Near-future Expansion of Human Presence in Cislunar Space

[MATTBLAK]

I'd probably rather live on the Moon when I'm elderly - nice light gravity! As for Mars; I've not seen the point of terraforming it, really. We can build monstrous sports stadiums on Earth - I'd rather see monster pressurized domes over some big craters on Mars, due to its relatively light gravity and relative abundance of water. Thickening the atmosphere with more CO2 would not be so bad as it should aid entry, descent and landing for spacecraft by better use of parachutes and other aerofoils, not to mention improving radiation protection for the surface inhabitants.

[Cererean]

It would also allow large, unpressurised farming domes (and canals!), making everything far easier to do.

It's the Pareto principle. We gain a majority of the benefit from a minority of the effort. Getting Mars to the point of human surface habitability is far harder than getting it to the point where it's habitable for life, and at that latter point, we can (eventually) get free oxygen from the atmosphere, grow food out on the surface, or in simple greenhouses, and walk around with just a breathing mask and warm clothing.

Maybe there's enough CO2 in the regolith for mirrors to drive it out...

But as far as the first colony is concerned, I think it will be Shackleton City. Luna will have private enterprise - hotels, mining operations, shipyards, possibly retirement homes - while Mars is still in the Antarctica stage of scientific bases. As I see it, it will start with ice mining, then hotels and possibly nickel mining from the regolith (especially if we build a railgun or elevator to make shipping resources homeward a lot cheaper), and then will reach the point where there will be dedicated apartments for people who want to move there full time. By which point the farms will have told us everything we need to know about how gestation copes with 1/6th gravity.

[Coastal Ron]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

Mining is an industry that leads the way into undeveloped areas. Tourism is not. Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy. That will NOT be the situation on the Moon anytime soon.

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

This is the same situation for cislunar space as a whole - there currently isn't a business model that supports spending $X amount to move humans out into space. Elon Musk isn't counting on a business model to colonize Mars, he is treating Mars colonization as a humanitarian effort, which includes people paying their own way there.

And I say this as someone that has spent a number of years working on designs for rotating space stations. I know that unless I can identify WHY someone would want to spend money to be on a rotating space station, that it will never get built. There has to be a clear ROI for the $Billions it will take, but so far there isn't. Which is OK, since there is still work to do on my designs, but I like to think there is a potential future need.

So the bottom line is that we don't need to solve the business case question for now, we can work on ideas that enable business cases when they appear. But we do need to clear eyed about what those potential business models could be, whether they are purely business oriented or those that involve humanitarian efforts (i.e. spend without a direct ROI).

Which is why when we work on our various ideas, we should always have an initial customer in mind. Since that will help us understand if what we are designing actually meets a potential need.

My $0.02

[Cererean]

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

Depending on the structure of the regolith, Lunar nickel mining may be an option. We would probably need a railgun or elevator to make it economical, though. If there are grains with abundant nickel-iron, it will be a lot easier to exploit than if it's evenly mixed into a glass.

None of these ideas are likely to pencil out at current costs, though. We really need some means to ship bulk cargo - plastic, water, metal, food - cheaply (<<$100/kg) to orbit, like a railgun. Mounted on a stratospheric airship.

[Coastal Ron]

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

The cruise industry today has two major activities that passengers engage in:

1. Activities on the ship
2. Activities off of the ship

For #2, you have to have local infrastructure that is robust enough to absorb the cruise ship passengers that come to shore. You may not see it, but there are many people ashore that allow a cruise ship to dock and to provide the passengers with shore experiences. You can't do that in space until you have colonies, since where are those workers going to live, and where will their families live, and where will the workers (& their families) that support the cruise industry workers live?

For #1, if the activities on the space cruise ship don't depend on landing on the Moon, then they don't even have to travel to the Moon to get the same experiences. For instance, the mother of a friend of mine loves to eat on cruises, but that doesn't change with the destination - same food at the home port as in the middle of the cruise.

More importantly, the population that would go on such a cruise is very small. Most of the people that do cruises today would not be physically fit enough to launch into space, and they likely wouldn't want to go after finding out about the safety training they have to do. Remember space is not a safe place yet for civilians, and likely won't be for decades, so this is NOT a near term activity.

Depending on the structure of the regolith, Lunar nickel mining may be an option. We would probably need a railgun or elevator to make it economical, though. If there are grains with abundant nickel-iron, it will be a lot easier to exploit than if it's evenly mixed into a glass.

We have plenty of nickel here on Earth. Why would someone pay more for nickel mined on the Moon?

Everyone has ideas, and that is fine. But not everyone has scaleable business ideas, and that is what we need to support the expansion of humanity out into space.

[TrevorMonty]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us. I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children. If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

[Coastal Ron]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us.

Yes, and so far there is no one that appears to want to invest money to figure this out. No doubt once humans are spending long periods of time on the Moon or Mars there will be scientists that will volunteer to do research, but I don't think anyone will pay to do that type of research on a rotating space station beforehand. Which is sad, since I have a design that could be such a platform... 

I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

We have baselines for humans that we'll be able to compare for 6 months and beyond, so I think we will get early indications how low gravity affects human anatomy.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children.

Mining what, for who? ISRU will be very important for local demand, but there is no known export market to provide financial income. At best it would help to offset expenditures by lowering the amount needing to be imported.

As for tourism, I've expressed by feeling about previously. However, the Moon is 1,000X further away from Earth than LEO is, so to get an idea about the tourism potential of the Moon just take the current tourism revenue (as of the past 12 months) and multiply it by 1,000X... 

If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

Going to be decades before we work up to O'Neill cylinders...

[RDoc]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us. I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children. If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

We can guess all we want, but until we actually do some long term research, it's just a guess. So far the only data points we have on living at other than 1.0 G are pretty terrible though. Conceiving, birthing and raising children IMHO can't be done by just trying, unless you're cool with Joseph Mengle's work.

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

[RDoc]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Scott Kelly doesn't agree with you on zero G.

And what would the commercial industry that would employ hundreds (or tens) of people in space? I'm not aware of anything that could be done commercially there that would require human participation apart from national prestige projects.

[TrevorMonty]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live &amp; work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Scott Kelly doesn't agree with you on zero G.

And what would the commercial industry that would employ hundreds (or tens) of people in space? I'm not aware of anything that could be done commercially there that would require human participation apart from national prestige projects.

Scott was disciplined astronaut that spent hours a day exercising and still had complications, average space worker isn't going spend same effort exercising.

[Cererean]

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

Let's be honest - if costs remain that high, *no* operation is going to be breaking even. We need a couple of orders of magnitude reduction in costs before expansion becomes viable.

On the other hand, it's energetically far more favourable to send cargo from Luna to Terra, than the other way round. So mining operations have that going for them at least. But we're going to need railguns for the big stuff. Though, if we could find a large still somewhat intact nickel-iron meteorite, we could get the platinum and gold and other precious metals. There should be enough water to export those.

[Coastal Ron]

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

Let's be honest - if costs remain that high, *no* operation is going to be breaking even. We need a couple of orders of magnitude reduction in costs before expansion becomes viable.

Reducing space transportation costs is essential to allowing companies and organizations to experiment on new business models.

On the other hand, it's energetically far more favourable to send cargo from Luna to Terra, than the other way round. So mining operations have that going for them at least.

That is the type of experimentation that lower transportation costs allow. The other is extensive robotic operations, which people don't talk about much, but robotic workers & systems cost FAR less than humans.

Though, if we could find a large still somewhat intact nickel-iron meteorite, we could get the platinum and gold and other precious metals. There should be enough water to export those.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

[TrevorMonty]

LCROSS detected high levels of gold in polar craters. Theory is fine dust is lifted into atomsphere (if you can call it that) by electrostatic electricity due to solar activity.  Then drops out in PSR hence accumulation over millions of years.

Google Warren Platts he is member, there is a thread or two related to subject.

NB 1mt of gold is worth $55M so it maybe worthwhile, especially if using ISRU fuel to return it to earth. If it can be delivered to LEO then crew capsules or SS can return it to earth, should have plenty of surplus downmass capacity.

As with every thing on moon, becomes cheaper the more infrastructure there is. Just need that initial foot hold to expand from.

[Cererean]

None of that is needed on Earth.

That doesn't matter, as long as there's someone on Earth willing to pay enough for it to cover the cost of the mining operation and make a profit. Yes, Earthers don't *need* a large amount of gold or platinum, but if they want it badly enough....

[TrevorMonty]

None of that is needed on Earth.

That doesn't matter, as long as there's someone on Earth willing to pay enough for it to cover the cost of the mining operation and make a profit. Yes, Earthers don't *need* a large amount of gold or platinum, but if they want it badly enough....

100mt year wouldn't make a dent in annual 4000mt market, but its worth $5.5b. Pays for lot of lunar infrastructure

[DistantTemple]

you just need to borrow the $5.5Bn to start to build the infrastructure, to start to recover the gold, before you can eventually sell it and break even? Oh, well maybe not break even, perhaps make the mortgage payment. Ok OK thats not how financing works! I agree is would be a useful sum... but...

[high road]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

Gems and minerals that form by geological processes that are unique to the moon (or wherever). Or maybe just formed on the moon/wherever. People pay orders of magnitude more for bottled water than tapwater, even in regions where it's perfectly fine to drink. So adding the label 'from the moon/wherever' is bound to increase the price of things that are already luxury items.

What gems/minerals and what processes? Well, more research is needed to see if they even exist. Research is the only humanitarian effort that makes sense in space, IMO.

Probably not a very big market, but definitely a pathfinder industry that would mature technology and infrastructure for subsequent industries.

This is the same situation for cislunar space as a whole - there currently isn't a business model that supports spending $X amount to move humans out into space. Elon Musk isn't counting on a business model to colonize Mars, he is treating Mars colonization as a humanitarian effort, which includes people paying their own way there.

Well yeah, but we haven't even worked out how to run a suborbital space tourism venture, P2P transportation, a commercial space lab etc. Kind of hard to cobble together a business case if you don't even have tried and tested examples of such less complex ventures.

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one.

And from a logistical standpoint. Building infrastructure 0.5 to 2.5 years away from any unforeseen supplies is not easy.

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

That combination of luxury and comfort is very, very expensive to implement in space. I think Mount Everest climbing would be more comparable: very expensive, and quite dangerous. Probably not a big economic activity IMO, but already a gating industry with Starship's moon mission partially funding Starship's development.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

So what do those colonies/settlements do so they can even pay for luxury items like precious metals? (or to grow to a scale where the can use enough of these in industrial processes that it makes commercial sense to build an extraction plant for them on the moon? However, that point could be reached relatively early if the precious metals are gathered as a byproduct of fuel production or somesuch).

In your previous post, you had people pay for their own ticket there. So how do they pay for what they need when they're already there? If the humanitarian effort is to grow those colonies, why not let those colonies produce the precious metals locally, rather than import them from the moon?

Not intended as a snarky remark. Just pointing out that if economic sense isn't your driver, that impacts the choices for the infrastructure.

So as a response to the question in the title, here's how I see the present and near future:

1) cheaper, faster and easier access to space --> happening
2) Standardized platforms to reduce development costs of future ventures --> happening (think Photon)
3) Increasing number of economic ventures in space, using existing technology --> starting
4) figure out how to build and run a commercial space lab to facilitate early development of new space ventures (think tethers unlimited, 3d printing, fiberoptics, ...)
5) mature the aforementioned technologies (and new ones) and launch dedicated production infrastructure
6) with increasing infrastructure in LEO, on-orbit refueling should become a thing
7) with on orbit refueling, you've officially got a product that could be purchased more cheaply from the moon. Any waste produced doing so that costs less on Earth than transporting it here, will also be an export product.

However, before 7, you will already need to have detailed geological knowledge of the material you need to extract, and you need to mature that extraction and refinement technology to produce fuel on the moon. This means a research station (let's call it a humanitarian effort) will be needed, as that extra cost would dwarf the initial orbital refueling market.

after 7, the growing market will expose new needs that don't exist yet, more demand for stuff in LEO, and it now makes more sense to do certain things locally (now that the infrastructure is there anyway). So after that, we should be over the hump, I hope.

I don't see a big niche for tourists (although there will be some) to bring in significant amounts of money, so I haven't included them. I think we'll see little more than the occasional barebones cruise on Starship (1), maybe a space station designed for touristy things in microgravity that can't be done on the regular Starship (4) and eventually even some spare rooms on the moon for the very motivated (

[high road]

you just need to borrow the $5.5Bn to start to build the infrastructure, to start to recover the gold, before you can eventually sell it and break even? Oh, well maybe not break even, perhaps make the mortgage payment. Ok OK thats not how financing works! I agree is would be a useful sum... but...

This is also not how financing works. Every platinum mine has to invest to start extracting, and it takes several years to earn back the investment.

You need to compare the money needed to build a mine/refinery that can put out 100mt (or x) on Earth, and then compare it to what it would cost to build a mine/refinery that can put out 100mt (or x) on the moon. That includes searching for locations with high concentrations, which is quite more expensive on the moon than on Earth.

Then, estimate the profit margin (with transportation costs, operating costs and logistics being far more expensive on the moon) so you find out what your earnback period is. (not yet including any interest rates or dividends for investors).

With all that, convince enough people to invest in you, rather than in a conventional platinum mine.

However, if you already have a base on the moon that is already operating anyway, and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, that's a totally different calculation.

[DistantTemple]

...  and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, ...

v. briefly
y 2 all.
... or get other ppl interested carrying out such industry.

[high road]

...  and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, ...

v. briefly
y 2 all.
... or get other ppl interested carrying out such industry.

Other than their cost estimates dropping significantly, no. These others still need to convince investors. And they still need to be able to sell their product without being accused of unfair competition if they don't have to pay these investors back.

However, if you're doing it to reduce the existing operational cost of a moon base, you don't need to compare it to similar activities on Earth, and you can likely get a waiver that you're not really a commercial entity. (You would still have to convince the people controlling the purse strings, but that's a whole other ball game).