US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission • Hacker News Board

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#41

Post by deciplex » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:04 AM UTC

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.

I mean, they also granted a monopoly on ICBMs to nation-states as well. What's your point? Some countries passed some laws?

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#42

Post by cromulent » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:13 AM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #40

shirro wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I don't think they are "yours", but more so an anachronism from your colonial days ;)

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#43

Post by mwfunk » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:32 AM UTC

robzyb wrote: post #14

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.

SpaceX's care about "our established presence in space" is secondary to their care of revenue and profit.

That's hardly surprising given that they wouldn't exist without the possibility of revenue. I'm not sure why you think this should be disturbing to anyone though.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#44

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

danieltillett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am not sure Mars is the easier target given how much further it is up the gravity well, but certainly Elon is welcome to focus on whatever he wants. I was just making the point that the Moon is able to be used as a source of rocket fuel if so desired and in my opinion it is a worthy target.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#45

Post by NietTim » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:59 AM UTC

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…

Right, so a perfect starting place to test things out, instead of going to mars straight away

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#46

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:01 AM UTC

xufi wrote: post #30

danieltillett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Interesting point. Do you think Elon Musk would ever create a expedition to the Moon even though he's so focused on Mars right now? I always thought he would've tried at least once

Von Braun wanted to go to Mars too, but ended up choosing the Moon as being the more viable option.

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#47

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:10 AM UTC

readams wrote: post #34

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

I was under the impression that it is not the gamma rays that would get you but the destruction of the ozone layer [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#48

Post by rplnt » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:33 AM UTC

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 think we have enough time to care about fallback location for human civilization.

What I would be interested in is, could Moon be used to build radio telescope array? Shielded from Earth's noise. More importantly, would the benefits outweigh the costs?

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#49

Post by ColinWright » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:46 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #12

A one-way robotic mission to the moon is reasonable enough. It's been 50 years since the first one. The USSR's Luna I landed on the moon on February 3, 1966. The US's Surveyor I landed on the moon on June 2, 1966.

There was one in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29

Re: US Set to Approve Private Moon Mission

#50

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:58 AM UTC

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…

If Bezos's bird comes down on my house, I'd prefer there exist a venue in which to sue him.

This doesn't seem to have much to do with outer space treaties, unless perhaps your house is on the moon. Assuming that isn't the case, your house is protected by the laws of the nation in which it is located, and perhaps those of other nations as well.