I'd bet that at no time in the next 40 years will the per-kg payload cost of launching from the moon to Earth or from the moon to Mars be less than the per-kg payload cost of launching from Earth to the moon or from Earth to Mars. I'd take some similar bet that lunar metals will not be used in appreciable quantities except possibly on the moon's surface. Using them on the moon's surface is a circular justification for going to the moon's surface.
Other than science and possibly tourism, there's no reason to go to the moon for the next few decades.
Longbets.org is the place to make the bet - if anyone's interested, let me know. All the winnings go to charity.
(And I'd be willing to make the bet time period longer 40 years, but I want the chance to see the conclusion.)
Space/Science » in reply to I never considered He3 as the main reason.
I'd be willing to bet over that with real money
The whole thread (29 posts)
- So, we're going back to the moon for what-now?
- Because Politicians Are Timid and Can't Do Calculas and Economic or Engineering Calculations
- Regime change, WMDs, and to bring democracy to the oppressed Moonaqis
- I never considered He3 as the main reason.