Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

danieltillett wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it would be possible to make rocket fuel. Wanting to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon. Edit. Spelling

> There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it would be possible to make rocket fuel

Both requiring advanced, energy-intensive chemistry to extract small amounts of water and trace amounts of carbon. All running on specialised gear built out of elements difficult to find on the Moon. Compare that to heating a fluid containing 95% CO2 to 400 degrees C and running it over a catalyst which makes up over 5% of Martian soil (aluminium).

> Want [sic] to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon.

There's value in focus. Mars is the easier and superior target, given present technology and Elon's goals. Someone else can focus on the Moon if they want to.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

jhou2 wrote: post #29
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

I agree that colonizing another world is important as a "backup policy" but I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. I feel like human civilization would have a better chance of surviving deep underground or in the oceans than spending so many resources attempting to colonize Mars.

> I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies.

Then the Moon is, as well.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gnu8 wrote: post #20
kirrent wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the articles of the treaty by private entities. Specifically, article VI requires - "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropria…

In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

> the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes down on my house, I'd prefer there exist a venue in which to sue him.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#34

Post by readams »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
bunkydoo wrote: post #10

I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon. A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space, and a fallback location for global conflict.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

I'm pretty sure a nearby gamma ray burst would sterilize the whole solar system.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#35

Post by readams »

bunkydoo wrote: post #10

I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon. A Moon base relay is FAR more meaningful to our established presence in space, and a fallback location for global conflict.

You can buy space on a Falcon 9 today and go to the moon. It's just that nobody wants to since there's nothing there. But some of the Lunar X-Prize participants plan to use a Falcon 9.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#36

Post by simonh »

danieltillett wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand why SpaceX doesn't do the Moon SpaceX wants to colonise another world [1]. The Moon is more difficult to colonise than Mars because it has no atmosphere. This means no aerobraking, no aerodynamic flight ( e.g. for drones or parachutes) and no carbon dioxide from which to make rocket fuel [2]. Furthermore, while the Moon being close to the Earth makes supplying a colony easier, it also redu…

There is water (ice) on the moon at the poles and carbon in the rocks so it would be possible to make rocket fuel. Wanting to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon. Edit. Spelling

> Want to colonise Mars does not mean you should avoid the moon.

But does going to the moon do anything to further the cause of colonising Mars? Elon has specific goals he is pursuing. Going to the moon would consume resources that could otherwise be used going to Mars, and there's nothing useful he could do on the moon that would help him in his actual goals.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#37

Post by kirrent »

hirsin wrote: post #17
kirrent wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the articles of the treaty by private entities. Specifically, article VI requires - "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropria…

Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like... Monaco ?

SpaceX is still an American company and they'd be launching from an American registered ship. I think an argument could certainly be made that the US would remain the appropriate state party to regulate such a launch but finding ways to legislate that within its jurisdiction could be amusing.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#38

Post by kirrent »

gnu8 wrote: post #20
kirrent wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the articles of the treaty by private entities. Specifically, article VI requires - "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropria…

In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

There's no requirement for state parties to sign up to the treaty. In effect there's no difference between each signatory implementing national laws independently from the treaty or implementing them because they're required to under the treaty. It's voluntary to join up. If the holy see, which hasn't ratified the treaty, wants to launch nuclear weapons from the Vatican then they're entirely welcome to do so. I'm sure there'll be objections from other avenues but this treaty is not one of them.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#39

Post by shirro »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33
gnu8 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

> the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states. International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes…

It would be amusing if a Liberian flagged space ship was the first to land people on Mars.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#40

Post by function_seven »

shirro wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states. International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes…

It would be amusing if a Liberian flagged space ship was the first to land people on Mars.

Doubly-so, if they used feet, inches, °F, and pounds to do so! It would prove the superiority of our great measurement units :)
Post reply on HN