“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.

Yet one more piece of evidence to validate establishing a survival colony on the moon. It could happen again tomorrow.

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.

“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?

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.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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?

“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?

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.

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?