Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Company Announces Long-Term Plan To Develop the Moon (arstechnica.com)

"On Wednesday, a Japanese company called ispace announced that it has two missions planned to the Moon within the next three years and that it has acquired ride-share launches on two Falcon 9 rockets to carry out those flights," reports Ars Technica. "The company's founder, Takeshi Hakamada, also said he has a long-term vision to have a city on the Moon visited by 10,000 people a year by 2040." From the report: The two missions ispace announced Wednesday are an orbiter launch in mid-2020 and a more complicated lander-and-rover mission a year later. Both will be secondary payloads on Falcon 9 rocket launches, being released by the rocket's second stage in geostationary transfer orbit. From there, they will proceed to the Moon under their own propulsive power.

During a teleconference with several reporters, Hakamada said the company hopes to demonstrate to potential customers the initial capability to deliver 30kg of payload to the lunar surface. But he also has longer-term plans that will allow it to serve customers seeking to reach the lunar surface with larger payloads. Plus, the company is developing the capability to mine ice from the lunar poles to convert the hydrogen and oxygen into rocket fuel. "Around 2030 we expect to begin developing propellant and sending it to spacecraft in space," Hakamada said. He hopes that by then, there will be several hundred people working on the Moon, or in lunar orbit, to support an industrial base. A decade later, by 2040, he envisions a city called "Moon Valley" on the lunar surface, with a diverse array of industries and thousands of visitors per year. "We believe we can establish such a world if we can actively develop our capability in the current speed," Hakamada said.

148 comments

  1. Visited by 10,000? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    If that means 10,000 people at once, and we assume the typical ratio of service staff versus tourists (not a safe bet, with automation, but it gives us a ceiling), that means a long-term population of 3,000 or 4,000. That's an appreciable colony, but I think calling it a "city" is a bit of a stretch.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Visited by 10,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City " Common population definitions for a city range between 1,500 and 50,000 people, with most U.S. states using a minimum between 1,500 and 5,000 inhabitants."

    2. Re:Visited by 10,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only because you aren't counting the hentai tentacle monsters. Factor those in and it is easily a good sized city!

    3. Re:Visited by 10,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that means 10,000 people at once, ...

      I doubt he meant at once...

      "he has a long-term vision to have a city on the Moon visited by 10,000 people"

      I would interpret this as literally 10k per 1 year.

      That would average to around 40 people coming each day an entire year. If average stay is a week long, and evenly distributed, than probably average number of visitors at once is around 300 + support people.

    4. Re:Visited by 10,000? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I like the sound of "Moon Town." Not so much "Moon Village."

    5. Re: Visited by 10,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are robotic. Silicone is not a life form.

    6. Re:Visited by 10,000? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It's a shame it isn't 1999 anymore.

      I would have gone with Moonbase Alpha.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Visited by 10,000? by hey! · · Score: 1

      That's a large size city for the Moon.

      In all seriousness, ancient Rome was probably the first habitation that would strike a modern urban dweller as a "city", with a population of about a million. Most of the more ancient cities would have been towns at best. Babylon was the largest city in the world in 1600 BCE, with a population of maybe 200,000. Thebes has maybe 40,000 inhabitants in 2000 BCE, and Uruk in its heyday was maybe 80,000.

      Go back further, to the dawn of cities in the neolithic period, and cities get even smaller. In its day Çatalhöyük in Turkey may have been the largest city in the world with a population of around 5000 through most of its history. To put that in perspective, the world's population at the time was about 1000x smaller, starting at 6 million at the dawn of the neolithic.

      The Moon is literally a whole new world. What counts as a "city" needs to be scaled to the population of that world. To qualify as a "city", then, a small settlement would have to perform the cultural, economic and administrative functions of a much larger terrestrial city.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re: Visited by 10,000? by Type44Q · · Score: 2
      "Lunar Village" will be where you'll find most of the Japanese tourists (they'll eventually fire the particular "Engrish speaking" Nihonjin who came up with "Moon Village" when they realize how "baca" it actually sounded).

      However, "Moon Town" will be where you'll find the triple-breasted whores. And the rest of the Japanese tourists.

    9. Re:Visited by 10,000? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Rome was big, but you should read "1491." Recent (last 15 years) major developments both technical and political in the field of anthropological research in the Americas strongly suggest several larger functioning city states existed long before the Mediterranean regions got going.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    10. Re: Visited by 10,000? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Robots are made with silicon.... Silicone is what fake titties are made of.. Well, I suppose you could have robots with both......

    11. Re: Visited by 10,000? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Bite my jiggly silicone ass!

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  2. challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lots of problems with this; not the least of which are the problems related to scarcity of an atmosphere and lack of stong magnetic field. I mean, how will they deal with gamma rays and bombardment by meteors? You're either getting your genes scrambled or your body turned to swiss cheese when it rains nickle. Who needs it?!

    1. Re:challenges by Mathinker · · Score: 2

      Good post. Yes, there are problems, which lead me to believe that the development of the moon will require decades in which only remotely controlled robots will be permanently stationed there.

      Possible solutions to your problems are synthesizing the necessary atmosphere from the minerals there using sunlight as an energy source, and living far, far underground so that the overlying bedrock will sufficiently shield radiation.

      Who needs it? Besides the obvious problems (and others you didn't mention) it is a large mass which is far enough outside Earth's gravitational well that using it for raw materials for further exploitation of space is attractive, yet it is very, very close to Earth compared to all the other large masses which have the same advantage. So close to Earth that almost-real-time remote control of robots is quite viable --- only 1.3 light-seconds away.

    2. Re:challenges by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      how will they deal with gamma rays and bombardment by meteors?

      A tunnel would be an obvious solution.

    3. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is nickle? Is that what they make pumpernickel bread with?

    4. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Artifical atmosphere, radiation resistant clothing and building materials, artificial magnetic fields.

      The problem is not the physical building tech, and I'll pretend like money isn't the problem either. The problem is energy generation. Assuming they use some sort of nuclear power, they have to transport that there, and its not like nuclear is magic energy, most of the high conversion stuff is steam driven, which means a good portion of the water will be used for this. Radioisotope systems are not super powerful or large, and fission systems aren't that efficient (not to mention dirty if there's a problem).

      Answer is of course solar or something like this, but with current rocket turnaround time (even you SpaceX) it would take years to build up the required amount of solar panels to support a colony of > 500 people. Not to mention getting the things there to build it in the first place (robots? humans? if humans, how do they live long enough to build a solar array to power their life support? small reactors launched ahead of time?)

      I'm not even thinking yet about required food supplies for that many people, or how large of a space would be required for moon grown plants or infrastrucutre and minerals water to keep them growing and etc)

      I'd love to see this by 2040. I just think its wishful thinking. Humanity is just too slow for that to happen.

    5. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is not radiation clothing for gama rays and cosmic rays (the most prevalent type of radiation in space). For that you will need at least 4 inches of lead or a dense atmosphere plus a magnetic field. Only 10% of the radiation in space fall in the category of alpha and beta particles (the ones that could be stoped by clothing).

    6. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Striking engines would be interesting. Say, when it's daylight you open shutters covering some massive, black heat accumulator. When it's night, open shutters for a radiator. That way you have a very high heat gradient between a heat accumulator and radiator and it's self regulating and very energy efficient.

    7. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stirling. Fuck you, Siri

      Depending on what metals are available on the moon it should be trivial to machine new engines as well. Even better is that helium is an excellent heat transfer gas and it's everywhere there.

    8. Re:challenges by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      A tunnel would be an obvious solution.

      . . . and Elon Musk, with his Boring Company, wins again!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:challenges by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the problem isn't the physical building tech (on the moon). It is just building stuff. On the moon. Did I mention it was on the moon? Space nutters.

    10. Re:challenges by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Would it soothe your concerns a little if they used some AI to build it?

    11. Re:challenges by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Also the dust. Due to lack of erosion, Moon dust consists of highly abrasive razor sharp pieces that get into every little space, and quickly damage pretty much everything that it comes into contact with, like door seals. To make things worse, it's all statically charged, so it clings to everything. Imaging coming back from a windy day on the beach, but then 1000 times worse.

    12. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of problems with this; not the least of which are the problems related to scarcity of an atmosphere and lack of stong magnetic field. I mean, how will they deal with gamma rays and bombardment by meteors? You're either getting your genes scrambled or your body turned to swiss cheese when it rains nickle. Who needs it?!

      Moon means underground. It is a good plan, by virtue of Moon's proximity [as opposed to Mars colonization].

    13. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not radiation clothing for gama rays and cosmic rays (the most prevalent type of radiation in space). For that you will need at least 4 inches of lead or a dense atmosphere plus a magnetic field. Only 10% of the radiation in space fall in the category of alpha and beta particles (the ones that could be stoped by clothing).

      A tad off-topic, but it dawned on me that all cancers are *always* caused by space radiation.

    14. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: Solar without atmosphere absorption of light 21% more efficient. Though there will be issues with addressing dust sticking to panels.
      2. Any heat based energy generation has an advantage of wide thermal differences with a readily available heat dump.
      3. For fluid motion based power generation maintaining a lower pressure boiling point is easier as well.

    15. Re: challenges by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      A tad off-topic, but it dawned on me that all cancers are *always* caused by space radiation.

      They're not. In fact, almost none are. Chemical carcinogens are far more common, and therefore much more likely to come into contact with humans. DNA can be perverted by more than just radiation, and frequently is.

    16. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a rich baby boomer looking for an exotic retirement? Do you suffer from muscular degeneration? Are you overweight? Come live on the moon! With only one sixth the gravity, you will weigh 50 lbs instead of 300! You will be able to escape your wheelchair or bed! Only a 3 day journey back to earth for weddings or other family events. As our resort is not apart of any nation, there are no taxes. This may well save you more money than the cost of your stay. Become a moon resident today.

    17. Re:challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of resources needed to do anything other than visit the moon for a few days is far beyond what any private company can bring to the table. The technology and resources needed to ice mine and create a viable long term habitat hasn't moved past the theoretical. Never mind radiation shielding, food availability, solutions to prevent health problems caused by long term low gravity conditions, and all the other consumables needed to support even a few people. There is a reason the US has never went back. The amount of resources spent on doing anything other than visiting the moon for a couple of days can be used on other space projects. And I find it ironic that people would be willing to spend billions of dollars making the Moon or even Mars habitable when that money could be of better use at home. Humans living on the Moon or even landing on Mars are vanity projects with very little ROI. Robotic exploration of the solar system and beyond is a much better solution until we find a way to look beyond our solar system for planets that may be capable of sustaining human life with very little changes.

    18. Re:challenges by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the problem isn't the physical building tech (on the moon). It is just building stuff. On the moon. Did I mention it was on the moon? Space nutters.

      Calm down. No one is asking you to do it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10% reduction of radiation is not bad for simple clothing.... Especially when you consider most of the facilities will be built underground and thats pretty much all that will be below ground, A/B etc. ;)

    20. Re: challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you machine new engines? You get the machines there. How do you power the machines that will build your engines? .............

      Portable power generation is required, even if for the short term, and the short term we're talking about with current rockets and materials means short term is at least 10 years. Yes, it seems like thats a crazy amount of time. But how long does it take to launch a satellite today?

  3. What about the aliens on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they can sell t-shirts?

  4. Kavanaugh's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long term plan. Prison. Guess how much fun everyone will have with Kavanaugh.

  5. What's Japanese for Lol morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hakamada said the company hopes to demonstrate to potential customers the initial capability to deliver 30kg of payload to the lunar surface" You're going to need a lot more than 30 kilos to convince me, lunar coke dealers!

  6. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have long-term plans to develop a sexual relationship with your mom

    I'm your daddy now

  7. Anime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anime!

    Child (loli) brides on the moon and happiness!
    Desu?

  8. 2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Twelve years from now, we'll have a good laugh reading this archived slashdot discussion.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Hamada must've watched too much Anime

    2. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Historical discussion preserved and presented for your edification by the Weyland-Yutani corporation. Taking you from the Earth's moon to the solar system and beyond."

    3. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we'll be having a good laugh at the misplaced cynicism of your comment?

      "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

      Taco's iPod Critique

    4. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing available on the Moon that cannot be found on Earth at a fraction of the cost.

      Archive that.

    5. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      He 3?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Interesting. However you're comparing the release of a music player to people working on the Moon...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by zmooc · · Score: 1

      Could be. Except for one thing: everything is in a much shallower gravity well. It costs about 6 times less energy to get something out of Earth's gravity well from the moon than it takes from the surface of the Earth. Since you also have to take quite a bit of fuel to launch things into space, the practical difference is significantly higher, perhaps 10s or even hundreds of times higher (disclaimer: total guess). A moon-based shop for water or rocket fuel (=water split in half) would therefore economically be a no-brainer. Everybody that would want to leave Earths gravity well would buy your stuff.

      A major additional advantage in the long run would be that it is much easier to launch stuff from the moon using a rail gun or space elevator, which could finally provide electrically powered launches, which would be a total game-changer.

      Mining the moon is an economically sound no-brainer.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    8. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by zmooc · · Score: 1

      (I should have included this obligatory xkcd-reference https://xkcd.com/681/ )

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    9. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Be a lot cheaper to synthesize it on the Earth then to process tons of lunar regolith.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twelve years from now the internet as we know it won't exist and there will be no archived slashdot discussion.

      There may be a paper copy of this story somewhere if it was printed.

    11. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by hey! · · Score: 0

      I propose slashdotters from a joint stock company, similar to the Hudson's Bay Company, for the economic exploitation of Middle Earth.

      We'll promise that by 2030 to our first colony of 3000 settlers collecting Mûmakil ivory, to be followed by large scale ranching of the Kine of Araw and of course independent mithril prospecting with our trading stations enjoying a monopoly on gear and a monopsony on ore.

      It'd work just as well as this Moon venture if you could get people excited enough to pay our salaries for a few years.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, how about this quote:

      “We choose 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 our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.” John F. Kennedy

      I'm sure lots of people were saying how it was impossible, and a waste of money.

    13. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The problem is that in order for the first shipment of water or fuel from the Moon, you first need to bring a huge amount of mass on the Moon in the form of equipment and supplies, plus deal with huge ongoing maintenance cost. It's not going to be worth it. Especially if we have fully reusable rockets, it will become quite affordable to launch a load of fuel from Earth. And we don't actually have much need for fuel anyway.

    14. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had been in charge of Apollo, the Soviets would certainly have won the race to the moon.

    15. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by zmooc · · Score: 1

      Please provide the calculation you've used to substantiate "It's not going to be worth it".

      I'm pretty sure it's going to be massively expensive, but whether it is worth it is mostly going to depend on how much stuff we want to launch into space, which is going to depend on launch costs etc. etc. etc.

      We simply cannot know this. But history has shown us that even the most ridiculous exploration and colonization usually pays off in the long run. There's no reason to assume the moon is going to be any different.

      Also, once again, let's not forget that a kilogram of just about anything is worth at least $1240 in low earth orbit (at current Falcon 9 launch prices). The higher up you go, the more valuable it gets.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    16. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Please provide the calculation you've used to substantiate "It's not going to be worth it".

      I'm not the one proposing we spend trillions on a project to get water from the Moon. Why don't you show your calculations ?

      We simply cannot know this.

      The logical conclusion is to keep launching stuff from Earth until someone makes a solid business case to launch it from the Moon instead.

    17. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We have no need for He3 in the foreseeable future.

    18. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      $1240 in low earth orbit (at current Falcon 9 launch prices).

      Ironically, the higher the launch price, the less attractive a Moon base becomes. Simply because the cost of establishing the lunar colony also goes up with launch price (and since the Moon requires more delta-v, relative cost goes up even more).

    19. Re:2030 hundreds of people working on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's just one person working with hundreds of replacements in stasis.

  9. Moon Patrol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the moon is fair game. Which means if you build a space army and overtake a private moon base there is not much anyone can do about it but build defenses. In hindsight it seems that Moon Patrol was a Japanese military training simulator ahead if its time.

  10. HAha ha hahah hahahaahahaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Space Nutters, don't change!

    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/2...

    Japanese companies announce stuff like this like creimer announces his daily videos and security certifications. It's performance art, no one knows why they do it.

  11. Moon Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they should build a moon train instead of a fixed based. The problem with the moon is that it has extreme temperatures. The most comfortable place for humans would be in the twilight zone. A long train that remained in this zone could possibly be powered by solar/hydrogen-cell/nuclear. The train would not need to move very fast to stay in this zone. The moon has a ~27 day rotation. The further away from the equator the train is the slower the train would have to be. Probably just a few kilometers per/hour. 4 or 5 km/hr brisk walking speed. ...just pulling a number out of hat.

    With gravity only be a 1/6 of earth, a maglev train might be the way to go.

    Of course I am just dreaming from my armchair and I have no supported science without digging for it.
    Have fun.

    1. Re:Moon Train by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      How will you finance it?

      That's an awful lot of track to build before moon visits can begin.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Moon Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anyone talking about a moon colony, money is not the barrier. ;)

    3. Re:Moon Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whalers on the moon?

    4. Re:Moon Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At it's largest circumference the moon is ~11000 km. In perspective the Trans-Siberian railway is ~9000 km. I believe you could pick a latitude that is much shorter. The closer to the poles the shorter the track. Closer to the poles we may have water as well.

    5. Re:Moon Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is a giant track vehicle and not a train?

  12. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course! And you'll be able to have sex with electricity from space!

    https://www.solarenspace.com/2...

    Compete with illiterate it's instead of its!

  13. I developed a moon too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I got better

  14. German definition of a city probably. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have pretty silly definitions of a city, here in Germany, which date back to the middle ages.
    But India’s definition of calling a place ot 500,000 people a "village" is also pretty nuts to us. ^^

    You're right tough. They likely wanted to boast a bit.

    By the way: Does that Japanese company maybe belong to that one rich person that recently booked a flight around the moon on "The Musk" (by Elon "uncanny valley between human an psychopathic robot" Musk)? (And now you know why I posted this anonymously. ;)

    1. Re:German definition of a city probably. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that R Daneel Olivaw is an anagram of Elon Award Evil? Coincidence? I think not.

    2. Re:German definition of a city probably. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that "strap on" spelled backward is "no parts"? Coincidence? I think not.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  15. Can I come? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love stuff like the moon!

  16. It should be named.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Von Braun City

  17. You can't spell MORON without MOON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also I wonder if they will just put robots with rock launchers to kill all anime haters.

    1. Re:You can't spell MORON without MOON by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Also I wonder if they will just put robots with rock launchers to kill all anime haters.

      Wouldn't that lead to the extinction of humanity? We would kill off all our breeding population?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  18. Kurzgesagt youtube video by sad_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How We Could Build a Moon Base TODAY

    https://youtu.be/NtQkz0aRDe8

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  19. That's our moon! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    America put a flag on the moon first and that maked it our'n by interplanetary law and divine right o' kings. Back off, Japan.

    1. Re:That's our moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! The moon is french as shown in the following documentary of the first moon landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBpnUoRvETA&t=360s

       

    2. Re:That's our moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was back before America became a nation of lawyers & cowards.

    3. Re:That's our moon! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Even assuming you were right, I would suggest that the principle of abandoned property would still apply. America would have to go back to reassert such ownership.

  20. Re: Sure thing by Evtim · · Score: 1

    The moon is the harshest mistress

  21. Remember by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    No one can hear you scream in space!

    --
    I tend to rant.
  22. What priority ? by lolop · · Score: 1

    We need to use resources and funds to go forward on earth preservation, not to go destroying moon (neither mars...).

    As a Japanese people, he could by example fund thermal insulation of houses and buildings, this is the kind of action we need actually.

    --
    -- Laurent Pointal
    1. Re:What priority ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We need to use resources and funds to go forward on earth preservation, not to go destroying moon (neither mars...).

      Many new technologies were born of the space race. If we have to set up self-sustaining colonies there's no telling what we will learn about sustainability; if we can make a colony on the Moon produce everything it needs then a city on Earth will be child's play by comparison.

    2. Re:What priority ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off luddite troll.

    3. Re:What priority ? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      If you're doing it for spin-off, why not do something useful at the same time ? Get rid of excess CO2 and build a working fusion plant, for example.

    4. Re:What priority ? by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "If we have to set up self-sustaining colonies there's no telling what we will learn about sustainability"

      Put X amount of people in the middle of Antarctica and you could reach the same goal for billions less. Also, if there is an issue/emergency, a rescue mission would be cheaper and easier.

    5. Re:What priority ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we have to set up self-sustaining colonies there's no telling what we will learn about sustainability"

      Put X amount of people in the middle of Antarctica and you could reach the same goal for billions less. Also, if there is an issue/emergency, a rescue mission would be cheaper and easier.

      So you put them in a water rich and oxygen rich environment and expect to learn as much as a place without those resources (at least not immediately in abundance)?

      There already is a research station in the Antarctic. There are people already living in the Sahara.

      The advantage of a moon base should be obvious from the research potential, along with the advantages of the moon over a space station: actual resources to begin industry and self-sustainability. The mindset required to live in such a place is considerably different than anything you could ever experience on Earth. Every extreme location will have different aspects that are easy and difficult.

    6. Re:What priority ? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Can't even fathom the conversation you would have had with Christopher Columbus..

      Piss off, hippie.

    7. Re:What priority ? by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      You're right. We should colonize the Sun. Think of the awesome technologies we would have to create to make that happen!

  23. Not THAT far deep by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    At about >1 MeV the half value layer of many rocks is in the between 10 and 20 cm , so by 10 half value layer (about 1 to 2 meter) of earth rocks , you get 1/1024 of the original radiation. 1 meter or so is not far far underground. See for example El-Taher, Mahmour, Abbady 2007 (Indian journal pure and applied physic).
    OK regolithe is about 60% the density of what they tested but even assuming an exponential model or even go conservative and have the HVL to be 1 meter (!), you still won't need to be that far underground to get only 0.1% of the radiation.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re: Not THAT far deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, you failed to compare it to radiation on earth. Boulder has a significant higher incidence rate of many cancers for missing only a mile of air,

    2. Re: Not THAT far deep by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      And yet, you failed to compare it to radiation on earth. Boulder has a significant higher incidence rate of many cancers for missing only a mile of air,

      Umm, the mass of a 1 mile high column of air (1.2 kg/m3 at sea level) is substanitally less than the mass of a 1 meter column of rock (2600 kg/m3), and the rock has the additional advantage of not having an exponential decrease in density versus height.

      Habitat radiation sheilding is already a well-considered problem. You should read about rather than taking ignorant pot-shots.

  24. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suck it trebek

  25. Back to the future by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Haven't the Japanese learned a thing about space since the 1950s?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  26. Elysium on the moon? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

    Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon. I certainly hope by 2040 there won't be 10,000 people who can afford this on their own. Ideally none should.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Elysium on the moon? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon.

      So? It wasn't all that long ago that only the very richest nations could afford to go there.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Elysium on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a sad thing when people wish bad luck on their fellow humans out of jealousy.

    3. Re:Elysium on the moon? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It'll mean bad luck for far more humans if just a few are hoarding enormous amounts of the planet's wealth. And there's nothing unlucky about being a millionaire instead of a billionaire. So I wish for the best luck for the greatest number of humans.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Elysium on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's absolutely good news when they piss it away on idiotic vanity projects.

      Clue: people who get scammed into "moon vacations" don't stay rich long.

    5. Re:Elysium on the moon? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking tool. 300 years ago only the nobility and royalty could be rich.. Now anyone can and you are still unhappy.

      You are also a psychopath. Instead of wishing that LOTS of people could afford to go to the moon, like a normal person with normal feelings, you wish that NOBODY could afford to do it.. like a fucking psychopath.. Ya know the type... "If I'm not rich, nobody should be".

      You're the kind of cunt that thinks sex is dirty and disgusting because you aren't getting any.

      You are an idiot.

    6. Re:Elysium on the moon? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.

      Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.

      You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.

      By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"

      Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...

    7. Re:Elysium on the moon? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.

      I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.

      You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Elysium on the moon? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.

      Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.

      Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.

      A perfect example of the complete disconnect between skill/merit and "achievement." Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit. How is this good? And that's not even getting into the worst of it. Nobody's forced to buy Harry Potter, but people aren't exactly free to opt out of the basic necessities required to participate in the economy, unless they like hiding in a shack in the woods like the Unabomber. So those basic necessities, which are often controlled by an oligopoly or de-facto monopoly (telecoms, fuel, utilities) aren't exactly consensual choices. And thus neither is getting a job.

      You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.

      Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.

      By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"

      Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...

      Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.

      Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Elysium on the moon? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.

      We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.

      Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit.

      I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.

      Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.

      Here we have one example of a situation that will allow some of these rich people, that you hate so much, to spend some of that "hoarded wealth" and get it back into the economy. But, of course you have a problem with that. How many jobs do you think this is going to create? Tens of thousands? Can't be super easy to get a rocket all the way into the moon.. The cost will likely be billions.. Billions that will be spent employing an awful lot of people.. From the guy designing the rocket all the way down to the guy working in the foundry that makes the metal components.

      Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.

      Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.

      Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....

      Elitism? maybe... I'm nowhere near what would qualify as "rich". However, Harvard has developed quite the reputation for producing excellent doctors.. (and lawyers). If I had some condition that required brain surgery I would want the best possible person, that I could afford, to be doing the work. The more "in demand" someone is, the more they get to charge. Do you think Harvard's reputation is unfounded? What about Yale? There's a reason the Ivy league schools have their reputation. THEY HAVE EARNED IT. They take the best and the brightest and they educate and train the hell out of them. They produce people of serious skill. Do they have a monopoly on it? Of course not, but they have one hell of a success rate. They have been consistent. If it makes me an elitist to recognize that some people have more skill or more education of more intelligence than others, then I'm fine with that title. We aren't all equal in our ability. Sorry Charlie, them's the breaks.

      The $1 wasn't meant to represent an actual number, asshole. It was meant to show that even liberals would, if they could afford it, choose the more highly skilled person if money wasn't an option. I get that

    10. Re:Elysium on the moon? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.

      I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.

      You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.

      I'm the loser? Man, you need to invest in a mirror. You are a liar and I can prove it. You say nobody can become rich.. Okay, explain Zuckerberg, JK Rowling, Musk.. Explain them, asshole. Those are just the ultra-rich.. The "holy-shit-thats-a-lot-of-money" rich. We'd have one hell of a list if we made a simple $100,000,000 our bottom limit.

      I recall hearing somewhere that a college degree will add about $1,000,000 to your earnings over a normal lifetime. That's not rich? Go ask the guy in the 3rd world if that's rich or not. He'll laugh you out of the room.

      200 years ago about 95% of the world's population lived in poverty. Today it's about 50%. What happened? Oh yeah, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.

      The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.

      Are you on drugs? Seriously, are you on drugs?
      Royalty could have you executed at whim. Royalty owned EVERYTHING, including your fucking liberal life. Royalty was above the law. The rulers of nations were HEREDITARY. I can point out any number of rich people and politicians sitting in prison, today, because they fucked over people. Fraud, theft... You name it... Today we put those people in PRISON. 200 years ago you went to prison if you angered the King, not because you had fucked over some peasant.

      We haven't been to the moon in my entire fucking lifetime, and I'm not a young person. So, here's a company that's going to go to the moon (or so they claim) and it's not going to cost me a FUCKING DIME. Musk proved that you can go to space for way cheaper than what governments have been paying, so a private company is going to take it one step further.. And you have a problem with that because you are a cunt. You are so cunty that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face. You are so cunty that you won't let these rich people SPEND some of that money and get it back into the ECONOMY where it is going to create a shitload of JOBS.

      What is a trip to the moon going to cost? $10M.... $100M??? It's going to be a lot.... and there will be THOUSANDS OF JOBS to make it happen. Thousands of STEM jobs.. Jobs that pay really well..... But... you don't want that...

      What the fuck is wrong with you?

      I see that huge yacht that Larry Ellison owns and I think "Man, that employed a lot of people just to build it. Those 150 people who operate it have one heck of a nice job.. He's not making any money with that yacht, he's just spending it.... And he's spending a lot...All that money flowing right back into the economy.... 150 people with jobs that take them all over the world...

      You'd rather the yacht and associated jobs didn't exist..... Because you are a cunt..

    11. Re:Elysium on the moon? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.

      No thanks, keep your flat tax. We need much more sharply progressive taxation, with a top bracket taxed so heavily that it effectively creates a maximum wage. This prevents wealth hoarding, preventing working-class wage stagnation and keeping the whole economy running better in the long term.

      I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.

      Not me, I merely used it as another example to point out the complete disconnect between "achievement" and skill/merit, in this case caused by network effects. The concept of "productivity" is used to plagiarize work, misattributing a ridiculous share of it to the C-suite. We now have regular human beings making hundredths and even tenths of a billion dollars a year for making fairly simple high-level decisions - sometimes terrible ones, as in the cases of Steve Elop and Martin Winterkorn. We should work toward correcting this madness by altering fundamental rules of the economy in a way that doesn't pick winners and losers but creates a fairer game for everyone.

      Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....

      Hahaha you believe exactly what the conservative leadership wants you to, they've really turned you into a perfect useful idiot. And you've tipped your hand on where you get your news and information from - conservative chain emails, the only place you'll find that hilariously inaccurate $40M number. The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards, most CEOs can make that in a couple years. A middling fiction author can make over 40x more in a short career, as you've pointed out.

      The fact that we aren't all equal in ability isn't an excuse to create a hyper-unequal hell. The world will be better for everyone if we artificially spread the wealth around a bit. I'm glad that homeless people can become rich, but decamillionaires and billionaires should not be a thing. And a world without them would have more millionaires and wealthier people on average. Nordic countries have demonstrated that greater equality means greater median wealth. Your world already exists, in Mexico and India.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Elysium on the moon? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards

      Right there.... Assuming that is fact, and I'm willing to assume that.... You are a hypocrite.. $24M is not much by private sector standards? Are you high? That's the top 0.1%.

      No more debating with you. I don't debate hypocrites..

  27. Investment Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't we seen this a few dozen times already? Mission to mars! Sign up now! Investors click here for a great opportunity!

  28. All your base are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your base are belong to us

  29. Humans First, Nuclear Waste Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next thing you know they'll be storing dangerous nuclear waste on the moon... and then...

    GOODBYE MOON!

  30. What a great getaway! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's go to the moon because there is so much to do on the Moon. A vacation for the absolute wealthiest in the world to venture to a Barron place like the Moon. Establishing a base on the Moon for tourism would be very expensive, you have to provide a lot of service to sustain people on a place like the Moon. The logistics would be more of a nightmare then the Space station and they only have to care for a handful of people at a time. If only the dreamers would focus more of really important space exploration then a tourist trap for the rich.

    1. Re:What a great getaway! by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      For the second time, you idiot, IT IS SPELLED BARREN.

      Do you cut/paste your comments?

  31. What has changed since 1972 ? by Munich+Munchkin · · Score: 2

    Seriously, what has changed since Apollo 17 ? If you want an expensive holiday filled with danger then 2 weeks in Kabul is much closer.

    1. Re:What has changed since 1972 ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What has changed is what we know, and how certain things about what we know that could make the moon a worthwhile place to go.

    2. Re:What has changed since 1972 ? by Munich+Munchkin · · Score: 1

      Would you like to share some of those details ?

    3. Re:What has changed since 1972 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The presence of water, for one.

      But do your own goddamn homework.

    4. Re:What has changed since 1972 ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As the AC has pointed out, among the most significant is the existence of water, which when we last visited the moon, was thought to be entirely absent.

      Even putting aside how important water is for life, this also means that you can make hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breath from the the resources that are right there. The moon would make a *FAR* easier place to launch rockets from than Earth, having only a little less than one sixth of the gravity. An orbiting platform may also accomplish this, but then every single thing that is needed for construction would have to be launched into orbit as well, so you end up using far more fuel than you would with a ground-based construction.

  32. Outlandish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Outlandish claims. A city on the moon by 2040? Bullshit. I knew that was bull the instant I heard it just as I did when I heard Bush announce the "Constellation" project.

    We COULD and SHOULD go back and seriously start manufacturing and mining it. But the fact is, after several decades of DEBATE, we haven't even sent robots back to start auto mining or producing even bricks.

  33. Artist rendering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the moon in the sky would look like fully developed.

  34. What a great getaway by Fleshlight++Fanatic · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's go to the moon because there is so much to do on the Moon. A vacation for the absolute wealthiest in the world to venture to a Barron place like the Moon. Establishing a base on the Moon for tourism would be very expensive, you have to provide a lot of service to sustain people on a place like the Moon. The logistics would be more of a nightmare then the Space station and they only have to care for a handful of people at a time. If only the dreamers would focus more of really important space exploration then a tourist trap for the rich.

    1. Re:What a great getaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I don't have great confidence in this Japanese company's follow through on this idea, as I don't know what they are capable of, they would get absolutely nowhere without the dreamers.

      Science and exploration are great, but the rich people are more likely to invest in a tourist trap in newly explored territory than invest in science that may never give them an ROI to be proud of. But what if that tourist trap investment, that influx of cash from the rich, forces a science or engineering innovation to make it possible?

    2. Re:What a great getaway by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      First... It's barren, not Barron.
      Second, if someone is spending their own money, why do you give a fuck?
      I particularly enjoy how you have decided what is more important.
      I couldn't give a crap one way or the other as long as my taxes aren't being spent on it.

      barren (brn) adj. Not producing offspring. adj. Incapable of producing offspring. adj. Lacking vegetation, especially useful vegetation.

  35. Be careful by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    The moon is a harsh mistress ...

  36. Its been decried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I announce my company will develop the moon as well.

    1. Re:Its been decried by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      DECREED, moron. You the same idiot that can't spell BARREN?

  37. Is piss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ispace? Is-piss?

  38. Re:Sure thing by careysub · · Score: 1

    I have long-term plans to develop a sexual relationship with Jenna Coleman.

    I have a better chance.

    (Although this is currently voted down -1:)

    First - good choice.

    Second - you are correct sir (or madame)! You do have a much better chance than this project does of succeeding.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  39. Just develop Japan instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are islands in Japan where the population is dying off.
    It would be much better and cheaper to just develop one of those.

    1. Re:Just develop Japan instead by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Say's who? What would make it "better"?

  40. Star Blazers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta start building a defense against the Gamelons sometime.

  41. Re:Moon visited by 10,000 people a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    republicans , in a generation they wouldn'yt be...

    At least we know about spacing with commas, we can spell, and many of us, being as independent as possible, know how to fix lots of things. You snowflakes would all be dead in a couple of weeks or less.

  42. Re:Moon visited by 10,000 people a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha , if it aint in your bible then you don't believe it.

  43. Re: Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First we have to get there.... develop the moon my ass

  44. Re:with every wicked deception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so they will believe the lie
    https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipns/QmRjnvwZFj8bWba3HHKo7pnLm5kep4nvQepMcM1eejzgsn

  45. They heard there are arctic whales there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  46. Maybe I should move to Japan by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    They're saying what I've been saying for years now, and I have no doubt they'll actually do it, and it'll be awesome. Talk about helping evolve our species! Moving out onto Earth's Moon is the first step towards moving out into our solar system, and from there, who knows?

  47. Jerry Pournelle said... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    About 30 years ago or so, that humans would return to the moon, colonize it and develop it - but they in all likelihood they would be speaking Chinese or Russian. (well this is a Japanese company - but his prediction looks like it was pretty accurate on the whole).

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  48. Looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space Force just found its first contract.

  49. Gundams must be included! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or there's no point in trying.

  50. Re: Sure thing by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    As I remember, in that book there was a Japanese version of a Libertarian colony at a Lagrange point- in which the only legal right was the right to die. Requesting that right was easy and swiftly delivered by drone.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  51. capability to deliver 30kg of payload by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    So the plan is to go from a large potted plant to 10,000 people in 19 years? Uh huh.

  52. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love space, don't get me wrong, but until we get some sort of Star Trek anti-gravity solution, Space will always difficult to work in, period.

    Disagree, I don't care, fight me, space is hard, very very hard to work in.