[DariushPetresku]

We already did that. By we I mean the US.

[hellenmoranov]

Zkribbler -

...and how much do you think all that might cost?

I doubt you will get a "free" lift into space, and developing the rover might cost a few $$.

[enurihent]

I'm sure it can be done.

Break even would be pretty cool if you get to brag I guess.

[Buincchotourbss]

Moon rocks aren't very valuable except maybe on eBay. That's why there aren't dozens of companies harvesting them now, please check your facts before posting.

[Chooriwrocaxz]

It'd be a great place for a cottage. Just let the inlaws and distant relatives try and find you there.

[malishka1025]

Conveniently you left this out:

Exporting material to Earth in trade from the Moon is more problematic due to the high cost of transportation Whatever the value of all that helium is, it apparently isn't worth the few million it would take to extract it and fly it back.

As to possible benefits of this Helium:

In the long term future He3 may prove to be a desirable fuel in thermonuclear fusion reactors. But again, costs way outweigh benefits at this point so no, it isn't as if the moon is a great opportunity for private industry.

It's good for helium extraction in a few decades, that's it. There are no other entries or possible benefits listed in that article.

[chinesemedicine]

So because it would only be valuable in a few decades (your assertion) we shouldn't try to start it now? If it will always only be valuable "in a few decades" we'll never actually get around to harvesting it. No, it's the assertion of the article you provided. The reactors that the helium would power are a long time off.

I'm also confused by what else is so valuable on the moon.

[Sydaycymn]

Does the moon's surface provide anything readily useful resource wise? Water, by many accounts, is abundant on the Moon. Sure we have plenty on Earth but as someone has pointed out, it's expensive to sent stuff into space from Earth. Not so expensive from the moon where gravitational acceleration is about a sixth that of the Earth.

In water you have the two basic ingredients for rocket fuel; hydrogen and oxygen could be cheaply separated by electricity generated by solar panels (solar radiation being much stronger having not gone through a load of atmosphere). You can also drink the stuff which, if we were to ever establish some kind of permanent base there, would be essential for self-sufficiency (and thus economic viability).

Why would we even want to do this? Asteroids. Mineral-rich asteroids which could potentially be mined without concern for the environment. Sounds far-fetched but where there's profit to be had...

Considering the ever increasing price of nickel and iron is it so outlandish to think that we will be doing this in 100-200 years?

[SetSnonejog]

For this prize, you will be paying $7 million to SpaceX for the launch, or about one-third your prize proceeds.

The lander and rover will have to be very light, to be sure.

This is doable, although difficult. The way a contest should be.

[TorryJens]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Water, by many accounts, is abundant on the Moon. Sure we have plenty on Earth but as someone has pointed out, it's expensive to sent stuff into space from Earth. Not so expensive from the moon where gravitational acceleration is about a sixth that of the Earth. There is no water on the moon
?

So should we stop space exploration/science until better propulsion systems come along? I never implied that. I said space industries were nonsense. That has little to with exploration\science activities. And it will be governments that will make strides in space, not companies. Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes

[fedelwet]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes Yeh, shutdown to the tune of $17 billion per annum.

[vforvandetta]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
I never implied that. I said space industries were nonsense. That has little to with exploration\science activities. Space industries are nonsense at this point precisely b/c the rest of the science/knowledge is not there (including the propulsion you feel we need).

And it will be governments that will make strides in space, not companies. Unfortunately NASA and such is essentially shutdown as far as funding goes I disagree. It will increasingly become more of a partnership.

[bubbachew14]

Cheater! You only mapped it.

Now make the trip!

[Blelidupgerie]

Every great expedition had it's detractors... Once I get a car and one of those rover thingies, we'll see who's laughing!

[Vedun*]

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as Google's goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 80 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

Google chooses to go to the moon. Google chooses to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of Google's energies and skills, because that challenge is one that Google is willing to accept, one Google is unwilling to postpone, and one which Google intends to win, and the others, too (and you can put a MASSIVE spy satellite on that thing).

It is for these reasons that Google regards the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during Google's incumbency in the office of Supreme Leader of the World.

[mralabama]

Originally posted by Lorizael


So because it would only be valuable in a few decades (your assertion) we shouldn't try to start it now? If it will always only be valuable "in a few decades" we'll never actually get around to harvesting it.

Further, and more what I was talking about earlier, there are minerals and metals found on the Moon that can be used in manufacturing.

Zero-gee manufacturing is an industry that companies are very much looking into in the future, and if they can get their raw materials from the Moon instead of the Earth, their costs will be greatly reduced. It costs ~ 1B dollars to launch anything( anything being defined as 89 thousand pounds) with a space shuttle. And the moon won't have heavier elements because of how it was formed, so it won't be so useful. Now perhaps towing asteroids to L5 will make sense, but that is even further off for us.

Originally posted by Wezil
So should we stop space exploration/science until better propulsion systems come along? Its not going to because we aren't investing in it. We have pretty much stopped everything except the toy stuff.

[obHQNsY2]

Originally posted by DanS


Yeh, shutdown to the tune of $17 billion per annum. Piddly. During the mid 1960s it made up around 5% of the national budget. That is a huge decrease in actual purchase power. We are now spending 600+ billion on defense alone.

According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this.


Im not challenging that there is water on the moon, but link? I couldnt find anything on google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...on&btnG=Search

Im sure im overlooking something

[prowsnobswend]

Damn... I thought Zkribbler at any rate would enjoy my "Googling" of the Kennedy speech .

[Kamepherype]

Originally posted by Aeson
I win!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=e...32813&z=5&om=1 lol

[Preegovesem]

You all forget that the mission doesn't have to cost $30M. The Scaled Composites Spaceship One cost more than the $10M that the X-Prize promised them.

Take a lander+rover mission that is filled with people's personal stuff. It lands on the moon, leaves all the stuff there (for a hefty fee), gathers some moon rocks for sale back on Earth, and completes Google's requirements. Google's $30M can be what makes this mission into a profitable one.