June 19, 2012
China and the Moon
Shenzhou 9 lifts off for rendezvous and docking in space
With the weekend launch of the latest Shenzhou spacecraft and its successful rendezvous and docking with an orbiting space station, world attention is once again focused on China’s flourishing space program. Although China’s human spaceflight efforts currently focus on low Earth orbit, in recent years they have sent two robotic orbital spacecraft to the Moon and have announced their intentions for a lunar lander/rover mission. These efforts lead many in the west to speculate that a presence on the Moon is a likely and realistic goal for China’s space future. In terms of the possible purpose for such lunar efforts, things are little more vague. Most assume that China will go to the Moon for reasons similar to the geopolitical motives that impelled America to undertake the Apollo missions. While some actually welcome China’s aspirations to conquer the Moon, other space observers smirk at their apparent willingness to (as they characterize it) “waste billions of dollars to repeat what America did thirty years ago.” Others understand why China aims for the Moon.
The United States currently has no strategic space goal. Many in the U.S. space community argue that the development of commercial launch services through federal subsidies is a goal. To smooth the path for this approach, calls for consensus have been made by some New Space advocates. Funding to support the research and development costs of these new commercial services would come by excising chunks of the rapidly dwindling NASA budget. “Flat or declining” now describes the American civil space program budget and regularly reaching LEO to supply ISS has become our “new” vision.
In contrast, China is conducting an incremental, step-wise effort to gradually but inexorably extend their reach and influence in space, first into low Earth orbit and then into cislunar space and beyond. Their approach uses a variety of hardware derived from existing systems while adding new capabilities over time. China appears to be focused and following clear, long-range goals in space. Because we do not look ahead on timescales of 20-30 years (accustomed instead to a 5-10 year timeframe), we have no long-range strategy to guide what we build or a plan for securing any long-term space goals.
Certainly wide-ranging concerns propel China’s push for human space access, some that can be envisioned now and some that cannot. But fundamentally, they have accepted the proposition that freedom of space in the 21st century is equivalent to the principle of freedom of the seas that governed 19th and 20th century geopolitics. In short, such a principle comprises the ability to project power and to protect national interests whenever and wherever China might be confronted within the strategic theater in question, in this case, the domain of cislunar space.
I have written before on the economic, strategic and scientific value of cislunar space, the zone in which virtually all of our space assets and satellites reside. China intends to preserve her freedom of action by creating a spaceflight capability that can access and use any location of cislunar space, up to and including the lunar surface. To build a sustainable space program using incremental, cumulative steps, it makes no sense to “leapfrog” over (or to ignore) the intermediate locations from which space faring capability and utility can be demonstrated, established and used.
Much of the published speculation on China’s interest in the Moon focuses on mining the Moon for the nuclear fusion fuel 3He or substances found on the lunar surface, such as titanium or rare earth elements. In fact, one of the simplest substances found on the Moon has enormous value in space – water. Water can be used to support human life, as a medium of energy storage, and as rocket propellant. Water is the currency of spaceflight and one of the most valuable, usable substances we could obtain from any extraterrestrial object.
If I wanted to establish a secure foothold for my country in cislunar space, I would secure the territory near the poles of the Moon. We know from the results of several recent probes that the lunar poles contain billions of tons of water, much of it chemically unbound as ice, a particularly easy form to harvest, concentrate and use. Material and energy resources, concentrated together in a compact location are assets of immense economic and strategic value. Wars have been waged over less.
International treaty prohibits claims of extraterrestrial territory by national entities. But treaties are “gentlemen’s agreements” and sometimes nations do not behave like gentlemen. There is no mechanism to enforce the 1967 Outer Space Treaty except for a given country’s unwillingness to undergo international opprobrium. Moreover, a country can withdraw from the treaty at will. China tends to do what it wants to do, unless the economic or political price is perceived to be too high. The potential of the Moon and cislunar space may outweigh their sense of geopolitical risk or concern about international ostracism.
What does this mean for the United States? To listen to many in the space press, nothing. A quick yawn and then back to propagandizing for more federal dollars to be passed on to new space companies. But ultimately, it could mean that their libertarian dreams of a profit-making space frontier will never come to pass. If free market capitalism and democratic political institutions are to have a future in the new frontier of space, entities, investors and consumers who share these values must secure a notable presence. If the United States has a vigorous civil space program that creates a permanent presence there, such a system may have a chance to take root. Conversely, our absence is almost a guarantee that our system and values will not be the guiding paradigm on the new frontier.
For many observers, an absent America (or with a mere supporting role) would be acceptable. They believe America is what’s wrong with the world and that it’s high time that we step aside (in their opinion to one of subservience and irrelevance – certainly not one of power projection or as an economic engine and technology driver). Parties (and countries) that lead make the rules. While China has a great industrial base and a large, seemingly market-based economic system, it is actually a system of big government corporatism, where central planners decide which industries shall be allowed to grow and in what direction – capitalism, under total governmental control.
China is a rapidly advancing technically and is one of our largest trading partners, attributes beneficial in relationships between equals. Historically, once a shift occurs in the status of partners, relationships change. Because China’s influence in the world is growing, it is vital that we discuss and weigh these facts. Our national economic and security interests cannot be jeopardized by a misguided rush to hand our space future over to companies who are in the imagining stage of what China just accomplished this weekend.
53 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Once again, Dr. Spudis, thanks for stating conditions soberly. It’s difficult for some to keep the eyes on the skies and feet on the ground simultaneously. Another periscope up into reality.
Comment by Joel Raupe — June 19, 2012 @ 11:11 am
Paul,
A great well sourced article (I am looking forward to reading “CHINA’S EVOLVING SPACE CAPABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS”).
The three most important points in the article (to me at least):
- To build a sustainable space program using incremental, cumulative steps, it makes no sense to “leapfrog” over (or to ignore) the intermediate locations from which space faring capability and utility can be demonstrated, established and used.
- Water is the currency of spaceflight and one of the most valuable, usable substances we could obtain from any extraterrestrial object.
- Material and energy resources, concentrated together in a compact location are assets of immense economic and strategic value.
Comment by Joe — June 19, 2012 @ 12:57 pm
The nation or nations that are first to exploit the precious volatiles at the lunar poles will probably end up economically and strategically dominating cis-lunar space and the rest of the solar system.
Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang), a senior consultant at China’s lunar exploration program stated back in 2010:
“If China doesn’t explore the moon, we will have no say in international lunar exploration and can’t safeguard our proper rights and interests.”
The fastest way for the US to protect the future rights and interest of the emerging American private space programs is for NASA to establish a permanent human presence at the lunar poles.
A government presence on the Moon should provide private industry with the knowledge and security to risk the capital on ventures such as lunar tourism, manufacturing and exporting water for LEO tourism and reusable space tugs for transporting satellites from LEO to GEO and for refurbishing zombie satellites.
And a few decades from now, lunar colonies could be the primary place for the manufacture and launching of communications satellites and for solar power satellites for providing clean energy for the Earth. As they said in the SciFi movie, Prometheus, and in the classic historical film, Lawrence of Arabia: Big things have small beginnings!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 19, 2012 @ 1:23 pm
You make a good case that the Moon is an essential element of any attempt to establish a secure foothold in cislunar space. But the question is why we need to establish that secure foothold. I’m not persuaded by thin arguments about 3He and celestial titanium that this is worth doing. I guess if we had real dreams about colonization of the solar system, it would be more justifiable, but formally our nation does not have such plans.
I think an equally reasonable view of the Chinese efforts (assuming they’re really aiming themselves at the Moon – there is little explicit evidence of that) is that they’re using that goal as a way of proving technological competitiveness, and perhaps superiority. Exactly how we used the Apollo program. Not clear that establishing footholds has anything to do with it.
Comment by Helen Simpson — June 19, 2012 @ 2:13 pm
Helen,
But the question is why we need to establish that secure foothold. I’m not persuaded by thin arguments about 3He and celestial titanium that this is worth doing.
I did not make such a case. I argue that we establish a foothold on the Moon to harvest and export water, for all the practical spaceflight uses described above in the post.
Your interpretation of Chinese motives for going to the Moon seem to be shared by many. If you are right, then their push to the Moon is of little concern. But if you’re not correct, I contend that we cannot sit by and watch our future in space being pre-empted by a power that does not share our devotion to free market principles and the rule of law.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 19, 2012 @ 2:23 pm
I would like to know your opinion of the paper: “Testing lunar permanently shadowed regions for water ice: LEND results from LRO”;JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, E00H26, 13 PP., 2012. I have not received it yet, but read the abstract. Does it really mean only Shoemaker, Cabeus and Rozhdestvensky U have water deposits?
It sounds somewhat contrary to the following recent paper. In “Water on The Moon, II. Origins & Resources”; Astronomical Review, 2012, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 36-47 (May 25, 2012), it sounds like there is much more likely water on the Moon. “The amount of hydroxyl on the lunar surface is considerable, roughly 10 million tonnes at any instant..” And “OH/H2O inside the Moon is also huge, estimated as 40 trillion to quadrillions of tonnes; with presumably only a small fraction ever
reaching the PSRs (where about one billion tonnes reside).”
An impressive statistic: “A reasonable estimate of water ever delivered to the lunar surface by comets and asteroids is 0.1–6 trillion tonnes, with perhaps 10–100 billion tonnes not lost to ionization on impact.”
Another interesting possibility I had not heard of: “Interstellar giant molecular clouds might form a significant but not dominant water source, hence at least four basic ways can provide at least 10% of the known PSR water reservoir.”
Comment by James Fincannon — June 19, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Comment by Helen Simpson — June 19, 2012 @ 2:13 pm
“assuming they’re really aiming themselves at the Moon – there is little explicit evidence of that”
If by “explicit evidence” you mean the flying of actual missions you are certainly correct, but then there would have been no “explicit evidence” (by that definition)of US Lunar intentions in 1962 either.
There is however a lot of news coverage from disparate sources concerning Chinese activity in this area.
Three examples are listed below:
CHINA EYES NEXT-GEN HEAVY-LIFT ROCKET CAPABLE OF 660 TONS OF THRUST
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/china-eyes-next-gen-heavy-lift-rocket-capapble-661-tons-thrust
China completes research on heavy-thrust Moon & deep space rocket
http://www.sen.com/news/06032012.html
Rocket research boosts China’s lunar mission
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-03/05/content_14752371.htm
Comment by Joe — June 19, 2012 @ 3:25 pm
Jim,
I would like to know your opinion of the paper: “Testing lunar permanently shadowed regions for water ice: LEND results from LRO”;JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, E00H26, 13 PP., 2012
I discussed this work in an earlier post on this blog:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/03/a-scientific-dispute/
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 19, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
The evidence is underwhelming that China has an explicit goal of A) landing humans on the Moon in the near-term, and B) mining resources from the Moon for export back to Earth.
But it is hard to prove something doesn’t exist, so let’s look at what would be needed for that to happen:
** Rockets – Lots of talk about larger Chinese rockets, but according to Michael Griffin China could go to the Moon today using their existing Long March rockets, which happen to be similar in capability to our Delta IV Heavy, ESA’s Ariane 5 and Russia’s Proton. Oh, and smaller than the upcoming Falcon Heavy from SpaceX. So we could easily go back to the Moon today too using our existing rockets, and as the SLS proves, new rockets are the long pole in most ambitious space programs. Bottom line – we can match China’s space efforts rocket-wise, especially if we stop wasting money on the unneeded SLS.
** Space Hardware – Operating in space is pretty challenging. So far the Chinese have shown that they are not very aggressive in what they are doing in space, and if you look at the inside of their Tiangong 1 “target vehicle” it’s pretty bare. But aiming for competency is a good thing, and their efforts should be applauded. However the U.S. and it’s ISS partners are far ahead of China on not only operational experience but the complexity and variety of space hardware we have. Unless the Chinese have some sort of new technology or techniques that they plan on unveiling, it’s hard to see how they would gain any sort of advantage here. Oh, and our space industry could ramp up very fast if need be.
** Lunar Hardware – We’ve been to the Moon’s surface and back six times. Yes, we’ve been there, done that. And others could do it too, but the hard part won’t be getting there and back but in doing anything while we’re there. It will require tons and tonnes of equipment to just start (literally) scratching the surface of the 3.793 × 107 km2 surface of the Moon. Then you have to evolve your equipment to deal with the problems and solutions, send more hardware, build up operational tempo, etc., etc. We’ll have plenty of notice if they decide to do that, and with China’s economic situation tightening, it’s hard to see how much they could afford to invest in this over the period of time it would take to reap any economic return (that’s been our challenge too).
** Economics – The author talks about strategic reasons for occupying the Moon, and depending on world events maybe that’s a valid reason. That was certainly part of the reason why we went in the 60′s. But so far there is nothing on the Moon that we don’t already have here on Earth, so really the big question is whether we can economically mine it on the Moon and send it back to Earth. So far no one – no one – has been able to show that it makes economic sense to so for any resource on the Moon. Some rich entrepreneurs think they might be able to do it with an asteroid, but no one has offered an economic rationale for mining resources on the Moon. At least none with any real-life data to back it up.
For us to be scared of China in space, they will have to vastly expand their capabilities, and they show no signs of doing that – incrementally yes, vastly no. In the meantime we are increasing our capabilities in space with our commercial cargo and crew systems, so it’s not like we are standing still either.
Like most people, I don’t see any cause for concern.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 19, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
China is going to the Moon not for economic reasons (Helium 3 or mining metals) or political reasons (America did it and so must we) or even scientific reasons.
China is going to the Moon because the future of humanity (economic, political, scientific, etc.) IS there.
China sees space as their future, not just a far off location somewhere that’s hazardous and expensive to land upon.
Nations that see space as their future will take whatever necessary risks they have to in order to secure their future.
American politicians unfortunately only see space as (more or less) a hobby, better left to the private sector.
While I am for the private sector conquering the Moon, we will need the US government’s assistance as it will be hard to secure lunar property when the US government is absent from the discussion (and China is already building cities and forts to secure their lunar property).
Comment by Darnell Clayton — June 19, 2012 @ 6:33 pm
President Obama is supposed to be Mr. Free Enterprise in space.
So how come no one has asked the administration what they intend to do to ensure that language is inserted into the Outer Space Treaty that allows private space companies the right to exploit lunar territory and resources for profit?
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 19, 2012 @ 8:08 pm
[...] which prohibits claims of national sovereignty in space and annex all of part of the moon. Spudis, writing in his blog “The Once and Future Moon,” emphasizes how control of the moon’s resources, [...]
Pingback by Shenzhou 9 Sparks Renewed Debate on Space Race with China | Space — June 19, 2012 @ 9:00 pm
>> I would like to know your opinion of the paper: “Testing lunar permanently shadowed regions for water ice: LEND results from LRO”…
> I discussed this work in an earlier post on this blog:
> http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/03/a-scientific-dispute/
Excellent explanation!
Comment by James Fincannon — June 20, 2012 @ 9:12 am
I think that national pride is probably a larger motivator for the Chinese as securing freedom of action within cis-lunar space. Although the US landed a man on the Moon 40 years ago, it would still be a huge feather in their cap to be the only other country to do so. It would be a huge public spectacle indicating that China had arrived at approximately superpower status. Yet the fact that Anerica had done the same thing some four decades before would be notable to all including themselves. So the obvious way past that would be to do one better — not just go to the Moon but to go to stay. Who’s the leading country then? Will America even be able to do that? It would be far too tempting for them to do that.
Comment by JohnHunt — June 20, 2012 @ 12:40 pm
Comment by JohnHunt — June 20, 2012 @ 12:40 pm
The two motivations are not mutually exclusive.
- In the short run the Chinese are the first nation to achieve a crewed lunar landing capability in approximately 40 years. Sure we did it 40 years ago, but can we do it anymore? The answer (which as of now would be no) would in many minds around the world show who represents the future and who represents the past. Some may consider that propaganda, but it is not unlikely the Chinese see it as effective propaganda.
- In the longer run, it would allow them to exploit Lunar Resources to give them a dominate position in Cis-Lunar space and eventually the Solar System.
All their leaders have to do is be able to hold two complementary ideas at the same time.
Comment by Joe — June 20, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
Comment by Joe — June 20, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
“Sure we did it 40 years ago, but can we do it anymore? The answer (which as of now would be no)…”
Why would it be “no”? Maybe no from a financial standpoint, in that except for a short period of time Congress hasn’t wanted to pay for going back to the Moon.
It’s certainly not a matter that we are unable to return to the Moon. If anything our technology has vastly improved in the last 40 years. We even have autonomous systems that could land someone on the Moon, obviating the need for a highly proficient pilot.
It gets back to the value proposition – is it worth the money? Crank up the political stakes and maybe a Congress would want to “keep up with the Joneses” (or China in this case). Or, lower the overall cost of returning to the Moon and NASA could suddenly discover that they could afford it within it’s current meager budget.
China is not immune to the financial equation for going to the Moon either. How much of their GDP will they eventually elect to sink into sending humans beyond LEO?
And who knows, maybe they will pursue the strategy of lowering their costs before venturing beyond LEO – what kind of space race would that set off?
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 20, 2012 @ 4:28 pm
President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight budget from George Bush ($3 billion a year for the shuttle, $2 billion a year for the ISS, and $3.4 billion a year for the Constellation program). That’s way more than enough to return to the Moon to establish a permanent human presence at the lunar poles if the Moon is prioritized.
NASA’s beyond LEO vehicle, the SLS/MPCV,is only costing NASA $3 billion a year to develop. Funding a single stage reusable (5 round trips until the engines have to be replaced) extraterrestrial landing vehicle for the Moon and possibly for the moons of Mars shouldn’t cost more than $1 to $2 billion a year to develop over 6 to 10 years.
The largest recurring cost for a lunar outpost will depend on how much cargo (water, air, food, etc.) is shipped from Earth to the lunar surface. However, since one of the primary purposes of establishing a lunar outpost at the poles is to utilize lunar ice resources for the production of water, air, and food, this should dramatically reduce annual recurring cost.
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 20, 2012 @ 8:17 pm
A very interesting post, as always. Another issue facing the Chinese is the stability of their current system. A recent blog post highlighted by economist Paul Krugman begins this way:
“China is a kleptocracy of a scale never seen before in human history. This post aims to explain how this wave of theft is financed, what makes it sustainable and what will make it fail. There are several China experts I have chatted with – and many of the ideas are not original. The synthesis however is mine. Some sources do not want to be quoted.”
FULL POST: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/06/macroeconomics-of-chinese-kleptocracy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BronteCapital+%28Bronte+Capital%29
Comment by Diana Powe — June 21, 2012 @ 2:05 am
Comment by Diana Powe — June 21, 2012 @ 2:05 am
Krugman’s description of China would be equally applicable to virtually every other dictatorship in history. Some of those have survived for very long periods of time and done extensive expansion and development (before eventually failing). It is in fact a reinforcement of the content the Spudis article: “China has a great industrial base and a large, seemingly market-based economic system; it is actually a system of big government corporatism, where central planners decide which industries shall be allowed to grow and in what direction – capitalism, under total governmental control.”
Will the Chinese system fail someday? Almost certainly. The question is (absent a US presence in space) how much damage might they do before they fail?
Comment by Joe — June 21, 2012 @ 11:43 am
Paul wrote:
“I would secure the territory near the poles of the Moon. ”
How would China “secure” a half billion acres of terroritory? Would they establish missile sites and shoot anyone landing in their “terrority”? Would they shoot at any earth launch with a suspected lunar destination?
How exactly would you secure the north and south pole and what would be the costs of doing it?
Couldn’t America just shoot down any resupply mission they tried to send to Luna .. thereby ending any ability to have a manned security system in place?
Comment by Vladislaw — June 21, 2012 @ 3:24 pm
Coastal Ron wrote:
“Rockets – Lots of talk about larger Chinese rockets, but according to Michael Griffin China could go to the Moon today using their existing Long March rockets, which happen to be similar in capability to our Delta IV Heavy, ESA’s Ariane 5 and Russia’s Proton.”
Actually Dr. Griffin was refering to the Long March 5. It will have about a 27 ton to LEO capability. It is not scheduled for it’s first operational flight until 2014.
Comment by Vladislaw — June 21, 2012 @ 3:27 pm
How would China “secure” a half billion acres of terroritory? Would they establish missile sites and shoot anyone landing in their “terrority”? Would they shoot at any earth launch with a suspected lunar destination?
Lots of both pre-emptive and retaliatory options exist right here on Earth — financial, diplomatic and military. Once started, a conflict would spread anywhere and everywhere national assets and interests are involved.
By the way, this is a point often overlooked by the “private sector only” crowd of space developers. You may do as you please on the Moon, but unless your country of incorporation backs you up, you could be financially and legally devastated because you still live (and bank) on Earth. If you’re going to filibuster, better plan on leaving Earth permanently. But then, where would you spend your billions from asteroidal platinum?
How exactly would you secure the north and south pole and what would be the costs of doing it?
I would establish a lunar outpost and begin producing water. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 21, 2012 @ 3:41 pm
Paul wrote:
“I would establish a lunar outpost and begin producing water. Possession is 9/10 of the law.”
What would you call the boundry of your operation? You have a couple habitats on an edge of shackelton crater, does that mean China couldn’t land near you? Or at the south pole at all? I understand planting a flag on resources and the 9/10ths, but how do you deliniate your 9/10ths and what force would be used to enforce it?
Comment by Vladislaw — June 21, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
What would you call the boundry of your operation?
You are still missing my point — as well as framing the issue with misleading and unnecessary bellicosity. We go to the Moon to create capability for ourselves and our partners. If we’re there, at least we know that one entity is present on the frontier that will protect our interests as well as free market and rule of law values. I don’t care if the Chinese are on the Moon too; there’s enough there for everybody.
To quote John F. Kennedy, “Whatever men undertake, free men must fully share.”
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 21, 2012 @ 4:20 pm
In order to exploit lunar resources for export, you have to invest and deploy the ground and transportation infrastructure in order to do it. If the US shows no interest in returning to the Moon for a decade or two then other nations could end up with a huge industrial lead over the United States in exploiting lunar water resources.
And private US space companies will do what other private US companies usually do. They’ll buy lunar water from foreign countries like China for their commercial space stations, space depots, and space tugs. And the US could end up a decade or two behind China and other countries in exploiting lunar resources– making China and those other nations a lot richer and the US a lot poorer!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 21, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 21, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
“In order to exploit lunar resources for export, you have to invest and deploy the ground and transportation infrastructure in order to do it. If the US shows no interest in returning to the Moon for a decade or two then other nations could end up with a huge industrial lead over the United States in exploiting lunar water resources.”
Good point Marcel that was the meaning of my comment in post 15 – “Sure we did it 40 years ago, but can we do it anymore? The answer (which as of now would be no)…”
Of course the US has the industrial/technology base to return to the Moon (as do Russia, China, Japan, England, Germany and perhaps others), but it does not have the operational capability to do so. That initial capability was abandoned (rather than expanded) almost 40 years ago. In the intervening years no one picked up the task.
It now appears the Chinese (and perhaps others) will. That will give both short term political and long term practical benefits to them.
Comment by Joe — June 22, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 21, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
“And the US could end up a decade or two behind China and other countries in exploiting lunar resources– making China and those other nations a lot richer and the US a lot poorer!”
Considering the $100B or so that is forecasted just to produce water on the Moon, I would say the poorer country would be the one that spends the money to produce water on the Moon.
In order to determine whether spending $100B on anything is worthwhile, we have to determine what we get out of it. In the case of mining water on the Moon, it’s not a resource that can be exported back to Earth – water is too cheap here.
That means that water produced on the Moon has to be seen as an economic benefit because it lowers the amount of spending that we would have done anyways. For instance, if you’re already driving round-trip to work alone, then buying a car with better gas mileage could lower your overall spending on transportation. But would spending $100,000 for a more fuel efficient car be worth the investment? How long until that economic bet pays off?
And that’s what producing water on the Moon really is – a way of lowering our overall spending, but because of the huge upfront investment it’s a negative on the balance sheet for a long time. For producing water on the Moon to pay off, it will have to offset at least $100B in spending on water (or water based products such as propellant) from Earth. How many decades will it take for NASA to buy and consume $100B worth of water or propellant?
If China wants to spend $100B on mining water on the Moon, then that means there will be $100B less they can invest here on Earth to compete against U.S. industry. Maybe that’s not so bad.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 22, 2012 @ 5:12 pm
@Coastal Ron
The Shuttle/ISS program has already cost NASA well over $200 billion in todays dollars. And is still adding more $3 billion a year in annual cost. So spending $100 billion over the next 15 to 20 years to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon in order to give NASA and private American companies access to potentially billions of tonnes water resources that are substantially cheaper to transport within cis-lunar space than from Earth would be a bargain.
However, spending that same amount of money, which is what NASA is currently doing, with nothing to show for it would be an absolute disaster!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 22, 2012 @ 11:30 pm
$100 B is cheap!
Assuming the average person consumes, uses, wastes 100 liters of water a day. It currently costs $10,000 / kg to put something into orbit, resulting in $1 million dollars per day per person to provide water for a habitat (not an outpost). Assuming a habitat crew of ten, manned year around, your ROI is in about 3 years.
other reasons to control the moon: it is easy to throw rocks from there. Read the moon is a harsh mistress for a primer.
Comment by space arch — June 23, 2012 @ 9:45 am
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 22, 2012 @ 5:12 pm
“If China wants to spend $100B on mining water on the Moon, then that means there will be $100B less they can invest here on Earth to compete against U.S. industry. Maybe that’s not so bad.”
I’m not sure it is that simple. All the money spent would be here on Earth. So while they would be spending on the aerospace/rocket industry (as opposed to say the shoe industry), they would still be competing against US industry by means of an rockets/defense/arms race. Their central plan would tell them that spending in that industry is more important to them.
Also, just like US space proponents have argued for years, they would probably argue that what they learn in space will help many of their other industries (such as manufacturing and oil).
Comment by Wes — June 23, 2012 @ 5:32 pm
“In order to determine whether spending $100B on anything is worthwhile, we have to determine what we get out of it.”
How about 329 billion?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth about spending money to go to the moon is laughable compared to what is spent on even one DOD program. And like most easy money cold war toys it does not even work right and probably never will. Spaceships and survival colonies are hard money no one wants to earn while DOD projects are the same scam they have always been.
http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
Comment by GaryChurch — June 24, 2012 @ 6:12 am
[...] week is China’s ongoing Shenzhou 9 mission with astronauts aboard the Tiangong 1 space station. Air & Space’s Once and Future Moon tells us about China and the Moon since the world’s attention is once again focused on China’s flourishing space [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Space #255 | Amy Shira Teitel — June 24, 2012 @ 10:01 am
[...] Air and Space mag – China and the Moon – With the weekend launch of the latest Shenzhou … Read more » [...]
Pingback by Before It's News — June 24, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
Comment by Wes — June 23, 2012 @ 5:32 pm
“I’m not sure it is that simple. All the money spent would be here on Earth. So while they would be spending on the aerospace/rocket industry (as opposed to say the shoe industry), they would still be competing against US industry by means of an rockets/defense/arms race. Their central plan would tell them that spending in that industry is more important to them.”
“Also, just like US space proponents have argued for years, they would probably argue that what they learn in space will help many of their other industries (such as manufacturing and oil).”
Correct on all counts. It is definitely not that simple (nothing ever is). And the advantages you listed should be added to the “Short Term Advantages” mentioned in Post 15.
Comment by Joe — June 25, 2012 @ 10:23 am
Comment by Wes — June 23, 2012 @ 5:32 pm
“All the money spent would be here on Earth. So while they would be spending on the aerospace/rocket industry (as opposed to say the shoe industry), they would still be competing against US industry by means of an rockets/defense/arms race.”
First of all there is no “race”. I know there are some that would love for a race to happen, but so far no one is motivated to do so. So if China spends $100B to go to the Moon, and we don’t, then that is $100B the Chinese don’t have to invest in industries that compete directly with the U.S. and other countries. Sure the Chinese would be building space hardware, but it wouldn’t have any economic return except for spending stimulus. And since we don’t export any goods or services to China’s space industry, we are not losing out on any spending they do within their own country.
“Their central plan would tell them that spending in that industry is more important to them.”
Just like our spending $100B on the ISS was important.
But what do they get for that spending? More obligation to spend more in support of their lunar operations. If they are focused on mining for water, that is not an export back to Earth, so it is only usable in lowering the amount they spend in the future. Water from the Moon might be an enabler for doing things in space, but it has no export value. Now if mining water lead to mining something like platinum, and that was able to be exported back to Earth for less than what terrestrial suppliers charge, then that would be an economic benefit. But you’re still dealing with competition from Earth, and they can lower their prices to compete, even if it means not making a profit – happens all the time.
“Also, just like US space proponents have argued for years, they would probably argue that what they learn in space will help many of their other industries (such as manufacturing and oil).”
My area of expertise is manufacturing operations, and whatever boost the space program gave manufacturing has long been eclipsed by worldwide industry and consumer demand. Apple drives more innovation in the manufacturing sector than any space program. I would imagine the oil industry already has plenty of incentives for innovation too.
Do you have any significant examples you’d like to provide?
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 25, 2012 @ 1:39 pm
Comment by Wes — June 23, 2012 @ 5:32 pm
I should have emphasized in my previous post (Number 34) that your statement – “All the money spent would be here on Earth. So while they would be spending on the aerospace/rocket industry (as opposed to say the shoe industry), they would still be competing against US industry by means of a rockets/defense/arms race.“ is particularly important as it emphasizes that such development will allow China to more effectively compete in the market for worldwide satellite launches.
Just another one of those details that can get lost in over simplistic analysis, but important to note.
Comment by Joe — June 25, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 22, 2012 @ 11:30 pm
“However, spending that same amount of money, which is what NASA is currently doing, with nothing to show for it would be an absolute disaster!”
A lot of people don’t like the ISS, and feel it was not worth the investment to build and the continuing expense of maintaining it. I see it as our sole platform in space that allows us to learn how to live and work in space, and certainly it is an analog of sorts for building a presence on the Moon.
For instance, the ISS right now does not return any real economic value, and it is doing what I suggested above the Chinese would be doing by going to the Moon – it takes in more than it creates. However the goal of the ISS is knowledge and operational competency, which is hard to put a dollar value on. But a consumable like water is far easier to evaluate, and so far the projected demand for water-based products on the Moon is indeterminate (a fuel like methane could be a competitor).
Still, as I have stated numerous times, I think that the robotic exploration phase of the Spudis-Lavoie plan is a good idea. A steady investment in exploration should include the Moon as well as Mars, and we are on the cusp of a number of technologies today that will allow us to return to the Moon with robotic explorers that can do quite a bit and not cost $Billions. If the SLS gets cancelled, I would certainly want some of the freed up budget to go to an expanded robotic exploration program that includes the Moon.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 25, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
[...] Scientist and lunar exploration advocate Paul Spudis wrote an interesting article about this for Air and Space. His concerns seem more pointed than mine, but he correctly says that China must have an eye for [...]
Pingback by On China’s Orbital Docking « The Khôranauts — June 25, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
China won’t have to spend $100B to develop the Moon, even though we spent more than that to get there. Thus far, China has spent about $6B in order to develop their manned launch capability and to establish a space station. If they continue to follow the “use what’s been invented” path, then they could conceivably establish a base on the Moon for less than $25B.
Comment by JohnD — June 25, 2012 @ 9:20 pm
“Sure the Chinese would be building space hardware, but it wouldn’t have any economic return except for spending stimulus.”
To build a moon base, the Chinese would need to develop telerobots. The first remotely operated rovers would be to gather reconnaissance and do prospecting for resources that could help the base.
And then they would need machines for civil engineering. If possible machines that could be operated from earth. Or machines that could be operated from a lunar hab would be a force multiplier and reduce human workers’ exposure to radiation.
These technologies would have uses on earth for getting resources from hard to reach and/or dangerous places. British Petroleum and Rio Tinto are already using telerobots. And remotely operated machines will become even more important as we use up the easy to reach ore bodies. This technology would also have military operations.
And of course, routine access to space would have tremendous military and commercial benefit.
Ron, how can you assert such investments would have no economic return?
Comment by Hop David — June 26, 2012 @ 12:29 am
Comment by Hop David — June 26, 2012 @ 12:29 am
Goods points and there are of course others:
- Increases in systems reliability (both for boosters, “machines for civil engineering”, etc.) to meet requirements
- Improvements in system health monitoring (for life support systems – among others)
To name just two areas.
All these fall into short term advantages (along with geopolitics and prestige) that the Chinese government would be accessing in proceeding with a lunar program. Then of course there are the long term benefits of lunar resource use.
Comment by Joe — June 26, 2012 @ 10:11 am
Comment by Hop David — June 26, 2012 @ 12:29 am
“These technologies would have uses on earth for getting resources from hard to reach and/or dangerous places. British Petroleum and Rio Tinto are already using telerobots.”
As you point out, there is already demand for telerobotics here on Earth. Lots of it. So how much additional demand or innovation will mining on the Moon bring compared to the huge demand we have for resource mining here on Earth? Can you quantify this?
“This technology would also have military operations.”
Again, we already have a large and robust demand for military UAV’s, AUV’s, and UGV’s here on Earth, so how much additional demand is lunar mining going to add? Can you quantify this?
I’m not saying no innovation will happen due to extra-terrestrial resource mining (which includes asteroids), just that it will be incremental to what we already have going here on Earth.
“how can you assert such investments would have no economic return?”
So far you have talked about indirect economic benefits of spending, but you haven’t identified the direct economic benefits – what do we get from the Moon (besides knowledge) that we don’t have here on Earth? Now that could be less expensive platinum, or if we ever perfected fusion it could mean Helium-3. Those both would have clear Return On Investment (ROI).
For example, Planetary Resources is all about the ROI. They are very clear that they want to find valuable resources and bring them back to the Earth so they can monetize them. Specifically they state “Water from asteroids will fuel the in-space economy, and rare metals will increase Earth’s GDP.”
Certainly going to the Moon and setting up shop there could be justified for national or strategic reasons, just as we view the ability to project power beyond our borders is in our best national & strategic interests. And that would be a fair use of taxpayer money. But so far that’s not the situation with the Moon.
Two things. First, if the goal is to set up shop on the Moon for the purpose of increasing Earth’s GDP, then so far I haven’t seen anything close to what most people would consider a business plan. Second, if resource extraction is the primary goal of our efforts on the Moon, then taxpayer money is not the right source for funding it.
Maybe a public/private enterprise would be appropriate, but a resource operation funded primarily by the taxpayer would be viewed suspiciously, and it would have a hard time finding support in our current Congress. How do you overcome that?
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 26, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 26, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
“As you point out, there is already demand for telerobotics here on Earth. Lots of it. So how much additional demand or innovation will mining on the Moon bring compared to the huge demand we have for resource mining here on Earth?”
How much and of what types of telerobotics are being developed for current terrestrial needs? How does that compare with what would be developed for Lunar needs? What is the overlap between projected future terrestrial needs and lunar needs? Can you quantify this?
“Again, we already have a large and robust demand for military UAV’s, AUV’s, and UGV’s here on Earth, so how much additional demand is lunar mining going to add?”
How does current military project technical development compare to future military needs and what overlap will there be between those future needs and the needs of a lunar development program. Can you quantify this?
“For example, Planetary Resources is all about the ROI. They are very clear that they want to find valuable resources and bring them back to the Earth so they can monetize them. Specifically they state “Water from asteroids will fuel the in-space economy, and rare metals will increase Earth’s GDP.””
Asserting that “Water from asteroids will fuel the in-space economy, and rare metals will increase Earth’s GDP.” is a long way from a business plan. How much will ”rare metals” from asteroids “increase Earth’s GDP” and what will be the profit margins for the investor? Can you quantify this?
“Certainly going to the Moon and setting up shop there could be justified for national or strategic reasons, just as we view the ability to project power beyond our borders is in our best national & strategic interests. And that would be a fair use of taxpayer money. But so far that’s not the situation with the Moon.”
“But so far that’s not the situation with the Moon.” is an a priori assertion. If you feel that lunar development does not meet “best national & strategic interests”, what national & strategic interests did you consider and what criteria did you use to decide which were best. Can you quantify this?
Comment by Joe — June 26, 2012 @ 4:08 pm
“But ultimately, it could mean that their libertarian dreams of a profit-making space frontier will never come to pass. If free market capitalism and democratic political institutions are to have a future in the new frontier of space, entities, investors and consumers who share these values must secure a notable presence. ”
I believe no one can take over the Moon without free markets.
China might steal our aerospace industry, in same sense as allowed foreign investor to invest in China. But even that doesn’t mean China can take over the Moon.
I think the US should involve other countries when and if goes to the Moon. Not because they would share the cost, and not because it’s nice. But rather the moon will be international, there no sense fighting it.
If I am wrong and China does more than simply waste money, then it seems that Moon might be repeat history: new world colony, declares it’s independence. And I would bet on the lunatics winning that war.
But Chinese are interested in trade, and so they will want a free market, and they will get very very rich.
Now, I do think if Chinese go there first and invest some money in it, they may unable to resolve any possible conflict as well as America could manage it, so that would only danger I see. It may a some conflict between Canadian and American- not saying Chinese necessary be involved. I am just saying they currently govern in a fashion will not reduce conflict and don’t think they will change in that regard.
And I think if UN was governing, they would do worse than Chinese- because the UN are even more clueless.
Comment by gbaikie — June 27, 2012 @ 3:08 am
“If the SLS gets cancelled, I would certainly want some of the freed up budget to go to an expanded robotic exploration program that includes the Moon.”
I would certainly want all funding subsidizing commercial space cancelled before I would even entertain the thought of cancelling the SLS. It is the only way for humans to journey Beyond Earth Orbit in the near future. The endless circle space station can be relocated under the surface of the moon with the SLS- it will just continue going nowhere with private space efforts.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 27, 2012 @ 11:19 am
International treaty prohibits claims of extraterrestrial territory by national entities. But treaties are “gentlemen’s agreements” and sometimes nations do not behave like gentlemen.
There is an old distinction between “imperium” and “dominium”. The US Supreme Court enshrined this principle during the 1900′s in a series of decisions known as the “Insular Cases” that had to do with the raft of islands the US acquired from Spain as a result of the Spanish-American War. The Court ruled that there is an important distinction between the sovereign territory that is properly part of the United States (and its incorporated territories) versus unincorporated land that the USG merely owns. Thus, arguably, the recently declared “keepout” zones “recommended” by NASA surrounding the Apollo sites are fully consistent with the Outer Space Treaty (OST). The practical effect is ownership over the land (the power to say how a chunk of land will be disposed and control who is allowed to trespass) without having to make a claim of sovereign territory.
Thus, if China were to be the first to land at the choice polar sites (Whipple and Shackleton), with a judicious placement of scientific instruments, footprints and rover trails, and test excavations, and a little research into exhaust plumes that showed that dust and debris can actually travel further than 2 km, the Chinese could “recommend” large keepout and no-fly zones around its installations that could effectively lock up several hundred square kilometers of the choicest polar locations, all fully consistent with the OST.
We could quibble about whether China really owned the land or whether it was still “the province of all mankind”, but it would be a distinction without a difference. China would exercise practical control despite the fact that the imperium still resided with humanity as a whole: China would exercise a de facto dominium around its installations–all fully consistent with the OST. And what could the US do about it? It could hardly complain when NASA itself has already made similar “recommendations” around its own Lunar sites (which will of course be fully respected by the Chinese–Why mess with a useful precedent?) Thus, China will be able to achieve what they really want without having to rock the boat by withdrawing from the OST.
Bottom Line: Whoever gets there first the fastest and with the mostest gets the goods.
Comment by Warren Platts — June 27, 2012 @ 1:19 pm
“Can you quantify this?”
Any research and development is a gamble. If I could predict outcomes of different R&D projects, I would go to the stock market and place my bets on all winning horses. I’d be quite wealthy. But I don’t have a crystal ball.
That said, I do regard telerobotic technology as a good horse to place our bets on. And if NASA invested as much in building permanent infrastructure (rather than flags and footprints publicicity stunts), they would substantially advance the state of the art.
““Water from asteroids will fuel the in-space economy, and rare metals will increase Earth’s GDP.””
The Planetary Resources folks as well as Paul Spudis and Bill Stone recognize the value of water. They have been saying it would make transportation in our own neighborhood as well as to deep space destinations like asteroids much easier. Do you think the economic potential of water is a Planetary Resources idea that has never occurred to lunar advocates? You apparently don’t read the blogs you comment at.
“Maybe a public/private enterprise would be appropriate, but a resource operation funded primarily by the taxpayer would be viewed suspiciously, and it would have a hard time finding support in our current Congress. How do you overcome that?”
I would advocate a robotic and manned lunar base for science and exploration. Scouting for and using local volatiles could be justified as a way to cut the expense of this base. And if a base for scientific research gives us a thorough knowledge of volatile deposits, that would be of tremendous value to commercial interests.
Comment by Hop David — June 27, 2012 @ 3:14 pm
Comment by Hop David — June 27, 2012 @ 3:14 pm
“That said, I do regard telerobotic technology as a good horse to place our bets on. And if NASA invested as much in building permanent infrastructure (rather than flags and footprints publicicity stunts), they would substantially advance the state of the art.”
The UAV market is estimated to be growing at 12% per year, and will generate $86.5 billion in revenues over the period 2013-2018. Hard to see how any NASA telerobotic program would be a significant component of that market.
While you and others advocate that lunar operations will drive innovation on Earth, I tend to take the opposite view. I think the innovations being driven by the UAV’s, UGV’s and UAV’s markets here on Earth, plus the commercial innovations such as the Google Driverless Car project, will provide most of the capabilities needed for robotic exploration. Sure some harsh environment hardware will need to be developed, but the software, sensors and associated hardware will come from an existing industry here on Earth.
“Do you think the economic potential of water is a Planetary Resources idea that has never occurred to lunar advocates?”
Planetary Resources might mine water to lower their expenses for products they bringing back to Earth for sale. It’s an option that they have stated they want to explore, but overall their goal is to recoup their investment and make a profit by selling the products of their extra-terrestrial mining.
That to me is a big contrast to the assumption that the first thing that we need to do on the Moon is spend $87B and 17 years setting up a lunar water production facility. That assumption, that $87B of taxpayer money is best spent making a marketing bet on the value of water from the Moon, is pretty speculative.
And the only market that I keep hearing is the continued spending of taxpayer money to consume the products they are already spending money to produce. Where is the economic benefit? What get’s shipped back to Earth to enrich our GDP? When does the taxpayer get paid back?
“I would advocate a robotic and manned lunar base for science and exploration.”
Which has been argued before, and Congress has not been excited by it.
“Scouting for and using local volatiles could be justified as a way to cut the expense of this base.”
Which is speculation. How much would it save? If we didn’t use local supplies, how much more expensive would it be if we bring supplies from Earth? Has anyone done that comparison? Also, telling people how much they’ll save if they would just fork over $87B is not a winning argument.
“And if a base for scientific research gives us a thorough knowledge of volatile deposits, that would be of tremendous value to commercial interests.”
Then Congress would ask why the taxpayer should fund it. If there is great value on the Moon, then let commercial companies mine it. Isn’t that what happens here on Earth?
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 28, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
“China would exercise a de facto dominium around its installations–all fully consistent with the OST. And what could the US do about it?”
US is not doing anything about at the moment, why does China going there make any difference?
The problem is US is quite capable of getting there before Chinese, and they aren’t.
“Bottom Line: Whoever gets there first the fastest and with the mostest gets the goods.”
Yes, but goods need to be sold.
And there is no shortage of water in space.
Big thing about mining lunar water, is it’s a start of a market. Period.
If Chinese want to start this market in space, they might do faster and better job then US. Or worse. And fail.
If you assume there is no risk involved with trying to start a market for rocket fuel in space, are you missing something.
And if Chinese want add to the difficulty to something already difficult, they could end up wasting hundreds of billions of dollars. I don’t think the Chinese are that foolish.
I fear not the Chinese make boatloads of profits, just as don’t have a problem with some America business making boatloads of profits.
I can not imagine a sum of money so great, that they didn’t earn every penny of it.
If anyone starts a real market on the Moon, they will make all Earthlings wealthy.
Comment by gbaikie — June 29, 2012 @ 2:08 am
Comment by Hop David — June 27, 2012 @ 3:14 pm
“Do you think the economic potential of water is a Planetary Resources idea that has never occurred to lunar advocates?”
Planetary Resources might mine water to lower their expenses for products they bringing back to Earth for sale. It’s an option that they have stated they want to explore, but overall their goal is to recoup their investment and make a profit by selling the products of their extra-terrestrial mining.
That to me is a big contrast to the assumption that the first thing that we need to do on the Moon is spend $87B and 17 years setting up a lunar water production facility. That assumption, that $87B of taxpayer money is best spent making a marketing bet on the value of water from the Moon, is pretty speculative.
And the only market that I keep hearing is the continued spending of taxpayer money to consume the products they are already spending money to produce. Where is the economic benefit? What get’s shipped back to Earth to enrich our GDP? When does the taxpayer get paid back?
“I would advocate a robotic and manned lunar base for science and exploration.”
Which has been argued before, and Congress has not been excited by it.
“Scouting for and using local volatiles could be justified as a way to cut the expense of this base.”
Which is speculation. How much would it save? If we didn’t use local supplies, how much more expensive would it be if we bring supplies from Earth? Has anyone done that comparison? Also, telling people how much they’ll save if they would just fork over $87B is not a winning argument.
“And if a base for scientific research gives us a thorough knowledge of volatile deposits, that would be of tremendous value to commercial interests.”
Then Congress would ask why the taxpayer should fund it. If there is great value on the Moon, then let commercial companies mine it. Isn’t that what happens here on Earth?
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 29, 2012 @ 1:34 pm
“If you assume there is no risk involved with trying to start a market for rocket fuel in space, are you missing something.”
If you think making rocket fuel from moon water is going to change the basic problems associated with space travel. Chemical propulsion is useful and appropriate for getting into orbit and going to the moon but it is useless for human travel Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit(BELO). Nuclear propulsion is required and the Nuclear Industry should be the ones really pushing for a moonbase; it is not a safe industry on earth but is critical to any space endeavor involving human travel beyond the moon. No nuclear mission will ever be assembled, tested and launched from Earth orbit- it will happen beneath, on, and above the Lunar surface.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 29, 2012 @ 8:10 pm
http://www.space.com/16366-oldest-meteorite-crater-earth-found.html
Yet one more piece of evidence to validate establishing a survival colony on the moon. It could happen again tomorrow.
Comment by GaryChurch — July 1, 2012 @ 1:53 pm
“If you assume there is no risk involved with trying to start a market for rocket fuel in space, are you missing something.”
“If you think making rocket fuel from moon water is going to change the basic problems associated with space travel.”
Yes I do.
“Chemical propulsion is useful and appropriate for getting into orbit and going to the moon but it is useless for human travel Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit(BELO).”
Even if this was true [and it's not] it’s it doesn’t make any significant difference in terms of the importance of mining rocket fuel on the Moon.
“Nuclear propulsion is required and the Nuclear Industry should be the ones really pushing for a moonbase; it is not a safe industry on earth but is critical to any space endeavor involving human travel beyond the moon. No nuclear mission will ever be assembled, tested and launched from Earth orbit- it will happen beneath, on, and above the Lunar surface.”
Yes nuclear industries should involved. As well as mining companies [including oil industry], and equipment manufacturers, as well as many sectors. And international entities.
And it would be an exciting day when nuclear orions are launched from the Moon.
Comment by gbaikie — July 5, 2012 @ 5:14 am