9 rocket launches, being released by the rocket's second stage in geostationary transfer orbit. From there, they will proceed to the Moon under their own propulsive power.
During a teleconference with several reporters, Hakamada said the company hopes to demonstrate to potential customers the initial capability to deliver 30kg of payload to the lunar surface. But he also has longer-term plans that will allow it to serve customers seeking to reach the lunar surface with larger payloads. Plus, the company is developing the capability to mine ice from the lunar poles to convert the hydrogen and oxygen into rocket fuel. "Around 2030 we expect to begin developing propellant and sending it to spacecraft in space," Hakamada said. He hopes that by then, there will be several hundred people working on the Moon, or in lunar orbit, to support an industrial base. A decade later, by 2040, he envisions a city called "Moon Valley" on the lunar surface, with a diverse array of industries and thousands of visitors per year. "We believe we can establish such a world if we can actively develop our capability in the current speed," Hakamada said.
During a teleconference with several reporters, Hakamada said the company hopes to demonstrate to potential customers the initial capability to deliver 30kg of payload to the lunar surface. But he also has longer-term plans that will allow it to serve customers seeking to reach the lunar surface with larger payloads. Plus, the company is developing the capability to mine ice from the lunar poles to convert the hydrogen and oxygen into rocket fuel. "Around 2030 we expect to begin developing propellant and sending it to spacecraft in space," Hakamada said. He hopes that by then, there will be several hundred people working on the Moon, or in lunar orbit, to support an industrial base. A decade later, by 2040, he envisions a city called "Moon Valley" on the lunar surface, with a diverse array of industries and thousands of visitors per year. "We believe we can establish such a world if we can actively develop our capability in the current speed," Hakamada said.
Visited by 10,000? (Score:2)
If that means 10,000 people at once, and we assume the typical ratio of service staff versus tourists (not a safe bet, with automation, but it gives us a ceiling), that means a long-term population of 3,000 or 4,000. That's an appreciable colony, but I think calling it a "city" is a bit of a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bite my jiggly silicone ass!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that "strap on" spelled backward is "no parts"? Coincidence? I think not.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame it isn't 1999 anymore.
I would have gone with Moonbase Alpha.
Re: Visited by 10,000? (Score:3)
However, "Moon Town" will be where you'll find the triple-breasted whores. And the rest of the Japanese tourists.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a large size city for the Moon.
In all seriousness, ancient Rome was probably the first habitation that would strike a modern urban dweller as a "city", with a population of about a million. Most of the more ancient cities would have been towns at best. Babylon was the largest city in the world in 1600 BCE, with a population of maybe 200,000. Thebes has maybe 40,000 inhabitants in 2000 BCE, and Uruk in its heyday was maybe 80,000.
Go back further, to the dawn of cities in the neolithic period, and c
Re: (Score:2)
Rome was big, but you should read "1491." Recent (last 15 years) major developments both technical and political in the field of anthropological research in the Americas strongly suggest several larger functioning city states existed long before the Mediterranean regions got going.
challenges (Score:2, Interesting)
Lots of problems with this; not the least of which are the problems related to scarcity of an atmosphere and lack of stong magnetic field. I mean, how will they deal with gamma rays and bombardment by meteors? You're either getting your genes scrambled or your body turned to swiss cheese when it rains nickle. Who needs it?!
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. Yes, there are problems, which lead me to believe that the development of the moon will require decades in which only remotely controlled robots will be permanently stationed there.
Possible solutions to your problems are synthesizing the necessary atmosphere from the minerals there using sunlight as an energy source, and living far, far underground so that the overlying bedrock will sufficiently shield radiation.
Who needs it? Besides the obvious problems (and others you didn't mention) it is a la
Not THAT far deep (Score:5, Informative)
OK regolithe is about 60% the density of what they tested but even assuming an exponential model or even go conservative and have the HVL to be 1 meter (!), you still won't need to be that far underground to get only 0.1% of the radiation.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, the mass of a 1 mile high column of air (1.2 kg/m3 at sea level) is substanitally less than the mass of a 1 meter column of rock (2600 kg/m3), and the rock has the additional advantage of not having an exponential decrease in density versus height [indiana.edu].
Habitat radiation sheilding [mars-one.com] is already a well-considered problem. You should read about rather than taking
Re: (Score:2)
how will they deal with gamma rays and bombardment by meteors?
A tunnel would be an obvious solution.
Re: (Score:2)
A tunnel would be an obvious solution.
. . . and Elon Musk, with his Boring Company, wins again!
Re:challenges (Score:4, Interesting)
Artifical atmosphere, radiation resistant clothing and building materials, artificial magnetic fields.
The problem is not the physical building tech, and I'll pretend like money isn't the problem either. The problem is energy generation. Assuming they use some sort of nuclear power, they have to transport that there, and its not like nuclear is magic energy, most of the high conversion stuff is steam driven, which means a good portion of the water will be used for this. Radioisotope systems are not super powerful or large, and fission systems aren't that efficient (not to mention dirty if there's a problem).
Answer is of course solar or something like this, but with current rocket turnaround time (even you SpaceX) it would take years to build up the required amount of solar panels to support a colony of > 500 people. Not to mention getting the things there to build it in the first place (robots? humans? if humans, how do they live long enough to build a solar array to power their life support? small reactors launched ahead of time?)
I'm not even thinking yet about required food supplies for that many people, or how large of a space would be required for moon grown plants or infrastrucutre and minerals water to keep them growing and etc)
I'd love to see this by 2040. I just think its wishful thinking. Humanity is just too slow for that to happen.
Re: challenges (Score:1)
There is not radiation clothing for gama rays and cosmic rays (the most prevalent type of radiation in space). For that you will need at least 4 inches of lead or a dense atmosphere plus a magnetic field. Only 10% of the radiation in space fall in the category of alpha and beta particles (the ones that could be stoped by clothing).
Re: (Score:3)
A tad off-topic, but it dawned on me that all cancers are *always* caused by space radiation.
They're not. In fact, almost none are. Chemical carcinogens are far more common, and therefore much more likely to come into contact with humans. DNA can be perverted by more than just radiation, and frequently is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it soothe your concerns a little if they used some AI to build it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the problem isn't the physical building tech (on the moon). It is just building stuff. On the moon. Did I mention it was on the moon? Space nutters.
Calm down. No one is asking you to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the dust. Due to lack of erosion, Moon dust consists of highly abrasive razor sharp pieces that get into every little space, and quickly damage pretty much everything that it comes into contact with, like door seals. To make things worse, it's all statically charged, so it clings to everything. Imaging coming back from a windy day on the beach, but then 1000 times worse.
2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon (Score:4, Funny)
"Historical discussion preserved and presented for your edification by the Weyland-Yutani corporation. Taking you from the Earth's moon to the solar system and beyond."
Re: (Score:1)
I propose slashdotters from a joint stock company, similar to the Hudson's Bay Company, for the economic exploitation of Middle Earth.
We'll promise that by 2030 to our first colony of 3000 settlers collecting Mûmakil ivory, to be followed by large scale ranching of the Kine of Araw and of course independent mithril prospecting with our trading stations enjoying a monopoly on gear and a monopsony on ore.
It'd work just as well as this Moon venture if you could get people excited enough to pay our salarie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be a lot cheaper to synthesize it on the Earth then to process tons of lunar regolith.
Re: (Score:2)
We have no need for He3 in the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be. Except for one thing: everything is in a much shallower gravity well. It costs about 6 times less energy to get something out of Earth's gravity well from the moon than it takes from the surface of the Earth. Since you also have to take quite a bit of fuel to launch things into space, the practical difference is significantly higher, perhaps 10s or even hundreds of times higher (disclaimer: total guess). A moon-based shop for water or rocket fuel (=water split in half) would therefore economically
Re: (Score:2)
(I should have included this obligatory xkcd-reference https://xkcd.com/681/ [xkcd.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that in order for the first shipment of water or fuel from the Moon, you first need to bring a huge amount of mass on the Moon in the form of equipment and supplies, plus deal with huge ongoing maintenance cost. It's not going to be worth it. Especially if we have fully reusable rockets, it will become quite affordable to launch a load of fuel from Earth. And we don't actually have much need for fuel anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide the calculation you've used to substantiate "It's not going to be worth it".
I'm pretty sure it's going to be massively expensive, but whether it is worth it is mostly going to depend on how much stuff we want to launch into space, which is going to depend on launch costs etc. etc. etc.
We simply cannot know this. But history has shown us that even the most ridiculous exploration and colonization usually pays off in the long run. There's no reason to assume the moon is going to be any different
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide the calculation you've used to substantiate "It's not going to be worth it".
I'm not the one proposing we spend trillions on a project to get water from the Moon. Why don't you show your calculations ?
We simply cannot know this.
The logical conclusion is to keep launching stuff from Earth until someone makes a solid business case to launch it from the Moon instead.
Re: (Score:2)
$1240 in low earth orbit (at current Falcon 9 launch prices).
Ironically, the higher the launch price, the less attractive a Moon base becomes. Simply because the cost of establishing the lunar colony also goes up with launch price (and since the Moon requires more delta-v, relative cost goes up even more).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How will you finance it?
That's an awful lot of track to build before moon visits can begin.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I wonder if they will just put robots with rock launchers to kill all anime haters.
Wouldn't that lead to the extinction of humanity? We would kill off all our breeding population?
Kurzgesagt youtube video (Score:5, Interesting)
How We Could Build a Moon Base TODAY
https://youtu.be/NtQkz0aRDe8 [youtu.be]
That's our moon! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember (Score:2)
No one can hear you scream in space!
What priority ? (Score:1)
We need to use resources and funds to go forward on earth preservation, not to go destroying moon (neither mars...).
As a Japanese people, he could by example fund thermal insulation of houses and buildings, this is the kind of action we need actually.
Re:What priority ? (Score:4, Interesting)
We need to use resources and funds to go forward on earth preservation, not to go destroying moon (neither mars...).
Many new technologies were born of the space race. If we have to set up self-sustaining colonies there's no telling what we will learn about sustainability; if we can make a colony on the Moon produce everything it needs then a city on Earth will be child's play by comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're doing it for spin-off, why not do something useful at the same time ? Get rid of excess CO2 and build a working fusion plant, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
"If we have to set up self-sustaining colonies there's no telling what we will learn about sustainability"
Put X amount of people in the middle of Antarctica and you could reach the same goal for billions less. Also, if there is an issue/emergency, a rescue mission would be cheaper and easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. We should colonize the Sun. Think of the awesome technologies we would have to create to make that happen!
Back to the future (Score:2)
Elysium on the moon? (Score:1)
Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon. I certainly hope by 2040 there won't be 10,000 people who can afford this on their own. Ideally none should.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon.
So? It wasn't all that long ago that only the very richest nations could afford to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll mean bad luck for far more humans if just a few are hoarding enormous amounts of the planet's wealth. And there's nothing unlucky about being a millionaire instead of a billionaire. So I wish for the best luck for the greatest number of humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.
Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.
Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.
A perfect example of the complete disconnect between skill/merit and "achievement." Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit. How is this good? And that's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.
No thanks, keep your flat tax. We need much more sharply progressive taxation, with a top bracket taxed so heavily that it effectively creates a maximum wage. This prevents wealth hoarding, preventing working-class wage stagnation and keeping the whole economy running better in the long term.
I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.
Not me, I merely used it as another example to point out the complete disconnect between "achievement" and skill/merit, in this case caused by network effects. The concept of "productivity" is used to plagiarize work, m
Re: (Score:2)
What has changed since 1972 ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As the AC has pointed out, among the most significant is the existence of water, which when we last visited the moon, was thought to be entirely absent.
Even putting aside how important water is for life, this also means that you can make hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breath from the the resources that are right there. The moon would make a *FAR* easier place to launch rockets from than Earth, having only a little less than one sixth of the gravity. An orbiting platform may also accomplish this, but then
Be careful (Score:2)
Maybe I should move to Japan (Score:2)
Jerry Pournelle said... (Score:2)
capability to deliver 30kg of payload (Score:2)
So the plan is to go from a large potted plant to 10,000 people in 19 years? Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sure thing (Score:2)
The moon is the harshest mistress
Re: (Score:1)
As I remember, in that book there was a Japanese version of a Libertarian colony at a Lagrange point- in which the only legal right was the right to die. Requesting that right was easy and swiftly delivered by drone.
Re: (Score:2)
I have long-term plans to develop a sexual relationship with Jenna Coleman.
I have a better chance.
(Although this is currently voted down -1:)
First - good choice.
Second - you are correct sir (or madame)! You do have a much better chance than this project does of succeeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)