The Lunacy of Artemis

>fuel

Hydrogen and oxygen can be made from water, and methane can be made from regolith and water.

>where would this "cislunar orbit economy" find a market?

The uniform distribution of microgravity lends itself to advanced manufacturing methods that cost hundreds if not billions of dollars to replicate here on earth. soooo many of earths manufacturing methods use very expensive means of creating the vacuum that is required, that is provided free in space.

Semiconductors. Turns out here on earth the machines costs hundreds of millions of dollars to etch a wafer because of the use of various technologies to create vacums, control for foreign material, and ensure the micro etches "Stay" and the material "goes". There is a wide discussion, and multiple tests conducted on the ISS that has confirmed this. So, space may be the only way to build next-gen semi conductor tech to get us below 2nm, and a much higher yield, with much cheaper equipment. With the cost of a launch at ~100m on a falcon, the launch would be cheaper than the equipment they are sending up.

ZBLAN fiber optics, growing protein crystals, Electron Beam Physical Vapor Deposition, Regolith refining,

are all done better in space. And they will be cheaper in space, and on the moon and mars. They will be more expensive on earth due to the large gravity well.

> with his own money

Could someone confirm that? SpaceX raised money last year [0], however I couldn't find how much of this money (if any) went to the Starship program.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/spacex-raising-750-million-a...

> is all that is required for the process?

No, that is only the panels required just to generate the electricity for the process.

This does not include, among other things: cabling, scaffolds, mountings, inverters, electronics, any batteries to cover operation during the night, any machinery required for mining, transportation, and building, nor building materials, piping, storage tanks, the actual sabbatier reactor chambers, insultation, duct tape, spare parts, tools, engineers, food, water, oxygen, space suits, vehicles, or toilet paper.

And keep in mind that for the sake of simplicity, [this assumes almost total conversion of energy][1] already, aka. almost losslessly converting the electricity harvested to chemical energy in the fuel, which of course doesn't happen in chemistry. It also ignores a whole lot of other stuff, outlined shortly after the timestamp linked.

And all that is to refill a single ship over the course of 500 days. Not a fleet. Not regular starts to support industry-scale transport logistics. One. Single. Ship. Over the course of 500 days

And we are, again, just talking about fuel production here. An industry also needs spare parts, personnel, tools, replacement machinery, building materials. The people working there need food, water, oxygen, toilet paper, ...

You know what else an industry needs? Waste disposal. We cannot just dump metal shavings, etc. into space: Because we are talking about orbiting platforms or something similar here, so these waste products would then become hyper-velocity projectiles ripping everything to shreds. So there needs to be a plan for that as well, which again involves all the same problems.

Another thing it needs: Energy. The video outlines how difficult it is to support even a single, scope-limited industrial process in a place where we cannot just connect to the electric grid or access large natural gas reservoirs. Solar panels are nice, but processes like smelting materials, welding, metalworking, anything that requires high temperatures? Good luck trying to cover that with solar.

And again another thing: Heat dispersal. Ever wondered why the ISS has so many fins? Many of those are not solar panels, they are heat-exchangers. And they just have to account for the body heat of a small group of people and their equipment. Try to imagine what an industrial facility would need, just in terms of that.

Yeah, so all in all, I guess that we won't support a "cis-lunar-orbit" industry any time soon. While in theory possible (as in, nothing so far violates any laws of physics), it simply isn't practical, and the cost of anything, from setting it up to maintaining it, would be prohibitive.

> I would be more interested in what you think about the more advanced manufacturing, despite all the problems and infrastructure required?

First I'd need to see tangible demonstrations that "having zero gravity" confers an advantage in the first place.

What do I mean by that? Simple: Does zero gravity enable certain processes, that cannot be replicated on Earth, and is the cost of setting up such facilities, vs. developing alternatives that work here, where we have materials, labour, air, etc. available really worth it.

Because "greatest adventure" sounds wonderful and all that, but when the term "industry" enters the discussion, we have to talk about efficiency, expedience and ROI.

[1]: https://youtu.be/s-MQrp2P2GI?si=DCLRSeeZ2hLePVAl&t=886

This isn't about making optimal decisions, this is about not making obviously bad ones.

Right now, with our current science and technology, sending humans on space-exploration missions, simply isn't worth it. It adds a huge pile of problems to an already difficult task, and technically speaking, we get almost nothing out of it; Robots are just better at examining rocks on other planets than we are, for the simple reason that the robot doesn't require a huge support infrastructure just to be kept alive.

And the usual argument that developing such infrastructure would, in itself, confer some future advantage, has to be viewed with a lot of scepticism; fact of the matter is, the development of space-toilets does very little to improve the day-to-day tech we use here on Earth.

Space Exploration is not comparable to any exploratory task in history, based on the sheer amount of resources and time required. These resources are finite. Allocating them correctly may not be super romantic, may not tickle the "human spirit", sure. But when things are this expensive and difficult, such considerations simply take a backseat.

And if they don't, well, then there is the very real possibility of programs running into so many problems, delays and exploding costs, that at some point governments and companies can, or will, no longer support them, meaning decades before any significant development is even tried again.

And as someone who wants space exploration to go forward as quickly and efficiently as possible, that simply doesn't seem like a very desirable outcome to me.

> No it wouldn't be, because there is zero chance in hell of everyone else on Earth not realizing whats going on, if someone were suddenly busy launching all that machinery, building materials and weapons towards the Moon, not to mention hundreds of personnel with all their space suits, provisions, water, shelters, space poop collectors, etc.

We're talking about a permanent manned presence on the moon. If I have that and you don't, you can watch me launch from Earth all you like. I can build a launch facility on the side of the moon that you can't see without circumnavigating it, and I can conduct launches from it that you don't know about. To go to the extreme, I could launch nukes on ballistic trajectories that you would be blind to.

> And even so, the Moon offers ZERO advantage as a "staging ground" for Missions to Mars, because, there is nothing on the Moon to be staged. Every kg of stuff that would be "staged" there, has to be first launched from Earth, so all a Moon Base does, is add another launch to an already costly equation.

This is the kind of confidently ignorant response that is thankfully not too common on hackernews.

The moon has zero atmosphere, a trivial escape velocity, and is a huge mass that can be built on, within Earth's gravity well. Using a mass driver to launch from the moon around the Earth means you would need to carry less propellant on board your spacecraft, because in the best case scenario, you only need to carry the fuel to slow you down. Launching from Earth, you need X + Y fuel, where X gets you the delta-V to get to your destination from Earth, and Y is the fuel required to slow you down and land. Launching from the moon you need U + V, where U is the fuel that gets you to the moon, and V is the fuel you need to slow you down, because you don't need to launch from the moon using propellant. If X > U, launching from the moon is better. The faster you want to go, the more things tip in favor of launching from the moon, because you can keep adding stages and front-loading energy into your launch in a way that is impossible on Earth. Shit, if you launch around the Earth you can even regain some of the energy you put towards getting to the moon in the first place, because the Earth's gravity field accelerates you, and your propellant has potential energy as well as chemical energy (i.e. do an Oberth maneuver).

I'm well aware of the realities of the other bodies in the solar system. That doesn't mean we'll never want to go to any of them. If we do, going to the moon first makes a lot of sense.