A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

srmeaney · 2005-05-12 04:59:49

Australia's four largest Banks have once again posted a collective annual profit of five billion dollars (Australian). Ten years of such profits is the cost of an underground mining colony on the moon. Twenty years of profits is sufficient to finance the digging of a hollow beneath the lunar surface a half a Km across and a half a Km deep build homes in it for a thousand people and the agricultural gardens needed to feed them. Thirty years profits is sufficient to build a big clear dome over the town, flood the area above it with salt water and open the top of the lunar surface to expose the dome to space.

Every single stage of this is profitable to these Banks because they like to invest in Mining. Isn't it nice to know what your bank fees could do?

SpaceNut · 2005-05-12 05:29:30

Yes lots of available credit but if the cost of getting us there is astonomical then no one will be willing to take out a loan or to grant one for getting us there. A business plan that relies on variables and guess work will not be funded.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-12 08:03:06

srmeaney,

You must be (Australian), But banks would want a proven record of space investments and income driven. Starting with near earth space investments to generate income from earth businesses. Then you move to the lunar surface and you would have the banks in a consortium back your venture because of your previous achievements.

You could start space activities on earth providing infrastructure that would help the long term settlement of space and still draw income from earth activities within space infrastructure. Develop an open mind to the complex issues and work on solutions for all.

Vir Stellae · 2005-05-12 08:36:06

Meh... drops in the bucket compared to the behemoth that is Citigroup ($17b profits, $1.5 Trillion in assets)

Dook · 2005-05-12 08:47:49

Those profits go to the shareholders. People like me who have invested and want that return to make the house payment and pay for the kids soccer practice.

If living underground is your thing then do it in Australia. Why would anyone want to live underground on the moon? You're making the public think we are all science fiction quacks.

Vir Stellae · 2005-05-12 08:58:36

For you guys (Source: Forbes 2000)
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/03/30/ … 0land.html

Largest Banks/financial institutions by Profit:
$17.05 Citigroup (USA)
$14.14 Bank of America (USA)
$10.91 American International Group (USA)
$9.52 HSBC Group (UK)
$8.66 Royal Bank of Scotland (UK)
$8.10 ING Group (Netherlands)
$7.69 Fannie Mae (USA)
$7.10 UBS (Switzerland)
$7.01 Wells Fargo (USA)
$6.36 Berkshire Hathaway (USA)
$6.27 Barclays (UK)
$5.81 Lloyds TSB Group (UK)
$5.80 BNP Paribas (France)
$5.58 ABN-Amro Holdings
$5.37 Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial (Japan)
$5.21 Wachovia (USA)
$4.82 Freedie Mac (USA)
$4.66 JP Morgan Chase (USA)
$4.55 Goldman Sachs Group (USA)
$4.53 Credit Suisse Group (Switzerland)
$4.53 Morgan Stanley (USA)
$4.44 Merryl Linch (USA)
$4.38 HBOS (UK)
$4.17 US Bancorp (USA)
$3.90 Mizhuo Financial (Japan)
$3.80 BBVA (Spain)
$3.52 American Express (USA)
$3.42 AXA Group (France)
$3.36 Allstate (USA)
$3.28 Banco Santander (Spain)
$3.17 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial (Japan)
$3.16 Deutsche Bank Group (Germany)
$3.13 Société Générale Group (France)
$2.88 Washington Mutual (USA)
$2.84 MetLife (USA)
$2.78 National City (USA)
$2.76 Fortis (Netherlands)
$2.61 MBNA (USA)
$2.47 UniCredito Italiano (Italy)
$2.41 Bank of Nova Scotia (Canada)
$2.39 Lehman Brothers Holdings (USA)
$2.31 National Australia Bank (Australia)
$2.31 Prudential Financial (USA)
$2.31 Royal Bank of Canada (Canada)
$2.30 Zurich Financial Services (Switzerland)
$2.26 Aegon (Netherlands)
$2.20 Countrywide Financial (USA)
$2.14 Hartford Financial Services (USA)
$2.14 Manulife Financial (Canada)
$2.05 ANZ Banking (Australia)
$2.03 Allianz Worldwide (Germany)
$1.93 Bank of Montreal (Canada)
$1.93 Danske Bank Group (Denmark)
$1.91 SLM (USA)
$1.90 Toronto-Dominion Bank (Canada)
$1.89 Nordea Bank (Sweden)
$1.85 Westpac Banking Group (Australia)
$1.81 Canadian Imperial Bank (Canada)
$1.81 Fifth Third Bancorp (USA)
$1.80 Commonwealth Bank Group (Australia)
$1.80 Dexia (Belgium)
$1.69 Aviva (UK)
$1.65 Nomura Holdings (Japan)
$1.65 Progressive (USA)
$1.56 BB&T (USA)

Vir Stellae · 2005-05-12 09:00:10

Those profits go to the shareholders. People like me who have invested and want that return to make the house payment and pay for the kids soccer practice.
If living underground is your thing then do it in Australia. Why would anyone want to live underground on the moon? You're making the public think we are all science fiction quacks.

True.

srmeaney · 2005-05-13 01:38:43

based on that rather long list, I would suggest that if profit was to be had from Space, that selection of money lenders would be strip mining the Moon as we speak. All they have to realize is that the Moon is the ultimate tax haven for banks and mining corporations and they would be at it like rabid badgers.
One thing about most shareholders, they will forgo short term profit for very big long term profits. If that wasn't the case no one would buy government bonds.

If living underground is your thing then do it in Australia. Why would anyone want to live underground on the moon? You're making the public think we are all science fiction quacks.

Dook, It will always be cheaper to dig a tunnel and fit it with an airlock (or have a pressure well entrance), and live underground on the Moon and Mars than it will be to ship a habitat module with every four astronauts. Considering the Minerals are there (underground) accesability is increased.
To support any number of people below ground you require very little above ground infrastructure. But to have everyone above ground requires an entirely different technological support mecanism. Above ground, you must either build what is needed or import from earth.

The singular criticism that seems to continue to surface is that Underground colonies require a large number of Mission specialists in the field of Mining and tunneling and engineering, where as an above ground colony allows for a greater variety of skills that dont actually involve digging, crushing and relocating large amounts of rock twenty-four hours a day (something that a large number of button pushers seem allergic to).

The fact is that four mining mission specialists can dig (with appropriate mining equipment. a.k.a. tunneling machine and dust debris extractor vac pump) in two years (a moon or Mars mission), a cave large enough to house fifty people and their life support systems. That is a portion of the cost needed to send fifty and the life support systems they will need for living on the surface. That is two habitat modules and mining equipment vs. twelve habitat modules.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-13 06:08:11

Cave digging and living underground may be the eventual end but these caves must be lined to keep the atmosphere we make from leaking slowly out.
Living above ground may not be that difficult for if you convert each cargo lander it living space. All that would be required is the means to move them into place to better utilize them for that purpose. The same would be true of the personel landers if people never leave or if only some return. Reuse what ever become vacant.
Which leads to recycleling the engines, fuel tanks and anything from the cargo haulers else. That would make space transportation less expensive once we are there.

srmeaney · 2005-05-13 06:54:35

$14.14 Bank of America (USA)

Fine, you want to talk profitable investment in Space. Ok. Assuming these are annual profits, the Bank of America could finance a colony for the self sustainment of one thousand people (built over thirty years) which would be an underground town with a space exposed clear dome. Estimated cost: 150 billion dollars on the moon.
If they sold residency rights to a thousand people for one billion dollars each.

$1,000,000,000,000.00
-$150,000,000,000.00
$850,000,000,000.00

That would be a profit in the area of 850 billion dollars over thirty years. That is twice the annual profit they get now. Long term investments reap rewards and they didn't have to cut jobs to do it.

Vir Stellae · 2005-05-13 07:53:53

$14.14 Bank of America (USA)
Fine, you want to talk profitable investment in Space. Ok. Assuming these are annual profits, the Bank of America could finance a colony for the self sustainment of one thousand people (built over thirty years) which would be an underground town with a space exposed clear dome. Estimated cost: 150 billion dollars on the moon.
If they sold residency rights to a thousand people for one billion dollars each.
$1,000,000,000,000.00
-$150,000,000,000.00
$850,000,000,000.00
That would be a profit in the area of 850 billion dollars over thirty years. That is twice the annual profit they get now. Long term investments reap rewards and they didn't have to cut jobs to do it.

Your numbers are flawed because they do not assume operating costs.

srmeaney · 2005-05-13 19:07:07

Your numbers are flawed because they do not assume operating costs.

In what way? 150 billion factors in everything up to completion and then sells what is effectivly a private residence for a thousand realy rich people. Banks profit, maintenance costs? a nuclear reactor, They wont want one of those where they live *That sucker will probably be removed at the end of the day by the mission specialists.
End of the day it will be an airlock in the side of a hill and an exposed dome. Considering the world wide banking profits, sufficient annual monies exist to build five of of these little domed villages for the billionaire real estate market.

Long term Power will require systems that are easy to access and easy to maintain. that will probably be Geothermal energy. Even on the Moon rock under pressure generates heat. A steam turbine is not beyond the realm of possibility.
If you go the reactor method you will want something well away from the local population. So what maintenance costs are we looking for here? If it were a government ruled community your rates & power bill would would cover maintenance.
This is private residences, pretty much in international territory. The owners would be responsible for contracting in the nearest specialist labour source to keep things going. Hire in the Company guys from Dome Six (the one with the Mining facility and adjacent spaceport) to keep things going.

A self sustaining colony for Billionaires. Is it more popular than living on a planet surrounded by terrorists. Yes it would be.

The Moon : A safe haven for the super rich? Its achievable.

Commodore · 2005-05-13 19:24:17

Only when NASA does it first on a small scale to prove the technology in all phases of such an operation will anyone even think of doing it comercially.

And then they go to the aerospace companies and buy what NASA used in bulk at a considerable discount.

And then we'll be off to the races.

srmeaney · 2005-05-13 19:30:35

WHo needs NASA when you have the Russians?
Considering the Russians are more open to private/corporate action and have vast years of experience in space stations, The Banks of the world will probably bypass the control freaks in US government and go with the only real option.

Commodore · 2005-05-13 19:53:40

WHo needs NASA when you have the Russians?
Considering the Russians are more open to private/corporate action and have vast years of experience in space stations, The Banks of the world will probably bypass the control freaks in US government and go with the only real option.

Putin is more of a control freak than anyone in Washington. Granted he won't be there forever. But whatever issues that make it difficult to do it here will melt away if investors threaten to go to Russia.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-13 20:35:56

People,

What about telling both Control Freaks ( russia and usa ) to get lost and go private enterprise completely. What is required is a geo-survey of the moon and find the best spot and then get the largest construction and mining companies and aerospace companies together in a consortium to bring the capital together. Using the new corporation they then provide the base for the loans from a consortium of banks and large pension funds throughout the world.

You have the funds, technical expertise and the right people to develop the process. Next to build the project and the transportation route to earth. using maglev moon shots of material back to earth orbit for space processing into space vehicles or oter components.

You do have some merits to your plan but you need a detail business proposal including the right mix of in-trade consortium members and cash paying consortium members to setup the corporation for the lunar surface.

BWhite · 2005-05-13 21:34:36

People,
What about telling both Control Freaks ( russia and usa ) to get lost and go private enterprise completely. What is required is a geo-survey of the moon and find the best spot and then get the largest construction and mining companies and aerospace companies together in a consortium to bring the capital together. Using the new corporation they then provide the base for the loans from a consortium of banks and large pension funds throughout the world.
You have the funds, technical expertise and the right people to develop the process. Next to build the project and the transportation route to earth. using maglev moon shots of material back to earth orbit for space processing into space vehicles or oter components.
You do have some merits to your plan but you need a detail business proposal including the right mix of in-trade consortium members and cash paying consortium members to setup the corporation for the lunar surface.

I think Russia would sell your private company sufficient Protons and Soyuz if you paid cash. Ukraine would probably sell you Zenit as well, for cash that is.

Will that be dollars, or euros?

srmeaney · 2005-05-14 04:46:37

What about telling both Control Freaks ( russia and usa ) to get lost and go private enterprise completely. What is required is a geo-survey of the moon and find the best spot and then get the largest construction and mining companies and aerospace companies together in a consortium to bring the capital together. Using the new corporation they then provide the base for the loans from a consortium of banks and large pension funds throughout the world.

And just which control freak's territory are you planning to launch from?

It only takes one Mission Commander with a gun in the safe and suddenly the free territories of Luna have been annexed.

Fledi · 2005-05-14 09:20:11

Launch it from the sea, like Boeing.

srmeaney · 2005-05-15 03:32:49

Launch it from the sea, like Boeing.

And just which control freak's territory are you planning to launch from?

Boeing are still launching from Ocean under someone elses control. The days of International Water are comming to an end. The made the move to sea purely based on the need for an Equatorial launch site. If they could lease from Brazil sufficient territory for commercial US launchers, they would be there in there on the beach, fighting off wild Jaguars with one hand and holding up a survey staff with the other.

As I recall, the Boeing sea launcher? (a converted Oil rig?) was fined for technology sharing with it's Russian partners.

MarsDog · 2005-05-16 00:44:13

After government sponsored remote sensing survey comes
prospecting, staking, and developing a claim.

Venture capital for robots and rovers to sniff out minerals.
More robots for drilling test holes.

The mining colony could add to its income by providing bed and breakfast for tourists.

With 1/6 gravity, the mine could be very deep, possibly 20 km.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-16 10:27:49

Well in the 2005 budget there had been some fundings that was to provide mining equipment for the moon.

NASA Rethinks Technology Needs

NASA also suspended a $3.71 million award given to Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar for lunar regolith-handling construction equipment --- essentially earth-moving equipment for the Moon

srmeaney · 2005-05-17 08:29:27

Building on the Surface of the Moon will be like Bulldozing a World Heritage Site. NASA will be told if it hasn't been already. You are just going to have to face facts, Lunar city will be underground, one Suburb at a time.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-17 09:43:49

Oh I'm pretty sure that the US will kindly tell the anti-American "United" Nations to take a long walk out a short airlock if they give us any greif over "World Heritige Site!" or whatnot.

If you are going to build a Lunar base underground, you are going to have to tear up alot of landscape anyway to put it there. And the solar panels/radiators? Blasted dust from rocket engines? Making the Moon "un-pristine" is unavoidable.

RobS · 2005-05-17 21:33:13

Have others seen the article "Not So Picture Perfect: Proposed Lunar Landing Site Has Drawbacks"
By Peter Kokh at http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_lu … 50517.html? The article argues that overall, the lunar poles are bad locations for the first lunar station. It uses these arguments:

1."Industrially, the highland/mare coasts have much to offer with the availability of both major suites of regolith; highland regolith enriched in aluminum and calcium, mare regolith enriched in iron and titanium." The nearest mare/highland "coasts" are 600 miles from the north pole and 1300 miles from the south pole. Thus the poles do not offer a good diversity of minerals for lunar industrialization.

My comment: Industrialization is a long ways off. The highland may compensate for the lack of iron in the basalt (which is a pretty low concentration and hard to extract anyway) with meteoritic nickel-iron, which, even at a few weight percent, would be very easy to extract from the regolith with a magnet.

2. The maria are easy to traverse; they're open and relatively flat. In contrast the highlands are "inhospitable," "very uneven, even mountainous terrain with very confining and limited flat areas."

My comment: Possibly this is true, but I am not so sure. We had at least one Apollo land in the highlands and I don't think it was that rough to navigate. But admittedly, a lot of crater rims around will make long-distance travel more difficult. It may be that with high-quality imagery and radar, safe routes can be mapped out ahead of time fairly reliably.

The bigger issue is whether an adequate flattish landing site can be found.

3. At the poles, "The shadows will be extremely long and dark and the shadow pattern will be constantly changing, making visual cues as to one’s whereabouts or heading all but meaningless."

My comment: "Constantly changing" over a 28-day period, of course. One can't get lost returning from a traverse because the soft regolith is easily imprinted by tires and boots. But I can imagine that a lot of inky black shadows and low sun--often in one's eyes--will complicate surface travel. But that seriously?

4. ""Eternal sunlight" is available not at one precise point, but at a string or chain of spots around a high point rim or massif at either pole. If that is the case, it may take a significantly greater mass of equipment shipped to the Moon's pole (either) in order to set up a power system that will have solar input most (but still not 100%) of the time, than it would be to set up a system elsewhere that would store up excess dayspan solar input for nightspan draw."

My comment: It's hard to say how difficult this issue is. PROBABLY one can find a peak where sunlight is available 95% of the time within the span of a few hundred meters. Let us say we need 100 kilowatts continuous of power; with 20% efficient panels and two sets each getting sunlight 47.5% of the time, that's 1,000 square meters of panels, massing about 3 or 4 tonnes. At the lunar equator you'd need both sets of panels exposed all the time as well--3 or 4 tonnes again--because you'd need to capture 200 kilowatts of power during the dayspan to store half for the nightspan (and that's assuming 100% conversion of power to hydrogen-oxygen and back to electricity in fuel cells, which will not be the case). To produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity one needs about a third of a kilogram of hydrogen and oxygen, so storing 100 kilowatts for 14 days (14 x 24 = 336 hours) requires about 11 tonnes of hydrogen and oxygen (336 hours times 33 kg/hr), plus tanks. One certainly won't need that much storage at the poles!

"Laying out the extended solar power array system in mountain terrain, involves high risk to personnel and equipment."

My comment: Have you seen lunar mountains? They are fairly gentle and smooth. This strikes me as an exaggeration.

5. The poles have much more gentle temperature swings because the sun is so low. This is an advantage of the poles that the author discounts. His argument: we need to go to the equator eventually, so let's build equipment able to hand equatorial temperature swings. If we go to the pole we'll never leave the pole because we don't want to spend the extra money to design equipment able to handle equatorial conditions.

My comment: Oh, please!

6. The author also discounts the value of lunar ice; he doesn't argue it isn't there, just that it isn't really that important, and that industrial processes will use a lot of regolith and will extract hydrogen from it anyway.

My conclusion: He has some useful points, but he is arguing from a partisan position. Why can't we industrialize from the poles? He says it means we'll have to import many more tonnes of materials than at the equator. I say, by the time we want a big lunar industrial facility we'll either clear a road to the nearest "coast" and build a facility there or we'll fly in stuff from the maria using polar water as propellant.

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-12 04:59:49

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#2 2005-05-12 05:29:30

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#3 2005-05-12 08:03:06

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#4 2005-05-12 08:36:06

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#5 2005-05-12 08:47:49

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#6 2005-05-12 08:58:36

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#7 2005-05-12 09:00:10

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#8 2005-05-13 01:38:43

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#9 2005-05-13 06:08:11

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#10 2005-05-13 06:54:35

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#11 2005-05-13 07:53:53

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#12 2005-05-13 19:07:07

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#13 2005-05-13 19:24:17

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#14 2005-05-13 19:30:35

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#15 2005-05-13 19:53:40

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#16 2005-05-13 20:35:56

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#17 2005-05-13 21:34:36

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#18 2005-05-14 04:46:37

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#19 2005-05-14 09:20:11

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#20 2005-05-15 03:32:49

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#21 2005-05-16 00:44:13

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#22 2005-05-16 10:27:49

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#23 2005-05-17 08:29:27

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#24 2005-05-17 09:43:49

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

#25 2005-05-17 21:33:13

Re: A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money

Board footer