|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 10:14 AM |
Lowest altitude viable Mars orbit | Explorer8939 | Technology | 14 | March 12th 04 02:58 PM |