Moon rush: the launch of a lunar economy | FT Film

The rush back to the Moon has begun. The US and China are planning permanently crewed bases on the lunar surface. Billions of dollars in contracts are up for grabs as companies are launching ambitious new support projects, from growing food in space to a new lunar internet. The FT's Peggy Hollinger asks if the next great leap forward in space is a lunar economy?
Prodcued and edited by Tom Hannen
#space #moon #spaceexploration
00:00 What's the plan for the Moon?
00:59 Think space station, not lunar cities
02:54 Why is everyone going to the South Pole?
05:16 SpaceX's Starship - a game changer?
07:38 The peculiar lighting of the lunar South Pole
08:30 Communication and networking on the Moon
10:25 Nuclear power on the Moon
12:13 Regolith - a hazard and an opportunity
15:10 How to grow food on the Moon
16:53 Moon mining
18:35 Burials, artefacts and lunar hotels?
19:30 Beyond government funding
21:11 China's plans for the Moon
24:23 If it happens, will we trash the moon?
25:51 Will you go?
26:32 Cold hard facts
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'

[@BigMacProDaddy]

“International Space Agencies have done a better job of keeping it together better than any geopolitical group” 🎉❤

[@KENZOkm]

Finally that For All Menkind future we've been looking for!

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@user-pi1kn8dg2s]

It will be future of NASA&ASEE "Advanced Automation for Space Missions" with Tesla-bot self-replicating fabric's. Robots will cover whole Moon in few years one gigantic Tesla-bot fabric, and it will be our gate to whole Solar System, whole Universe

[@noveltechmedia]

What a great time to be alive

[@sdwone]

Well yes...And well no! And there are obvious parallels with the Apollo missions during which America, and the world, was also going through a tumultuous time! 🤔 But yeah, bad stuff that's happening in the world today aside, developments like these actually keeps me sane! But it also feels like a race... Will we crack space, open up whole new worlds and industries, unify Humanity and usher in a new era of Peace as we finally make that transition to Type I Civilization...? Or will negative events surge ahead and condemn our species back to the Stone Age... Or worse!? Interesting Times Indeed!

[@lillyanneserrelio2187]

I miss Blockbuster, libraries with books, and disco

[@dougspace6734]

Just wait 10 more years. We will see humanity establishing the first permanent footholds on the Moon and Mars largely thanks to the Starship fleet.

[@1981Frederick]

@@lillyanneserrelio2187 would you trade netflix, youtube and podcast, iphone and...taylor swift? for it?

[@1981Frederick]

@@dougspace6734 i think mars milestone are much farther then that, their just isn't that much to do on mars for the cost of it, and the living condition would be so horible. It would be cheaper to build city at the bottom of the ocean then on mars.

[@MasterOfYoda]

I remember living in the 90s and thinking why is this not happening. Thankfully several countries finally stepped up and started doing moon exploration.

[@aleisterdenven]

Outer Space doesn't exist.Earth is the only World there is.There are no other Physical Cosmic Worlds out there and there is no Infinite Cosmic Spatial Vacuum Void.Outer Space has "3 Enormous Problems":Problem 1 - Survivability - Cosmic Space is completely and inherently uninhabitable, inhospitable and unliveable.This doesn't seem/feel right.If Outer Space truly existed it should therefore be completely and inherently habitable,hospitable and liveable.If Outer Space was real it would be 100% welcoming of All-potential Beings,Creatures and Life-forms.This means that Outer Space must be "Breathable",because otherwise Everyone and Everything would immediately and perpetually suffocate and no Life-forms would ever emerge or survive in such a lethal Cosmic Universe.Problem 2 - Cosmic Travel - All-vehicles must push "Something" in order to move and go "Somewhere".In Earth's Atmosphere Automobiles push "Air" to move,Airplanes also push "Air" to move and Cruise Ships push "Water" to move,but Outer Space has no Atmosphere.You cannot travel to/in Outer Space,because The Vacuum of Space neutralizes All-pushing power/travel power.This means that Space Travel is impossible,that No One has ever left The Earth,that No One has ever traveled to Space and that every single Space Mission from the beginning to today is a lie.If Outer Space truly existed it would need to have an "Atmosphere" in order for Outer Space Travel to be possible.Problem 3 - Vast Separation - Celestial Space is just far too tremendously vast as a territory.All-Life-forms are separated,because of the "Humongous Distance" between them.This is not convenient.If Outer Space was real it wouldn't be so gargantuan,because it has to be much smaller and more "Tightly-Knit",so that All-potential Life-forms can locate and discover each other.Outer Space is a lie designed in order to convince The Public that Extraterrestrial Beings exist.The total "Inhospitableness" and "Unfeasibility" of Outer Space proves that Outer Space cannot exist,because Outer Space doesn't exist!

[@FinancialTimes]

This video has been amended to correct the name of the person speaking during the Apollo 11 landing clip. In the previous version of this video, a name strap at 13'18 showed Neil Armstrong's name. It should have read "Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin". We apologise for the error.

[@CausticLemons7]

Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins. Don't forget them! Thanks for the good story, FT.

[@philricher9844]

They called him Buzz as he was afraid of Bees

[@JohnSmith-hz7te]

*If the US do not trying to cheat, and using its early industrialization advantage, abuse and tear up "free market economy" it championed for 60 years, team up and blackmailing other advanced countries to block the raise of Japan, now China ... in the 2030s, 2040s we will be talking about "the race to put the first white people on Mars between China and United States*

[@NightagainEngineering]

As an engineer the regolith will devour machinery (bearings/gears/motors). Solving this issue is crucial.

[@rwkh10]

Very good point. I've been a mechanical engineer all my life. Even the most precisely made oil seal will fail. This moon dust will grind away at anything. New technology will be needed to overcome this.

[@Pier-zl7gm]

@@rwkh10 indeed - but for those gullible enough to believe this delusional narrative, any huge problems are solved merely by slogans

[@MyKharli]

Also no food water shelter and air let alone radiation , it will be endless hyper expensive resupply and medical costs .

[@kv-2heavytank52]

lunar regolith is electrostatic, therefore applying a small current to a machine could repel dust and keep bearings clean. Hope you find this interesting!

[@Pier-zl7gm]

@@kv-2heavytank52yes, regolith is electrostatically charged (by the way, also mars dust is charged) and causes electric fields of several kilovolt, so there is also problem of electrostatic discharging to be solved, not only mechanical issues. There is research being done on mitigation measures but I have seen no evidence of truly practical solutions, where the complications (eg adding special surfaces to everything, equipment, instruments, astronaut gear,..) could be acceptable. Still a huge unsolved problem in general.

[@jukio02]

NASA would probably not even be interested in going back to the Moon if it wasn't for China wanting to go there. So, in a way I thank China for wanting to go there.

[@cameronh3260]

SpaceX would of gone anyways

[@rsyrsy8543]

@@cameronh3260SpaceX is hugely sponsored by NASA and the US government

[@davidk1308]

Not even remotely, NASA's been trying to start a sustainable Lunar program since 1969, shortly after Apollo 11. First it was part of the initial design process using the Space Shuttle with the Space Task Group, using tugs, multiple stations, and distributed launch to enable eventual Moon/Mars missions (until it was whittled down to the point that only the Shuttle remained). Then again in the 1989, trying to start something similar up again (the 90 day report), where only space station Freedom remained (which eventually evolved into the ISS), then in the early 2000s with Constellation with an Apollo-like architecture using a new Orion capsule, a Shuttle-Derived Super Heavy Lift Vehicle, and a new Lunar Lander, with plans for Mars/asteroid missions. Then a bit of a road block in 2011 with its cancellation, where only Orion and a redesigned SD-SHLV were left. Move to 2017 when Artemis was announced, and 2021/23 when SpaceX and Blue Orion were chosen to handle the Lunar Landers. The road to returning to the Moon has had many false starts, and while it seems that it'll actually stick this time, we can't know for sure, because it's dependent on Federal funding. And Congress is responsable for the lack of funding in these programs. We probably could've returned to the Moon in the 80s, or not even had a gap if Apollo were allowed to continue until the Shuttle could take over. It's only in the last 20 years that Congress has really approved reasonable funding for a Lunar program, and even then, they didn't give NASA enough for Lander development, most of it is for SLS/Orion/Gateway (SpaceX and Blue are funding 50% themselves, which is good, mind you, but NASA didn't have enough to select both of them in 2021).

[@mr.g937]

50 years later, nothing has changed. We only went to the moon because the Soviet Union was going.

[@pstoppani]

Yeah. Other than flexing, this seems a pointless waste of time and money.

[@vice.nor.virtue]

This was so well made!! It's so great to find out about all these new companies and not see any retreading of past info about going to the moon.

[@dougspace6734]

Yes, I think that says it well.

[@WAB2138]

Wrong! Read my post!

[@vice.nor.virtue]

no@@WAB2138

[@olhakulynych6012]

😅😅.

[@georgebowen3925]

I'm 73, but I'm very inspired by the possibility of helping mankind on a new adventure of evolution

[@user-hs4it2zs7j]

Thanks for the positive future views. Life is short and we hope all the short time we speed on this planet encourages others to embellish the future of our children’s dreams to make equally positive dreams come true.

[@user-pi1kn8dg2s]

I want to do you more positive picture of future - see "Advanced Automation for Space Missions", and add to it ability to do this self-replicating fabric on the Moon with Tesla-bot, little closed economic for producing Tesla-bot's, which will grow on the Moon "on two magnitude faster then with human worker". It will cover whole Moon in years one gigantic fabric, which can send seeds of same robotics economic on Mercury and Mars and repeat this there. It will be exponential growth. Future are beautiful!!!

[@mikewa2]

Ai will so enhance the project management of this venture. Exponential improvement in space ship design and safety is just around the corner and can make this happen.

[@thomashammel524]

Bringing this down to Earth, what difficulties the Antartica pioneers faced are key to planning? Those stations can be compared to potential planning of Moon or Mars colonies. The logistics and costs, & budgets, of maintaining these outposts will be the primary focus & provide the planning benchmarks going forward. That will help more accurately provide insight of the overall cost of this venture.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Differences between the moon & Mars - - Atmosphere (Mars has one) - ISRU (can’t do Methane on the moon) - Gravity (16% of earth’s vs. 37.6% of earth’s) - Day length (14 days vs. 24.6 hours) - Growing food (more can grow on Mars) - Regolith (Lunar is really sharp, Martian is smother) - Cosmic radiation (Lunar is same as that going to deep space, Mars is same as ISS even if unshielded).

[@jlvandat69]

Two elephants in the Moon Outpost Forum are (1) the certain physiological/psychological long term impacts of spending an extended period in a low gravity, very hostile environment and (2) the basic cost/benefit analysis of these extended missions which would certainly offer great entertainment and science opportunities but at a cost that cannot possibly justify the missions. IMO the only motivation that will actually allow the missions to succeed in a sustainable way are military-related. Seldom mentioned, the military aspect of a Lunar presence has considerable value, especially if adversaries are establishing bases there. This latter consideration requires some study to fully appreciate.

[@AnthemUnanthemed]

this would be illegal and dangerous, no one should be able to launch something from the moon, that would be country destroying if it would make sense, which it still doesnt because everyone would be able to see that many hours before it lands and launch some countermeasure to move it, lasers are not going to be as effective going through the atmosphere, and a nuke can still be launched and land quicker.

[@planetsec9]

Yeah one thing this vid didn't mention in the China segment is China already has territorial-like ambitions for the moon/space, comparing it to Scarborough Shoals/Fiery Cross Reef, the contested islands they claim belong to them deep in the South China Sea, if anything they are gonna likely be the ones most willing to posture that way in space the way they do on Earth

[@jlvandat69]

@planetsec9 agree. China's presence on the moon provides the USA with multiple reasons to do the same. I am impressed with their lunar accomplishments thus far but expect them to lag behind others going forward due to their non-cooperative approach to space missions. We'll see.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Who is non-cooperative !? Thats not China. Its America, after having failed to dictate Chinas innerpolitical matters, they just announced China illegal. 🚀🏴‍☠️

[@misterguts]

Earth: "How well can you work with low pay?" Moon: "How well can you work with no oxygen?"

[@tomnutting3836]

😂🙌

[@harryjones5260]

i think lunar mining will need something more substantial than BigTrak

[@manishtaker8622]

From India for humanity to the eternity ✌️✌️

[@ASURA-XD]

❤

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@SingularityZ3ro1]

I assume a lunar Economy will be centered around heavy industry, and potentially kick off once we begin to construct giant, rotating orbital habitats. (Benefits: 1G, location, optimal weather, and nature 365 days / year, easy access / commute to deep space, and earth + heavy orbital industry as well.) It might also be slower, but more practical to construct such habitats in earth orbit, and to transfer them to other planets and moons in the solar system, since that means you also have a big habitat, industrial capabilities and a self-sustaining environment direct in the orbit of such planet, which would make colonization, or further exploration much easier, and reduce a lot of risk. The back draw would likely be, that it takes 50 - 100 years longer since you need viable, large habitats of that scale first.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Why 50 to 100 years ? Are you so used to NASA time ? Once starship is operational, a big wheelestation can be made in 4 to 8 months. 🚀🏴‍☠️

[@SingularityZ3ro1]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx You are right, once we finally broke the curse of not beeing able to ship things to orbit for a reasonable price, things could develop very fast. In all sectors, e.g. if I think about planet hunting and maybe finding something that starts a new race to a new world. I would love if it goes faster. I have to admit, I was not aiming for the minimal viable product, though but thinking about a fully matured heavy industry with cylinders more in the ballpark off 10 x 50 kilometers 😅

[@anonymes2884]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx OP is presumably talking about something like an O'Neill habitat (you can google it or if you've seen 'Babylon 5', well, basically that) and 50-100 years is pretty optimistic in that case IMO. And no "something something Starship !" isn't going to change that appreciably, not in the real world. Personally I don't see a lunar economy being based on "heavy industry" because why construct things on the Moon ? It's not rich in almost all the raw materials needed meaning they'd come from Earth, at least short-medium term. Why would we lift steel etc. into orbit, transport it to lunar orbit, drop it down the lunar gravity well, construct the habitats/pieces there only to have to lift them back _up_ again (even against "only" 1/6 g) ? Seems nonsensical. Cut out most of those steps by building in LEO. No, by the time we're building things like O'Neill cylinders we'll be well established on the Moon and likely Mars too i'd say (assuming we get there at all of course).

[@CheesyMez]

​@@anonymes2884 i think heavy industry will have to be the first major thing to move to space, we need to expand and grow, but we also need to look after our ecosystems and natural balances, moving polluting industries to space would significantly help this. Perhaps we can find lunar substitutes to material, or begin development further afield in the asteroid belt. But what's to say the moon isn't rich in resources? I thought that we only had a good idea of what is on the surface and a few centimeters below?

[@sp66-know-try-think]

I agree, space must be mastered by building giant space stations, arks with everything necessary for the life, development and migration of autonomous colonies of people directly in space. To build them, it is necessary to launch a mass of assembled components into space. The easiest way is to launch cargo into space from the Moon into lunar orbits. It follows from this that it is necessary to establish the production of these components on the Moon from lunar raw materials. This means that mining, processing of mineral raw materials, production of space equipment and spaceports must be developed on the Moon. All that is needed for this is suitable transport, communications, and remote-controlled robots. There is no need for people on the Moon. But there are a lot of problems from their long-term and massive presence there...

[@kodiegraham2685]

Correction @ 24:31 Starship IFT1 was a prototype which had an aspirational goal of reaching orbit, but it's mission was to get off the pad; therefore, it has not failed.

[@null090909]

It started self-destruction before liftoff then obliterated the pad. If this was success, I really hope we never see failure.

[@Behgork]

"what are you, a rocket scientist?" just doesn't hold weight anymore. Apparently that's easy and not a highly complex iterative process full of testing that also includes not everything working smoothly immediately.

[@aidanmargarson8910]

@@null090909say what .. the first one got off the pad but damaged the infrastructure which they repaired and upgraded .. the second one got off the pad all engines firing .. didn't damage the pad and got to space but not orbit .. it had a similar problem to the falcon 9 with fuel moving around when it did the return maneuver

[@jaydenwilson9522]

destroys reality by making a big crunch implosive cavitation bubble@@null090909

[@AngeloXification]

@@null090909 What are you talking about??

[@chessdad182]

Read about the problems caused by moon dust for the Apollo astronauts.

[@michellelester243]

Wowser, nasty stuff. Sounds like they have come up with a way to melt the high silica regolith in order to create a lunar glass launch pad, at least in earth trials.

[@JorgeAmodio]

Excellent video!! We are going !!🚀

[@Gred079]

Thank you!

[@dingbangwu8072]

That is so sad for me. I'm 30 and almost impossible to experience the lunar travel during my life span.

[@blakeb9964]

Same. Maybe if we make it to 80, we can get a trip up.

[@IamFrancoisDillinger]

tbf, if you live only to average (depending on your country) you still have 50 or so years. We could see great advancements in anti-aging. 50 years is a long time in medicine and technology.

[@philipb2134]

There is a lot of talk of extracting Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Helium 3: but is anyone looking into getting Nitrogen from the Moon? Plants we grow will need it, and adding it to the indoor atmosphere should make things more comfortable for lunar colonists.

[@richardcaves3601]

Correct, this is all show and f-all substance.

[@stevecam724]

24:40 Early Starship failures? WTF are you talking about? Starship is a prototype test program and is successful. Launch 1; get Starship off the ground, SUCCESS Launch 2; get Starship off the ground, hot stage separation, Starship engine ignition, SUCCESS Launch 3; get Starship off the ground, hot stage separation, Starship engine ignition, Booster engine re-ignition SUCCESS

[@clevergirl4457]

We Are Going!

[@CommonSenseCitizen]

❤ Very well done! 🎉👏

[@stuarthochstein4260]

Nuclear power is the safest form of energy known to man. But what is the first question asked after it's mentioned? "Will there not be environmental considerations to producing nuclear power on the moon?" I'd suggest Financial Times research new reactors and fuel types being developed for Nuclear Power.

[@Nabrolo]

Don't be obtuse. It was a valid question because to the general public that question would be the first thing to come to mind. Even transporting the uranium for the project on a Starship would cause a media frenzy due to the possibility of it exploding in flight and spreading the radiation across a large area.

[@sawmakai]

@@Nabroloin space¿ punt it a light year away. Problem solved. And he’s right ppl need to get up to speed

[@souljr.]

​@@NabroloClearly you know nothing of nuclear power and only know the fear of weaponized warheads and piss poor security measures. Go do some research.

[@TheFartoholic]

@@souljr. You clearly didn't understand their response. A journalist's job is to ask the questions the people want answered.

[@souljr.]

​@@TheFartoholicFair. I definitely don't have a journalist mindset 😅

[@wudubora]

I love that crews will be picked politically rather than on who are the best qualified individuals.

[@mariusvanc]

Yeah, first scene of this video, and I'm like "of course...." 😦

[@ar1sm70]

Please let me be alive to see a permanent Moon settlement :)

[@dougspace6734]

Thanks largely to the Starship fleet, you will see the first permanent habitats on the Moon in a bit less than 10 years from now.

[@peak_911]

no worries, you can always see it in a VR

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@brunoheggli2888]

What is so special about that!

[@captntrps]

What a mind-blowingly weird time to be alive! There's a chance we will have a ton of people living on the moon before we figure out how to make sure all the people on earth have shelter. It's like inventing aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

[@tomnutting3836]

Luckily there’s zero chance of them successfully establishing people on the moon long term Sadly there’s also zero chance money, power and tech will be used to help close the equality gap on earth

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@TheBestOfSweden]

Great documentary!!

[@LindaMadlala]

Wow, very surprising article by FT. Excellent presentation, every article is well researched and presented. Am very impressed 🇿🇦👌

[@gregorysagegreene]

Certainly makes sense to put up a moon colony first, so if people go crazy or just want to go back home, then we're right over here. Mars is insane. Out back WY & NV makes more sense.

[@dougspace6734]

SpaceX is absolutely committed to establishing a permanent base on Mars ASAP. Their engine production rate, Starship production rate, increasing Starlink revenue, and Earth-Mars windows means that SpaceX will be making multiple cargo landing attempts starting in 2026. Crazy or not (it's technically not) SpaceX is going to try sooner than later.

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@RejeanDumouchel]

Madame Philips, je vous aime : As the world not a nation give me chills.

[@Bugman563]

A great documentary. I especially enjoyed the personal end-statements of all the speakers =)

[@thestockfother]

Intuitive machines (Lunr) is trying to land mid november. Going up on a falcon 9. The stock might pop like a cherry. The entire management team is former nasa and private space company execs from other start-ups. This is an amazing time to be alive. Humans are amazing

[@1981Frederick]

i find that funny when she said the nuclear waste "need to be developt" as after 50 years it still haven't been done on earth, but honestly i don't find it being a big concern as with the low G of the moon you can easily launch it away. But i think solar satelite powerplant with wireless beam energy transfert look like a more durable solution

[@prt5567]

Great

[@javiertorres9114]

I can see this being a possibility if leaving the earth’s gravity didn’t come at a high cost.

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@user-qz3kf4er9j]

We would need to consider environmental impacts, a cause and effect scenario. With nuclear power, what expansions on safety protocols if a melt down, accident, or ignorance. Can the moon dust progress to problems like lead and asbestos exposure, if so then what protocols should be mandated. Even if additional safety procedures need to be included with some to offset tedious temperament, mental fatigue (considering the scope of the environment on the moon).

[@CorTec]

yes especially considering how many people and animals live and breath the pristine air on the moon.

[@user-qz3kf4er9j]

@CorTec if colonized then contamination in close quarters could present problems and hazards. If moon farms, contamination with could present newer health issues that offset progression.

[@SanctuaryLife]

Very cool, but let's be a little more accurate here, Mars has about twice the strength of Gravity as Earth's Moon.

[@ernestpark7125]

thank you

[@juanlapuente833]

Great report

[@tobyihli9470]

I believe that it may take countries with sizable budgets to get it done, but someone should produce utilities for sale on the moon such as electricity from a nuclear power plant, communication satellites for internet and cell phones, fresh water, and natural gas maybe. Between public accessible utilities and space rocket ride sharing, along with mass produced inflatable living and work modules, a lot of smaller countries, maybe even corporations or individuals, could set up shop on the moon. An industrial park if you like. I’ve heard that some pharmaceuticals and crystals can be produced better in a weightless environment. If you build it, THEY WILL COME! I’m thinking maybe the US could build a lunar nuclear power plant, communications satellite system, fuel depot, and a fresh water storage and distribution system, etc…. along with a living space and workspace collection yard for our own use, and then offer to sell all of it to other parties. I think the neighborhood would fill up pretty quick, actually. A real lunar city!

[@GlanderBrondurg]

What you describe is useful in orbit around the Earth, but that is not economic reason for going to the Moon. It is far easier to get to low-Earth orbit than to land on the Moon. What the Moon offers is resources that are already in space. Everything found on the Earth in terms on general mining for metals can be found on the Moon such as Iron, Aluminum, Silicon, Lithium, and all of the "rare earth" metals that are important in the 21st Century. Refining metals on the Moon may even be easier than on the Earth.

[@patrickd9551]

This video was completely interesting right up until the 7 minute mark where it has to emphasized who were going to the moon. Not people of great scientific standing or excellent performance, no because they exhibit particular immutable traits. Seriously, every video talking about the crew of the Artemis 3 mission talks about the these traits, not their merits. That is why we need private space companies, because we cannot rely on governments to send their best and brightest. No, the best and brightest have started space companies and hire the best and brightest based purely on merit. Well one particular company has anyway and the CEO of said company is pretty vocal about it too 😁

[@rickcullarn1347]

I waited patiently through this video to hear your comments on the starship heatshield because it seems a little different?

[@ArnaudJoakim]

Super interesting!

[@DeanRogerRay]

13/ The concept of "Inteli Track" for lunar drones sounds like a significant advancement in rover mobility technology. This system would allow drones to adjust their tracks in real time, flattening or lengthening them by manipulating the rollers and carriage. Such adaptability would maintain a tight track while enabling the drone to traverse a wide range of lunar terrains more effectively. This dynamic track adjustment could improve stability on uneven surfaces, enhance traction in loose regolith, and even adapt to obstacles or inclines. Implementing such a system in lunar drones would merge robotics, mechanical engineering, and intelligent control systems, potentially revolutionizing lunar exploration and transportation.

[@JJ-fr2ki]

20:18 Context on 600b gallons of water. It is about 3x annual use of city of Los Angeles (pop. 3.2m). Does not count water used for producing food for the population and other indirect consumption.

[@LordCorwin1]

Regarding trash, I think lunar orbital debris is the thing to be worried about. Unlike earth, you don't have an atmosphere to degrade the orbit of junk.

[@Aimlifestyle]

Build a Force Field to keep the debris from orbiting into the Moons Atmosphere

[@hotpot6352]

It is a good thing for China to build a base on the moon. It forces the United States to invest resources in space instead of blowing the earth to pieces.

[@Steven-vo4ee]

It’s not the US blowing things up at the moment, it’s allies of China…

[@JohnSmith-hz7te]

*If the US do not trying to cheat, and using its early industrialization advantage, abuse and tear up "free market economy" it championed for 60 years, team up and blackmailing other advanced countries to block the raise of Japan, now China ... in the 2030s, 2040s we will be talking about "the race to put the first white people on Mars between China and United States*

[@russellcrosby8175]

How come some comments seem to having missing responses?

[@richardcaves3601]

They crashed didn't they. Ooops. I think they may have a wee way to go.

[@russellcrosby8175]

@@richardcaves3601 not as far as NASA, with their Super Late Ship. Thank god we've finally got someone who wants to go to space, not just spend money.

[@antifusion]

Gateway is the last bad decision that needs to be removed after the public SLS admission. Once they just focus on economic spending on a surface lunar base and channel said focus around resource acquistion and utilization(Water, o2, fuel to begin with and then more). Along side this you open up access to the rest of the surface with efficient hop vehicles that can refuel while beginning to really learn what it takes to mine and manufacture offworld along side all the human health research that has be missing outside of 1g and micro g enviroments. We've been capable of getting this rolling for dacades but it was never easy to sell politically until other countries like China put pressure on America with a 2nd space race. Take a second and imagine a scenario where the U.S was beaten to estabilishing a long term surface base and other countries began mining first etc. That would never sit well imo.

[@jukio02]

Yeah, if not for China, the US would not be going back to the Moon. Why NASA didn't go back for decades? It's because no one else was interested. For space enthusiasts like myself, I thank China for wanting to go to the Moon and beyond. The TV Show Firefly is slowly coming true. 😅

[@johnarnold893]

@@jukio02 SpaceX developing cheaper access to space has re-ignited the desire to go there. NASA has always wanted to populate space but politicians didn't see any benefit to it. Elon woke them up.

[@dougtheslug6435]

That's a good one.....the cable companies are going to set up first around the moon and sell you a package before you even launch.

[@SkyGlitchGalaxy]

17:00 We can't make money mining on earth, but we will make money mining on the moon. Trust me bruh!

[@deadshaper1]

The LAVA TUBES on Mars may play a foremost role on initial efforts to settle the planet. Webb may find an alternative far more viable than ever dreamed of.

[@44JohnDoe]

Good video. Thanks

[@williamwade641]

I am thinking of opening a bicycle repair shop on the moon.

[@velisvideos6208]

That's one of the more credible among the "hundreds of business models in dpace".

[@anypercentdeathless]

Jazz bar.

[@egooidios5061]

Nice video and documentary(yes, found it more than a report!). But I think we put lot of weight on the human aspect. Maybe it would be best to focus on automated machinery to do most of the process. Communication would be key indeed, and since moon is rather close, it quite allows for real time distant control and operation of machinery. That way the delicate human can sit back on earth and operate heavy machinery on the dark side of the moon, guiding dozers around, and cranes and transports. Supervising extractors separators and other machinery. And a skeleton crew being i site to do whatever may not be done remotely. Eventually more and more humans will be needed on site but for starters, automation and distant control is key. Heck, if automation reaches a good level it can be applied in any place of the Solar System, for now.

[@gijbuis]

We have never developed an Antarctic economy exploiting Antarctic resources, despite the fact that for centuries we have been capable of reaching Antarticta. So why should we develop a lunar economy?

[@ExtraEcclesiamNullaSalus]

Exactly. This is all propaganda.

[@othmanmajid6380]

We're waiting for the ice to thin out and recede, courtesy of climate changes.....then the show will begin.😊

[@richardcaves3601]

Try the Antarctic Treaty.

[@Atipat12]

AWESOME FINANCIAL TIMES !!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@208467]

Starship has not had "several failures", tests that achieve goals are not failures. Perhaps you prefer ULA's development methodology?

[@vidualisefilms745]

Who is singing and which song is it, the 'heavenly moon, I'm dreaming of somebody soon' song at the end, I can't find the song at all... at the credits of the video?

[@jarvisconrad2348]

Wonderful graphics and edits....comparable to melody sheep 👍

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Sue Origin's Chode 1 rocket may be small, but at least it's largely useless :D

[@natural8677]

i dont think we should mine the moon considering we need its stable gravity pull to remain the same because of earth tides

[@jaredspencer3304]

With how far down Starship is pushing launch costs, it's almost hard to imagine a scenario where converting moon water into rocket fuel is cheaper than just launching the fuel from Earth. There are obviously more reasons to go to the moon than just extracting fuel, but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX develops a fuel tanker version of Starship.

[@parthasarathyvenkatadri]

I don't think it would be cheaper to get water to moon instead of mining for water on the moon ...

[@jusu8961]

they already plan a fuel tanker variant, theyre gonna refuel in orbit to get to the moon

[@java4653]

LOL: Starship doesn't work, so it isn't "bringing down launch costs". There's no universal "launch cost" either. Those numbers do not translate very far. Starlink costs don't translate to anything but Starlink.

[@martinross6416]

“Sell that” to whom? This is all powerpoint wishes without funding.

[@Steven-vo4ee]

Starship hasn’t even reached orbit, hasn’t pushed down launch costs by a penny yet…

[@moking8095]

Surely the temperature differential between the dark side and the sun-facing side of the moon is sufficient to provide all the power that we would need? There is nothing more green than sun power.

[@benjesus6571]

The best use of the Starships fuel tanks would be gardening spaces if they can clean out the propellant substance.

[@JamesPetrycia-zj7yq]

Everybody forgets that moon gets hit by asteroid or meteors without protection like Earth which burns out meteors and Asteroids. The ending songs is right, dreams for romance. Man can't spend that much money for moon economy. "It's a dream".

[@wxb200]

The Greatest Quotes with regards to The Moon: Connie Conehead: "I think I'll have some Tang." Prymatt Conehead: "Ah Tang, the drink astronauts took to The Moon." Beldar Conehead: "Astronauts... to The Moon?"

[@avgjoe5969]

Not really a great discussion. They talk about sending a few people up and really can't scale from there. No talk of how to send large numbers of people and large amounts of equipment. No talk about combining mining with tunneling to create safe, pressurized havens below the surface. No talk of introducing 1G habitats (maglev cars rotating a hundred meters or more below ground with no significant risk of decompression, radiation, micro meteors (or larger meteors). Really... what is the obsession with the surface and then talking about moving berms of regolith for protection. You have to mine anyway. Boring Company tunnel building machine is about 1200 tons. Maybe half that with lighter materials, but once there, it would tilt into the regolith and create lined tunnels as it goes, using fused regolith or concrete blocks as liner as on Earth. No discussion of creating a shipyard in lunar orbit and sending minerals up via magnetic accelerator for construction of giant space ships for Mars passage or asteroid mining or exploring the outer solar system with permanent bases. Nothing but discussions of a small isolated "base" with a few people on it with no real goal other than "exploration".... again. A lunar economy, to be viable, needs to produce alot more than H3. It won't do that with tiny capsules containing 4 people transferred at $1 billion per person. Starship and larger cousins built in lunar orbit would be another matter, the larger vehicles (18 meter diameter that Musk proposed) to go from orbit to orbit (Earth, Moon, Mars, etc) without touching down, freeing up the smaller ships for shuttle filights (taking full advantage of the reusability of the rockets) Sorry. Short sighted. And I hear people in positions of power parroting this dead end "base" concept with no idea what its supposed to accomplish... sorry... exploring zero G... near zero G... stuff. (Because we can do all that microgravity stuff in the ISS now as opposed to a Quonset hut on the moon. I don't see Why pathetic concept (held over from the Apollo days) is given any credence given the capabilities of the tools that we have. I don't see the public funding this at $billions per year. A productive conversation needs to think a Lot bigger and carry the logic to its conclusion: A self sustaining and economically beneficial colony.... not a money pit. Anything else would produce a massive waste of time and money. Seriously... how would we manage nuclear waste? ... on a baron moon that is flooded with deadly radiation all day long? Big hole, warning sign, done! Then there's this: Starship tanked in Earth orbit > Dragon II sends up 4 astronauts > Lunar Orbit> Land on Moon > second lander sent up to stay in Lunar orbit if needed. = maybe $2.5 billion. Starship tanked in Earth orbit> Lunar Orbit > Artimis launches to Lander in Lunar Orbit > Land on Moon = $6.5 billion. - Lunar Orbital base extra. Risk is higher during transfer Artemis to Lander as its in Lunar rather than Earth orbit. So this is what happens when politics trumps thinking. Add the trusted/cheap Dragon II to the mix and Artemis/SLS become utterly unnecessary. I would like to see a discussion where politics didn't prevent people from thinking out of a very tiny box where logic cannot go.

[@prt5567]

Great news

[@spankflaps1365]

Moon-itisation 💰

[@dougspace6734]

Nice!

[@CalamitousJonathan]

We need 3 space stations between the Earth and moon for lunar missions

[@slevinshafel9395]

16:25 Why chose hydroponic instead of aeroponic? in Aroponic noo need to worry about flow of liquid. In Aeroponic the air in buble is around 75-80% and 90-95% in the chanels with suply and PH regulators in the roots. chanels of air dont depend on gravity just air flow wich can be made easy buy ventilator. and Maintance of sediment clean can be easy because are in the chanel and not in the air wich was the first problem in the aeroponic. In zero G i think aeroponic is better than hydroponic.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Blue Origin would be wise to stop trying to develop rockets and just focus on building the main infrastructure for the moon base, the infra on which all else is based. BO has experience with steering a large workforce and would be best suited for this task while smaller companies focus on the details, like technology and support equipment. Starship will be able to take on all the transport of materials etc. Bezos just needs to swallow his stupid pride.

[@abrahadabra111]

The problem is the moon already belongs to someone and I don't mean us earthlings. You will find out the hard way (a second time) that other than a few short visits, your stay will not be tolerated

[@dlewis8405]

Pre-packaged food would not be appetizing after six months but staples like flour, rice, tomato paste, etc., keep very well in a cabinet for a year or two. So take that stuff and make pizza with cheese made from cultured curds.

[@friendlyone2706]

I've had some freeze died food that years later tasted fresh.

[@richardcaves3601]

Not very nice when mixed with insidious Moon dust (silica) - poisonous! 😢

[@richardmyers3823]

If it happens will we trash the moon? The answer is yes!

[@flobba123]

in 100 years the space economy is gonna be huge! wish i could invest in spacex

[@neatodd]

13:16 That's Buzz Aldrin speaking not Armstrong

[@FinancialTimes]

Apologies, you are correct. We will amend the video, and issue a correction at the top of the comments.

[@JohnSmith-hz7te]

​@@FinancialTimes *If the US do not trying to cheat, and using its early industrialization advantage, abuse and tear up "free market economy" it championed for 60 years, team up and blackmailing other advanced countries to block the raise of chips of Japan in the 1980s 🤭, now China ... in the 2030s, 2040s we will be talking about "the race to put the first white people on Mars between China and United States*

[@41ankitt]

We need power on the Moon and our best bet for that is Nuclear for sure ! .... I am all for it ! .... 👍 .... 🙂 ....

[@antifusion]

Diversifying is always good. Nuclear is an awesome option but it would be perhaps foolish to ignore the fact you can build solar panels pretty much from scratch from the resources there without causing the harm and risk we do when producing them at home.

[@41ankitt]

@@antifusion Nuclear can provide us with baseline power ! .... Other options should also be explored for sure .... 👍 ....

[@antifusion]

@@41ankitt Totally agree

[@alphillips5478]

IT'S SAD I can see WAR on the surface of the moon - sooner or later

[@neatodd]

I'm a huge fan of the Apollo programme and have read many books about the astronauts and the engineers who made it possible. It's puzzling, therefore, why I cannot get excited about returning humans to the Moon; an expensive and risky endeavour with dubious benefits. I'd far rather that our efforts in space were geared to more robotic missions that expanded our scientific knowledge. For example, let's fund missions to send landers to the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn and explore their oceans.

[@CausticLemons7]

We're literally doing all of that and more. Also, building our programs around human survivability is arguably the best way to translate space investment into benefits for people here on Earth.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Nobody forces you to go to the moon. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand, wont bother anybody either. But if we dont get people into space now, thats gonna be closed real soon. Orbit is getting crowded. Thats not only a competitive diversity of US satelites. There exist also other countries on this planet and they also want to use smartphones and web services etc. There is per definition enough space in space, until we are forced to see the danger of overcrowded orbits. Same problem on the ground. But I've never heard of a problem being solved by just going back a step. 🚀🏴‍☠️

[@friendlyone2706]

Question asking humans respond better to the unexpected.

[@anonymes2884]

That's an absolutely valid perspective i'd say. There's definitely a tension between human vs automated space exploration and the whole idea of a "Moon economy" is on pretty shaky ground economically (and possibly even morally IMO). (He-3 is probably the biggest supposed lunar export for instance and not only have there been studies calculating that mining it on the Moon is unlikely to ever be economically viable, the whole enterprise is predicated on using it for generating power via nuclear fusion which, y'know, we can't actually _do_ yet and which is likely still decades away at best)

[@null090909]

The space industry is starting to sound an awful lot like the crypto industry 5 years ago. That should be a massive red flag for any investor.

[@user-bq6bp5ze2w]

Awesome!! But can we please not be referring to robots as 'species'... we're walking blindly into Skynet😂😮

[@jasonkinzie8835]

There is a positive in the Lunar environment being so hostile. It demands cooperation among the people living there. Cooperation literally becomes a matter of life and death.

[@san-chil]

I hope they try and use wind power on moon to ensure their climate goals of net zero are met.

[@AaronNGray]

We may only have 15 years worth of steady enough seasons to support regular harvests and you think you can go to the moon ???

[@AaronNGray]

The lunar surface is covered in dust that is like powered dust that is so small that gets into spacesuits

[@williamwade641]

It’s hard to think of a more inhospitable place to exist.

[@ophs1980]

How would ending the exploration of space solve the problem you're catastrophizing?

[@anonymes2884]

@@ophs1980 So you genuinely don't think directing more resources at a problem might lead to a quicker/more effective solution ? And OP didn't suggest "ending the exploration of space", you're presenting a false dichotomy. I'm as pro space exploration as the next person but I still understand that we have multiple problems contending for limited resources and that reasonable people can come down on different sides of the discussion over which resources go where. It'd be puzzling to me if _any_ relatively intelligent person didn't understand that.

[@osariemenaghariagbon4353]

I must go to the moon 🌙

[@angelone8564]

Believe it when i see it. There's always a reason for not going back..

[@xh3598]

Living on earth is akin to dwelling in a cocoon, which may explain why humans have fought for land since the beginning of time.

[@hammerdown3876]

I cant believe we have not already deployed a satellite around the moon allowing us further exploring from orbit. I would think this could have been done by a rocket with autonomous systems to deploy the satellite once its in lunar orbit. imagine how much more about the moon we could already know. We could map the entire surface like Google Earth... that would be very beneficial...

[@gunnargronvall9385]

How do you plan to counteract micro meteorites impacting on structures?

[@Jeremy9697]

Since the moon is tidally locked with earth, only one side always faces us.... so building on that side would prevent this...

[@henryjraymondiii961]

Plain talk: There are numbers of caves and underground areas on the Moon that are cataloged as of NOW. Using THESE is smart in the short and long run. Taking everything with us for the first stages of habitation and exploration will severly limit outcome, timewise for...all. The polar regions will establish that there is H3. If we ignore the rest of the moon until..."later", the whole place may start to be a hodgepoge of territoriality, like blankets laid out at a suburban New York beach. Then a new era of "Stagecoach Robery" will duplicate like a bad case of hiccups. Ahh... the "Future" !!!

[@HansDunkelberg1]

Galileo Galilei, Caspar David Friedrich, Arthur C. Clarke, John F. Kennedy, and others have already shown the Moon to be marketable, and you can assume that it's going to stay so still for a while.

[@java4653]

LOL. Of all the demented comments here, this one is extra special.

[@HansDunkelberg1]

@@java4653 Have you never heard of the importance of the prestige of a product?

[@radtech497]

A possibly better use of lunar resources (IMO) is to build forgo human colonies on the surface, leaving autonomous automated systems instead. A human presence requires food, water, and other life-support resources which are not necessary to effectively on the lunar surface; automation requires only communications and a source of electrical power.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

I will say more, any lunar program will require prohibitively large expenses, and the massive and long-term presence of people on the Moon (on the surface, under the surface, in orbit) at the initial stage of development will put an end to any project from the point of view of the lack of sufficient resources. For the initial exploration of the Moon, we need suitable transport, communications, remote-controlled robots, and energy. What problems should they solve? Construction of spaceports, mining, processing of mineral raw materials of the Moon, creation of production of a wide range of space equipment, components of future giant spaceships and stations, launching them into space for subsequent assembly.

[@Agreatdayneverends]

You are dreaming.....if we don't return humans to the moon , in a decade virtually no one under 40 will believe we ever went to the moon....the moon landing hoax theory, as absurd as it is, grows every day... Eventually there will be NO support for any space effort of any kind.

[@Atipat12]

AMAZING 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@Atipat12]

COOL 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎

[@miguelreis3014]

Watch out for unrendered clips that skipped through the edit/render! It's a bummer and happened to all of us.

[@Cray-wilder]

There is plenty of ice on moon. But it's scattered and hidden in rugged surface.

[@dougspace6734]

NASA's 2009 LCROSS mission shoes us one place with high concentrations of both water ice and organics. Meteorite gardening of the regolith has made the surface smooth and drivable.

[@juanabosch7827]

Exellent proceder parcipar en la invertigacion por varios paises union perfecto...