> we arrive at the interesting number of 8500 GW or 8.5 TW. This power must be sustained by a distributed radiofrequency system, or by an alternative acceleration mechanism. A power source at the level of 10 TW would thus appear to be required. For comparison, the total energy consumption for the entire Earth in 2019 corresponded to a source of ∼18–20 TW.

I love the audacity of this proposal.

Could this be made out of a large number of starships that land on the moon and have a magnet payload? Would require something on the order of 1000 starships 50 meters tall but only about 100 starships 100 meters tall. Perhaps an existing starship with a payload that extends a magnet another 50 meters higher after landing. Has Musk already thought about this? Correction - would require about 500 starships 100 meters tall. ChatGpt 4o mini is even worse than me at this line of sight math! Taller towers could be built to extend upwards out of a starship payload especially if guywires are used for stability. Magnets would require shielding from the Sun and reflections from the lunar surface similar to James Webb but far less demanding to achieve a temperature suitable for superconducting magnets. Obviously solar power with batteries to enable lunar nighttime operation. How many magnets are there in the LHC? How exactly circular or not does it need to be?

do we have the technology to build a meter of insulated copper wire on the moon? will we ever?

How does the moon compare to mars in this case?

The moon is easier to get to with today’s technology, but this paper is talking about the 2080s or later. And the paper assumes that our spacefaring technology has significantly advanced. So either one should be equally reachable.

Doesn’t mars have significantly better local resources? What does the moon offer that mars doesn’t offer?

There are peaks of near eternal light at the poles where a tower could collect free solar energy almost all the time.

“Very” was stripped from the title, but in this case its inclusion is justified.

Some stupid questions:

1. Are they going to build using materials from moon?

2. If they use materials from Earth, would it increase weight of moon?

3. Doesn’t that additional weight cause any problems to tides on earth?

These things are fun to fantasize about, but realistically considering the astronomical cost it would be to ship all the necessary materials to the moon and to do the construction, it's little more than just that, fantasy. Considering there are two Boeing Starliner astronauts who may be stuck on the space station for several more months, the thoughts of building such things on the moon just isn't realistic in the foreseeable future. It's going to require exponential advances in space travel before we can even begin to seriously consider such projects.

Would it not be easier to build this in the ocean?

Only 1,000 times more energetic?

So...you thought the CERN collider was expensive?

Hold my beer.

Considering the failure of particle physics to make substantive gains, even with the massive expenditures made, I cam think of a number of far more enticing uses of the funds and lunar real estate.