18 thoughts on “Newt’s Moon Mines”

    1. Having cost of leaving earth be $100 per lb is pretty low- some think $500 per lb is doable. With enough volume I think 500 per lb is quite possible.

      Now, what could the cost of leaving moon be?
      $10 per lb might be similar to $100 per lb from earth.
      At the moment you need to bring rocket fuel from earth, to leave the Moon- and so the cost is +$20,000 per lb.
      If you could buy rocket fuel on lunar lunar for 1/10th of current rate- or about $2000 per lb. You would have about same cost to leave the Moon as
      it current is to leave Earth.
      And similar to lowering cost of leaving earth to $500 per lb, if one has enough volume, one could also lower cost leaving the Moon to around $500
      if you could buy rocket and if the was enough volume.

      I would say the threshold of enough volume from Earth or from the Moon, might around 100 tons of payload per year- enough for $500 per lb.
      Instead instead the volume were 1000 ton per year, I think moon get to lower cost as compared to leaving earth. From Earth it may still be $400- $500 range, whereas moon might 100 to 300 range- and with time of such traffic perhaps below $100 per lb.

      Mining water could start below the 100 tons per range and get above 100 tons per year, mining resources for the moon and returning them to earth, could begin after +100 ton per traffic from Moon. Returning stuff from the Moon could lunar sample type export, and perhaps PGM group.
      Such mining could lead 1000 tons of traffic per year leaving the Moon, such traffic would significant lower rocket costs, and allow lower priced exports to shipped to earth

      1. The big thing with the moon is that it is much easier t develop robust, reusable hardware. Moreso than the Earth due to the moons lack of atmosphere and low gravity.

      2. Having cost of leaving earth be $100 per lb is pretty low- some think $500 per lb is doable. With enough volume I think 500 per lb is quite possible.

        As the late Dr. Maxwell Hunter liked to say, anyone who thinks $100 per pound is low either doesn’t understand the rocket equation or doesn’t know the cost of rocket propellant.

        I don’t understand why Moonies think they have to sell their vision by overstating the difficulty of reducing terrestrial launch costs.

        Especially when simple logic and economics indicate that reduced launch costs would make lunar settlement easier, not harder.

        Now, what could the cost of leaving moon be?
        $10 per lb might be similar to $100 per lb from earth.

        Remember that before a rocket can leave the Moon, it has to get *to* the Moon. Or, if you’re going to build your rocket on the Moon, the factory has to get there. Or mass driver, or whatever else you’re going to use.

        You can’t just look at marginal costs. As with most space projects, it’s the startup costs that are killer.

        I would say the threshold of enough volume from Earth or from the Moon, might around 100 tons of payload per year- enough for $500 per lb.

        That’s $100,000,000 per year. Building a lunar mining facility, power plant, and launch capability for that amount of money is extremely ambitious, even with CATS. With current launch costs, well, $100M gets you maybe one lunar mission per year (payload not included).

        1. “Now, what could the cost of leaving moon be?
          $10 per lb might be similar to $100 per lb from earth.

          Remember that before a rocket can leave the Moon, it has to get *to* the Moon. Or, if you’re going to build your rocket on the Moon, the factory has to get there. Or mass driver, or whatever else you’re going to use. ”

          The stuff being shipped from the Moon to earth is on the Moon.
          Yes you need some vehicle to land lunar ore on earth- and reusing that vehicle is debatable. Meaning one could build that vehicle on Earth or the Moon. One might build the the heat shield on the Moon and the rest of return “capsule” on earth. One might use lunar water as heat shield.
          Or whatever.
          The vehicle lifting payload from the Lunar surface can of course be reused- or as you say one could use a mass driver. One might also use a combination of mass driver and reusable vehicle.

          There are numerous of ways to do this. I am simply saying if there is the volume of traffic [indicating a scale of market] one could see more dramatic cost reduction of shipping from the Moon as compared to Earth.

          Or CATS may not be the only way. One could lower operation costs in space BEFORE significantly lowering launch cost from Earth. Or having a market of rocket fuel is space could be a *driver* of getting CATS.

          1. Meaning one could build that vehicle on Earth or the Moon.

            Just because you build it on the Moon doesn’t mean it will be free.

            Or CATS may not be the only way. One could lower operation costs in space BEFORE significantly lowering launch cost from Earth.

            Aw, Bullwinkle….

            Dennis Wingo said that’s what the Bush Vision of Space Exploration was going to do. How’s that working out for you? We could have financed a dozen commercial launch companies for what NASA poured into Ares, Orion, and now SLS — and you still aren’t on the Moon, are you?

          2. “Meaning one could build that vehicle on Earth or the Moon.”

            Just because you build it on the Moon doesn’t mean it will be free.

            Nothing is free. But if launch cost to the moon at some point is 5000 per lb- or if launch cost to lunar orbit is $3000 per lb.
            And you ship from moon to lunar orbit for $1000. And you buy water for 100 per lb on lunar surface, then if you use water as significant mass for purposes shedding heat on re-entry- lunar water could have a market has component of heat shield for export to earth from the moon.
            Or making some kind ceramic heat shield on the moon might also be possible.
            But let’s disregard this possibilities. What would needed is a return vehicle, which made and shipped from earth to lunar orbit.
            This vehicle doesn’t need to provide gees which are survivable by humans, nor hitting the earth surface at low velocity. Therefore it’s main requirement is hitting an exact location on the earth surface and keeping payload intact until it impacts a precise location on the surface.
            For instance an impact of velocity less than 300 mph, should be relatively easy- a human body has terminal velocity of about 180 mph, as would a sack of flour.
            One doesn’t need parachute or retro-rockets to land. Any heat as long as less than say 500 C isn’t a problem.
            Faced with such engineering restraints, the required payload to be shipped from earth could be some fraction of the payload being shipped from the Moon.
            Or said in different way the cost of landing/crashing on earth could be less than $100 per lb.
            Or faced with task of shipping 1000 tons per year [200,000 lb] from lunar orbit to earth surface, one needs for it to cost less than 20 million.
            If earth launch cost 1000 per lb, then 10 million be the launch cost- or 10,000 lb of vehicle[s] lifted from earth to land 200,000 lb of payload lunar.
            Or 1 lb of landing vehicle for every 20 lb of payload.
            The smaller and less massive the re-entry vehicle, generally makes the design of re-entry easier.
            Therefore the limit of gross mass might be 1 or 2 tons- constraining entry vehicle “dry mass” to 100 to 200 lbs.
            Perhaps one has a “train” of say 10 such “cars” driven by a reusable tug, which provides an accurate trajectory. Once delivered to correct location, the tug disengages, and takes return trajectory to Moon. Each “car” could have guidance system similar GPS bomb, providing guidance once in the atmosphere.

          3. “Gross doesn’t matter. Net does. A billion a year in revenue is chickenfeed if your startup costs are $100 billion. That’s why the Bush Vision failed.

            Until Moonies recognize the need to reduce costs, you’re going nowhere. CATS is an enabler for lunar settlement, not a competitor.”

            Bush vision hasn’t failed, it’s been ignored. And I am taking about private sector activity. I am not suggesting a government get into the any mining business. Nor have suggested CATS is “competitor”- I am not sure what that even means. What I said is using lunar resources does not require the earth launch costs might reach some arbitrary cost point.

            And I would suggest that lunar mining or others business or entire total of lunar businesses spend 100 billion dollars as up front costs. That is almost as stupid as NASA spending tens of billions on the Shuttle and expecting it to “lower” costs to space.
            So I might expect NASA to spend somewhere around 100 billion dollars exploring the Moon. I think around 50 billion would a good target. Whereas
            I think in the near term, after the moon has been explored by NASA, I expect less than 10 billion dollars spend as start up cost by all private parties involved. And that investment dollars spend on the Moon could increase after business existing on the Moon operating towards the black.

            Or start up costs in first 5 years would less than 10 billion by all private parities, billions would need to made in income, as further investments may occur in years afterwards. So start up cost less than 10 billion, but after year of operations, one expect increasing amount of investment dollars, allowing a possibility of up hundreds of billions being invested in first decade or more.
            One could have slow growth or fast growth. Slow growth may mean 10 billion less invested in total for first decade or two. Very fast growth might mean less than 10 billion invested in first 5 years with accelerating investment once money invested shows promise return on investment. So within a couple of decades one could possibly have hundreds of billions invested in various lunar related activity.

        2. “I would say the threshold of enough volume from Earth or from the Moon, might around 100 tons of payload per year- enough for $500 per lb.

          That’s $100,000,000 per year. Building a lunar mining facility, power plant, and launch capability for that amount of money is extremely ambitious, even with CATS. With current launch costs, well, $100M gets you maybe one lunar mission per year (payload not included).”

          100 million being gross yearly for the transportation.
          Say, it just satellites. The satellites could easily cost twice the transportation costs. So with just this simple look, one not dealing not with 100 million but say total 300 million per year.

          With lunar operations, you have transportation cost which one end user of lunar rocket fuel and lunar water mining. Rocket fuel could sold for other uses for other purposes other than laving the Moon. One could export lunar rocket fuel. One could use rocket fuel lunar surface uses. One use lunar water for things other than making rocket fuel.
          One could landing more then leaving the moon. Once you start exporting to earth that could flip- you export more payload then payload mass you are importing to the Moon. In short, lunar transport from the Moon may be 100 million per year but if you include all activity it could grossing a billion or more per year.

          1. In short, lunar transport from the Moon may be 100 million per year but if you include all activity it could grossing a billion or more per year.

            Gross doesn’t matter. Net does. A billion a year in revenue is chickenfeed if your startup costs are $100 billion. That’s why the Bush Vision failed.

            Until Moonies recognize the need to reduce costs, you’re going nowhere. CATS is an enabler for lunar settlement, not a competitor.

    1. What kind of idiot would look for rare EARTH elements on the moon? They should be prospecting for rare lunar elements (RLEs). I would put dilithium at the top of the list, followed by carbonite, cybertronium, deutronium, elerium-115, latinum, naquadah, tiberium, tritanium, and upsidaisium.

      1. As was pointed out in the conversation, the misleading part of the REE name isn’t the word “earth”, it is the word “rare”.

        1. Though not technically a REE, scandium is often classed with them. It’s a madenningly expensive metal and the best alloying element for high performance aluminum structures, like rocket tanks. It’s also extremely common, as elements go, but since it readily substitutes for magnesium it got spread thinly and evenly everywhere, even in dolomite limestone. So I’ve got lots of it in the yard and would love to use it in some aluminum casting projects, but I can’t economically extract it and can’t afford to buy it.

          Heck, if I could figure out a process for seperating it I could make a fortune, even developing new markets for it such as deep-space scanners, which should obviously be made out of lots of scandium.

          1. Though not technically a REE, scandium is often classed with them. It’s a madenningly expensive metal and the best alloying element for high performance aluminum structures, like rocket tanks.

            If you think a “maddeningly expensive” metal is the best choice for building rocket tanks, you’re probably using the wrong figure of merit.

            Of course, even aluminum can become maddeningly expensive when you use it once and then throw it away.

          2. Ah, but scandium is more abundant than tin (by about a factor of 10), molybdenum, lead, lithium, boron, or beryllium, all very common alloying elements, and scandium’s effect on aluminum is amazing. data. It even ups the strength of Al-Li alloys by 20%.

            Yet the world only produces about 20 pounds of it a year.

  4. Forget precious metals. Just transport back Moon rocks. Charge only $19.95. Ummm…plus shipping! And don’t forget the import tax.

Comments are closed.