A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

First Viable Business on Luna



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st 17, 10:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Allen Meece
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default First Viable Business on Luna

A Public remotely operated lunarover would make a lotttt of money and be cheap to start. There are teleoperated webcams on earth so it's not rocket science.
Imagine moving a rover on luna from your home computer. Wouldn't you pay at least 20 bucks a minute for that thrill?
Are you listning Elon? Let's invent a Lunar presence NOWWWW
  #2  
Old March 21st 17, 10:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default First Viable Business on Luna

Allen Meece wrote:

A Public remotely operated lunarover would make a lotttt of money and be cheap to start.


How's that work again?


There are teleoperated webcams on earth so it's not rocket science.


Actually it is 'rocket science'. That whole 'remote vehicle on the
Moon' thing, you know.

Imagine moving a rover on luna from your home computer. Wouldn't you pay at least 20 bucks a minute for that thrill?


No. Why would I and how are you going to recover development and
boost costs? What happens when some ****** wrecks it trying to jump a
crater?

Do the math. Suppose you could book this thing solid for a year.
You'd get back half a million dollars, which won't even cover the
operating costs.

Are you listning Elon? Let's invent a Lunar presence NOWWWW


Wow, another guy who thinks he's smarter than Elon Musk...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #3  
Old March 21st 17, 11:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default First Viable Business on Luna

JF Mezei wrote:
Seriously, would landing a rover on the moon be easier/harder than
landing it on Mars? (no atmosphere at all vs enough to use
parachutes).


Would sending it to the moon require must less fuel than Mars or not
that much different ?


Given the OP's stated business proposition - charging people to drive
a rover around - difficulty of landing and or quantity of fuel to
arrive don't strike me as the biggest decision points between Moon or
Mars. Speed-of-light delays and so "interactivity" strike me as
greater issues in that the round-trip time for signals to/from the
Moon versus Mars would seem to very strongly favor the Moon.
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/commdly.htm - note those are
one-way.

I don't see the fun of driving a rover on Mars lasting very long with
those sorts of delays.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
  #4  
Old March 22nd 17, 12:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default First Viable Business on Luna

On Mar/21/2017 at 5:51 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Allen Meece wrote:

A Public remotely operated lunarover would make a lotttt of money and be cheap to start.


How's that work again?


There are teleoperated webcams on earth so it's not rocket science.


Actually it is 'rocket science'. That whole 'remote vehicle on the
Moon' thing, you know.

Imagine moving a rover on luna from your home computer. Wouldn't you pay at least 20 bucks a minute for that thrill?


No. Why would I and how are you going to recover development and
boost costs? What happens when some ****** wrecks it trying to jump a
crater?

Do the math. Suppose you could book this thing solid for a year.
You'd get back half a million dollars, which won't even cover the
operating costs.


I mostly agree with you on this. But I think you forgot the 20$/minutes
part here. A year is about half a million minutes. Booked solid for a
year gives a little over 10 M$.


Alain Fournier

  #5  
Old March 22nd 17, 05:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default First Viable Business on Luna

JF Mezei wrote:

snip idiocy


Seriously, would landing a rover on the moon be easier/harder than
landing it on Mars? (no atmosphere at all vs enough to use parachutes).


Easier, but the issue is gravity rather than atmosphere. Mars doesn't
have enough atmosphere for parachutes to be real useful for any
sizable object, either, but the gravity is enough higher than the
Moons that powered landings are more difficult.


Would sending it to the moon require must less fuel than Mars or not
that much different ?


The Moon obviously requires less fuel, what with the whole 'Moon
orbits the Earth' thing.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #6  
Old March 22nd 17, 06:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default First Viable Business on Luna

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Mar/21/2017 at 5:51 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Allen Meece wrote:

A Public remotely operated lunarover would make a lotttt of money and be cheap to start.


How's that work again?


There are teleoperated webcams on earth so it's not rocket science.


Actually it is 'rocket science'. That whole 'remote vehicle on the
Moon' thing, you know.

Imagine moving a rover on luna from your home computer. Wouldn't you pay at least 20 bucks a minute for that thrill?


No. Why would I and how are you going to recover development and
boost costs? What happens when some ****** wrecks it trying to jump a
crater?

Do the math. Suppose you could book this thing solid for a year.
You'd get back half a million dollars, which won't even cover the
operating costs.


I mostly agree with you on this. But I think you forgot the 20$/minutes
part here. A year is about half a million minutes. Booked solid for a
year gives a little over 10 M$.


Arithmetic in public. Still not enough to recover operating costs.


--
"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood. I ain't naming names.
She really worked me over good. She was just like Jesse James.
She really worked me over good. She was a credit to her gender.
She put me through some changes, Lord.
Sort of like a Waring blender."
-- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One more reason why spaceflight without Orion technology is not viable RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 6 May 6th 15 11:19 AM
Scientists grow viable vaginas in lab ... Hägar Misc 6 April 14th 14 03:18 PM
A viable option to quantizing gravity? kurtan Research 0 January 24th 05 11:14 AM
Lowest altitude viable Mars orbit Explorer8939 Technology 14 March 12th 04 03:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.