Slashdot Mirror
Moon Mining Gets a Closer Look
happylucky writes "There are many obstacles to creating a space colony on the moon, primarily food, water, and oxygen. Since it is so expensive to bring supplies from the earth, some scientists have suggested that we mine the moon. In an article in the Toronto Star, Dale Boucher suggests the best way to do this would be to develop a mining colony. To that end, the Sudbury-based Northern Center for Advanced Technology has linked Canada's mining industry with some of the top minds on space.Mining the moon was considered earlier this month at the Planetary and Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium which attracted some 100 delegates, including experts from the Canadian Space Agency, NASA and the European Space Agency. There are other hurdles of course that need to be figured out. The moon's gravity is one sixth that on Earth. New research, however, may lead to a solution to this problem as well. It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor."
The ONLY way that we're going into space permanently is if we forget about government taking the lead, and focus on capitalism. The moment someone figures out how to make a buck out of this, The "Belters" of Larry Niven's future history will become a reality.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
They have a space agency?
ncluding experts from the Canadian Space Agency
Since they built the CanadaArm and CanadaArm2, can we look foward to the CanadaShovel and CanadaShovel2.
Ultimately it will have to be some sort of economic incentive to push towards colonization. M.U.L.E. was a prophecy!
"It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor." If you fall over and can't hit the UV switch, and your mouth is stuck to the floor, will you suffocate?
I regret spilling a glass of ginger ale on an achritect!
I can't wait until they start mining all that green cheese. The Food Network will never be the same again once that exotic item hits the market. Hmmm... cheese...
Anyone hear anything about mining Moon Saphires? We need them as a prize for the person who solves the global warming problem.
Put management offices in the tunnels.
Anyone been watching the news recently? Congress is
on the verge of outlawing mining just to avoid the
bad press when a few minors endure the result of bad
or under funded engineering.
The solution? Put the bosses in the mines.
I wouldn't mind to seeing a bit of spin on the moon's rotation. It would increase the real estate value of the dark side of the moon.
some scientists have suggested that we mine the moon.
the best way to do this would be to develop a mining colony
It's nice to know the scientists put their degrees to good use.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?
It's a girl!
Why travel to the Americas? What could possibly be there that would be of any use? It would take weeks to get there, you'd run out of fresh water, and what sailors didn't die of scurvy would mutiny and you'd be murdered in your sleep. Don't go there, leave it to the Spaniards. We've got a war to pay for.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Something tells me it's a dumbass idea to start digging up other planets just yet.
One could only imagine the damage done to the Moon's ecosystem.
God spoke to me.
Even if we were taking perfect care of the planet, it's in the best long-term interests of our species that we become a spacefaring race. We've got some pretty solid historical evidence that Earth has suffered occasional events which wiped out all dominant life forms on the planet. It doesn't make much sense to "keep all our eggs in one basket" so-to-speak if we have the ability to protect ourselves (and whatever other species we want to preserve).
...we need to get a working biosphere on Earth. The last one ran dangerously low on O2 and that problem needs to be understood, fixed and thoroughly tested before we even think about setting up a colony on the moon.
In some ways it'd be a good test to have a biosphere at the bottom of the ocean. You'd have the same combination of a harsh external environment and pressure differential (albeit reversed) as you would in space. You could be entirely reliant on a local source of power such as a deep sea thermal vent but emergency assistance would be much easier
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
No problem, you can stay behind, I don't mind. My descendents will live among the stars and yours can have what's left down here.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?
Oh give me a fucking break.
If we die out, well, we deserve it.
Tell you what - you stay here and die out, since you believe that you deserve it. The rest of us will go figure out how to reach for the stars.
Aye, and chickens that stay in the eggshell end up as omelettes. Amnniosis is only healthy when it's temporary. Only albumen idiot would think the earth is more than a temporary home for us.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Destroy what, exactly? The habitats of the incredibly cute native lunar fawns?
What can we possibly do to the Moon to make it worse than it already is?
Worst case scenario is "it doesn't look the same". Thinking that changing the appearance of things is some kind of crime is just arrogance, though; well obscured and wrapped in feel-good holiness, but it just boils down to I don't want it to change, so it shouldn't change.
Does the Canada Arm ring a bell?
What about the ISS Canada Arm?
Science & Technology / Private spaceflight
Rocket renaissance
May 11th 2006 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition
The era of private spaceflight is about to dawn
IMAGE (Mary Evans)
TWO years ago next month space travel underwent its Wright-brothers moment with the first flight of SpaceShipOne. The roles of Orville and Wilbur were played by Burt Rutan, who designed the craft, and Mike Melvill, who flew it—although they were ably assisted by Paul Allen, one of the founders of Microsoft, who paid for it. Of course, history never repeats itself exactly. Unlike the brothers Wright, who were heirs to a series of heroic failures when it came to powered heavier-than-air flight, Messrs Rutan and Melvill knew that manned spaceflight was possible. What they showed was that it is not just a game for governments. Private individuals can play, too.
Now, lots of people want to join in, and most of them have just met up at the International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles, to engage in that mixture of camaraderie and competition that characterises the beginnings of a new technology. And, as might be expected, they are brimming with two of the necessary ingredients of success: ideas and money.
First, the money. So far, more than $1 billion is known to have been committed to building private spaceships and the infrastructure to support them. For example, Mr Rutan’s follow-up vehicle, SpaceShipTwo, is expected to cost its backers, Virgin Galactic, $240m for a fleet of five. The spaceport in New Mexico from which these are intended to fly will account for another $225m, although New Mexico’s government is planning to raise this money itself.
These are not small sums, of course. On the other hand, Virgin Galactic has already banked $14m of deposits towards the $200,000 fare from people who want to travel on SpaceShipTwo, even though it has yet to be built, let alone flown.
All this suggests that spaceflight, if not exactly entering the age of the common man, is at least entering the age of the moderately prosperous enthusiast. For entrepreneurs, it is no longer necessary to have billions of dollars to get into space; millions will now do. And for those who merely wish to travel there, and have a few hundred thousand in the bank, reality beckons—provided that at least one of the ideas actually works.
Chocks away
As with aircraft a century ago, a plethora of designs are competing with each other, and there is no certainty about which will prevail. The initial goal is to build a “suborbital” vehicle. This will not have to develop the tremendous speed needed to go into orbit around the Earth. Instead, it will travel briefly into space, offering a short thrilling ride out of the atmosphere, a few minutes of weightlessness, and a spectacular view of the planet from about 100km. Four important criteria are how you take off, what fuel you use, what your craft is made of, and how you come back.
Most people’s vision of a rocket launch is straight up from the ground. But, of the five vehicles most likely to be developed (see table), two will actually be launched from the air. SpaceShipTwo will be carried to high altitude by a purpose-built aircraft known as Eve before its rocket motor is ignited. And Explorer, a vehicle being designed by Space Adventures, will be launched from the top of a high-altitude Russian research plane called the M-55X, according to Eric Anderson, the firm’s president and chief executive.
As Dennis Jenkins, a consultant engineer at NASA, America’s space agency, points out, this is similar to using a two-stage rocket to get into space, with the aircraft acting as the first stage. However, a plane offers several advantages over a throw-away boos
The extreme centre is the paper's historical position. --Geoffrey Crowther
and? it's a *lifeless rock*. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage, a lifeless rock that no longer has iron in it, or a lifeless rock that's just a lifeless rock?
What, it should be protected because it's there?
Earth at least has some stuff worth preserving. Which we would probably find a bit easier if it weren't the only source of resources and living space we have available to us.
I'm a green kid, and you even lost me.
"Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?"
Give me a break.
How about this instead: Rather than you traveling out and destroying other rooms/streets/cities, how about you first learning, as an individual, to preserve the room you're already in.
As a shallow humanist, I believe getting us off this planet is inherently right.
(By the way, what is a 'deep ecologist'? Do you mean 'serious environmentalist', 'Underwater ecology scientist', or what?)
Tides are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon. Gravity is directly proportional to mass. To alter the gravitational pull of the moon by one hundredth of a percent you'd have to remove a hundredth of a percent of its mass. Thats 7.36 * 10^18 kg, or 7.36 * 10^15 metric tonnes*. Thats, lets see, substantially more than a million times the combined weight of every human on the planet. The space shuttle has a payload of 22 metric tonnes (/flex). Supposing we were to send one shuttle to the moon every second, it would take more than ten million years to move that much mass.
There is no reason to mine the moon, and there are plenty of good reasons not to, but "Oh no the tides will be thrown out of whack" is not one of them.
* Incidentally: try Googling "mass of the moon". Freaky, isn't it.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Just think of the recent weight gain trends... By the time everything else is ready for the moon colony, I have a feeling that moon would become the only place where one half of our population would feel comfortable. I can already imagine "lose 5/6th of your weight in 3 hours!" commercials.
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
Conservation. There's still plenty of life here that is more worthy of being saved than we are. The deer and rabbits didn't rape this "lifeless rock" almost past use and use up all they could because they felt entitled to it, above other species, as humans have done.
It's a girl!
Coincidentally, just a few minutes ago I submitted a slashdot story about a telerobotic construction challenge which NASA is funding, which could spawn technologies which would be quite useful for a lunar mining facility. In case the submission gets rejected, here's the text of it (hopefully my posting it here doesn't somehow lead to an auto-rejection):
The non-profit Spaceward Foundation has released a rules draft for a telerobotic construction competition. Competitors will have 24 hours to use their robots to construct a water-tight pipeline at least 25m long through Mars-like terrain, with a control latency of 20 minutes. The foundation is seeking feedback on the rules draft until July 15, as well as ideas for contest names and logos. NASA will provide $250K in prize money to competition winners, as part of their Centennial Challenges program for space technology competitions.
Environmentalism on the moon? You're kidding, right? I believe in reducing the amount of mining we do here on Earth. It is horrible for our environment, mainly because of the effect it has on living things. There is no life on the moon, and no atmosphere, so mining on the moon would actually be better for our environment (less mining on Earth), but only if better transportation was developed (imagine the impact of releasing all that exhaust, albeit from hydrogen fuel, from so many spaceflights). As an example, consider the current method for mining gold. We have essentially mined most of the gold ore out of the ground, so the new method is to get it right out of the sand. You make a HUGE pile of dirt/granite/sand, pour HUGE amounts of cyanide and other healthy stuff over it, and out comes a bit of gold. The byproducts are depleted...dirt...and lots of whatever you poured over the pile, all of which kinda seeps into rivers and streams and such. Now imagine that instead of doing this on the Earth, we do it on the moon, where rivers don't exist and there is no ecosystem to damage. The challenge would really be getting so much cyanide/other stuff up there, but once there you could apply the same technique to moon dust, since it is basically the same stuff we are mining gold out of now. Sadly, this will not be economically advantageous for a long, long time -- basically, until mining gold out of dirt becomes so expensive here on Earth (you can only mine so much without running out) that the moon becomes a cheaper option. Incidentally, there is not a lot of gold available on the moon, this was just a possible example of what could happen. If other metals could be mined out of the moon, the moon could become a pretty good launching platform for other missions, since the spacecraft could be assembled on the moon and less fuel would be required.
Palm trees and 8
That's *here*. Yes, I'm with you "here*. You're going out on a limb as to how horrible it would be for us to plunder the moon or other lifeless rocks out there though.
Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake. It's a virtue when you are *saving something*. I don't put much of a value on rock. Frankly I think we can put the materials in asteroids and the moon to better use than they do currently.
And actually, animals do ravage their own ecosystems regularly.. they don't understand convservation or carrying capacities any better than we do. The deer populations up here in maine breed themselves into starvation on a regular basis, even in massively undeveloped woodlands. It takes a growth in predator populations to take them back down, or simple overpopulation.
We have lessons to learn. Doesn't mean we should just sit around either. Obviously you agree, sitting there on your mass fabricated computer filled with toxic substances, using your fossil fuel power and buying at least a few products that support the rape of our planet. So how about dropping the high horse routine?
I suggest looking into practical sustainability instead of radical ideology.
I know there's a bunch of space enthusiasts on /. but hear the guy out. He's correct: the moon does not mass enough to hold more than a trivial atmosphere, so for our entire stay there we'll be one meteor impact away from catastrophe. Our current cost of flying stuff just to orbit is over $7k a pound, and even decreasing that by a factor of a thousand you'll never get commercial mining of the moon because its just the same old rock that we can dig up terrestrially for far, far cheaper and at less risk. One shuttle flight, with a payload of 22 metric tonnes, costs in excess of $900 million (operational expenditure + cost of shuttle program divided by number of flights). Thats, somebody check my math, $40,000 a kilogram just in transportation costs. Can anyone name *any* economic activity on the moon which would be viable at $40,000 per kilogram of product transmitted back to earth? Even if the moon were pure, solid gold you can't turn a profit mining at that cost. And even if you improve the efficiency ("Space elevator! Space elevator!" yeah I know, I've heard the sales pitch before) you come back to the original problem -- its just a really big rock after all.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Hmm. The moon has... a really good vacuum, lots of rocks, and lots of sunlight. And not a lot else. If you tell me how we're in danger of completely destroying or even significantly damaging any of those, I'll be right in line with you. But there aren't any spotted owls, cuddly koalas, or majestic eagles to protect. I'm not convinced I should care about a few of the many rocks out there, except to notice which ones are more interesting to strip mine.
The day all our problems end is the same day we go extinct. And in any case, since when were unsolved problems a barrier to a parallel approach? Should kids live at home and not move out until they have settled every major and minor conflict they had with their parents over the course of their about 20 years? Maybe moving out can be the solution?
Problem solving is really just a question of setting priorities. If someone solved global hunger and thirst, poverty, the fossil fuel dilemma, overpopulation, global warming, and whatnot by tomorrow, then the day after the obligatory binge we could (and would) instantly come up with the next dozen problems on the list that supposedly should keep us shackled to Earth. Then another dozen and then some more. Has it ever occurred to you that space exploration and the required technological/economical/political progress might be a big part of the solution to problems on our homeworld? If nothing else, colonizing space should give everyone a fresh perspective (figuratively) on Earth and its problems.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Um...two words....Jobs program.....two more words.....Texas and Florida... ...which happen to be the political power base of George and Jeb and winning votes in Florida was pretty important in 2000 and 2004. You could tack on Utah(SRB's and Orrin Hatch) and Mississippi (External Tank and Trent Lott) etc.
In case you hadn't noticed NASA's manned spaced program stopped being about space a long time ago. Whenever Congress debates NASA funding the #1 issue is what the impact will be on jobs in the districts and states of various politicians. When CRV and the return to the Moon ramp up the only priority for Congress is to insure all the current ISS and Shuttle jobs are preserved. The new NASA administrator would actually like a much cheaper, leaner and meaner manned space program than Shuttle and ISS. But if he cuts any of the pork Congress will slap him silly so he wont. Therefor return to the Moon will be staggeringly expensive, take forever, and fall way short of its goals just like 2 projects we know and love.
@de_machina
What is the point of having a permenant manned colony on the moon? We'll never terraform it. It will never be self-sufficient. The cost will never justify the science we could get out of it.
Seen the future have you? It's hard to say what would happen if Moon bases were built. I'm sure no one fore saw the "New World" becoming what it is today.
The lunar dust is as dangerous as the worst lung hazardous mining dust on Earth, and apparently it gets everywhere. There will never be an atmosphere to shield from cosmic rays.
Well due to the lack of oxygen, it's required that anyone who goes to the Moon wears a helmet. The same would go for the possible future miners. So dust inhalation is not really a concern. And their are materials that can help shield against cosmic rays. Building the base under the surface would probably help too.
Moron or troll? You decide.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I bet you can find one if you look hard enough.
No, it wouldn't have tipped in the direction it has. It also wouldn't be sunshine and roses for all the little bunnies out there all the time either. We're not the only force of nature out there that doesn't give a shit about them. We're one of many. We are just the only one that could possibly CHOOSE to give a shit. But how far do you want to take it? If you want a place to live, something else might have to move for you. Is that ok? If you want food, something has to die. That's ok, right? So that stuff is ok, but wanting to get out onto other planets, which ultimately IS necessary for our survival.. why is that NOT ok?
We need to look at this stuff rationally to arrive at a solution to a practical problem. Condemning us all to death because we have not yet reached enlightenment, especially when you yourself are seduced by the things society offers you when you KNOW the price it extolls, is a bit elitist, rude, hypocritical, short sighted and boorish, frankly. And not particularly helpful either.
I stuggle with this every day myself. But the technology and methods we use today are the only tools we have to take it to the next level, and that includes our cognititive and social developement. You're in a hurry.. that's great, push, that's necessary.. but you might want to consider your methods, cause these aren't particular effective. A reasoned response might hold some more weight than rambling about bunny rabbits and claiming we all deserve to die.
Just a thought.. probably sounds worse than I intend it. Hopefully you don't take it that way.
That is why grandparent used the term deep ecology. In environmental philosophy and environmental science, deep ecologists believe that natural processes have inherent value. That is, if there were no humans on the earth, spotted owls, cuddly koalas, and majestic eagles would still have "value" and a right to exist, etc. The fact that you even use the terms "cuddly" and "majestic" suggest an anthropocentric view, i.e. that the environment is worth protecting only because of its use to humans as a resource, for enjoyment, etc.
Your weight on the moon is approximately 1/6th of your weight on earth.
So a 200 lb man weighs roughly 33 lbs on the moon.
So while it may seem necessary to use a sticky material to adhere one's boots
to the floor -- its probably easier to carry 1000 lbs (Earthweight) of weights
which would add an additional 166 lbs of Moonweight, making a 200lb earth person
weigh 200 lbs on the moon.
The sticky stuff isn't requred. Just some evenly distributed body weights would
do the trick. Although... no defense contractor gets rich with the simple
solution.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The environmental impact of space mining on the Earth might be something interesting to ponder though. What would be the effect of mass dumpings of extra-terrestrial material on the earth be, given that the rubbish left over from any products brought into the earth would not then be ejected back into space. Imagine if massive oil reserves were found on a nearby planet, would this be a good thing to bing it here and burn it in our atmosphere?
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
1. It's easier than building a true space station. It has gravity, and resources we can build upon while doing many functions of a space station, (observing, solar wind, etc)
2. Helium-3, fusion catalyst that's only found on earth as a by product of nuclear reactions and is about 50,000 a pound. That alone makes it worth it moneywise.
3. Possible water ice in craters, let alone if caves of some sort exist with regolith protecting ice in other locations.
4. Abundant Solar that doesn't have the atmosphere blocking it.
5. Titanium mining, high power use aids the refining.
6. Catapult, ala Heinlein. Makes it possible not only just to throw it to orbit and allow assembly of more space infrastructure, as well as sending it back to Earth for pennies on the pound. Or sending probes to space via em only.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Why don't they use the stuff movie theatres have?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And start a total national race among other nations to try and get their and stake their claims. Then, claim Mars, and repeat. You'll never get to space if no one can own it.
This is my sig.
You can read the full United Nations General Assembly Resolution at United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)
\
The problem with this is the Moon is predominantly very light material. Things such as silicates, aluminium, etc. In other words, things we have an abundance here on earth. I can't see how this is worth the enormous energy cost of such an endeavouT
The moon is not consisted of titanium and U-235.
2. Helium-3, fusion catalyst that's only found on earth as a by product of nuclear reactions and is about 50,000 a pound. That alone makes it worth it moneywise.
In his book "Moonrush," Dennis Wingo argues that besides Helium-3, platinum-group metals would also be a critical resource. From a review:
In the first part of Moonrush, Wingo makes the case for how lunar resources are critical for meeting the increasing energy demands of terrestrial civilization. Most people are aware of the fact that the quantity of fossil fuels, notably petroleum, is finite, and will run out sooner or later. Wingo discusses this in detail in the book, noting that even the most optimistic assessments of petroleum reserves--ones that make assumptions unlikely to be borne out in practice--would be insufficient to get the world through the 21st century. One alternative to gasoline-burning engines currently under active development is the hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Even these, though, have a resources problem that Wingo describes in the book: they rely on expensive, scarce platinum-group metals (PGMs). If the world tries to make the transition from gasoline engines to fuel cells, it could exhaust the supply of PGM elements on the Earth.
Of course, there is no shortage of such metals in space, particularly in asteroids. The Moon, on the other hand, would seem to be an unlikely place to find PGMs: the collisional process that formed from the Moon left it mostly devoid of heavy metals. However, Wingo makes an ingenious case for finding PGMs on or near the lunar surface, in the form of debris from asteroid impacts. While conventional wisdom has argued that impacts of large asteroids would vaporize most of the impactor, modern computer modeling has shown that a significant fraction of an asteroid impacting the Earth would survive in some form. In fact, some major sources of PGMs on Earth, such as Sudbury in Canada and sites in South Africa, have been linked to asteroid impacts. The Moon's lower gravity would mean slower impacts, making it more likely that significant portions of asteroids could survive. PGMs mined from those impacts could meet the fuel-cell needs of the Earth for centuries; the mining process would, in turn, also generate other metals like iron and nickel that could be used for settlements on the Moon and beyond.
...and yours can have what's left down here.
Unless we get bored and decide to start shelling them with rocks from orbit.
I can see it now:
Mike: "Man, I think we should stop hitting Cheyenne Mountain."
Mannie: "Why?"
Mike: "It's not there any more."
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot eternally live in a cradle."
- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky
The purpose of life is to spread.
If you think we should stay on this rock until a meteor wipes us out, you are complicit in a crime worse than genocide: the extermination of life as we know it in the universe.
As the only life forms with the ability to travel to other planets, it is our responsibility to bring life to other planets! This is far more important than trying to maintain some "balance" of nature. There never has been and never will be such a balance, anyway.
Space travel is the most important persuit in the history of Earth. Without it, there will eventually be no life.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I am the last person to disagree with (sane) environmentalists on just about anything, but this is absurd.
A) There is no biosphere on the Moon to disturb, silly.
B) Suppose that to learn how to take care of the Earth properly, we first need to explore and understand how processes on other planets work? Suppose that a source of virtually unlimited offplanet resources (like the Moon and asteroid belt) would give us the "buffer" we need to learn how to exist in a state of environmental peace with this planet?
+++ATH0
Yeah.. because meteor impacts ONLY hit the moon.. there are NEVER meteors to worry about around the ISS or the space shuttle.
Also, the article said nothing of making a profit, nothing about mining gold and nothing about bringing stuff back to earth.
They just want cheaper access to water, air, and fuel so that having a moon base is cheaper and can perhaps provide us with experience before going on to mars some day.
I really don't understand the use of an American colony. I'm all for Asia, Africa and the Indies, but America? What's there that's useful? I can see it as a shorter route to the Indies, but it's not very close to Europe and I don't think we want to do Africa quite yet. It's also a heck of a lot less hospitable than Asia, and takes more time to get to (assuming in situ ship building in Gibraltar). As far as I can tell, the only useful things in America is tobacco, safe haven for religous zealots, lots of sunlight, and a nice spot for singles(ie dark-skinned natives). Oh, and many (but not all) of the raw materials for things like timber and furs. And some oil, but no one really knows if that's useful or not.
Anyone care to fill me in? I know it's wicked cool and all, but lets do Asia!
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Great, all the First World nations getting even richer by dividing other planets between themselves. Just what we need to further improve the standard of living of your average U.S. citizen.
Last I heard most of the moon was mainly made up of silica. It's not like earth where there are vast deposits of a wide variety of reasonably pure materials. There is oxygen trapped there, (silica oxide iirc?) but it's difficult to extract. We are certainly not getting food or water from the moon.
I once read a quote from a nasa engineer, saying something about a pile of dog droppings found on the moon would be the richest source of carbon for miles around. Us being carbon-based life, require carbon in pretty much all our food. There is very little hydrogen on the moon, and that nicely rules out the production of water.
For now I think the astronauts had better pack a lunch.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'll agree that if you have the normal American slackass desk-job, losing muscle mass might be a problem. But keep in mind that mining is still a very physical job, and so loss of muscle mass may not be as big of a problem.
The biggest danger to humans, imo wouls be silica dust -- either clogging and destroying needed equipment or giving miners the moon equivelent of "black lung". I'm not sure how mines on earth solved this, but it seems to me that the troublem would be harder to control in 1/6th earth gravity.
But it happens _all the time_. It is estimated that the earth has an influx of meteorites and extraterrestrial dust in the order of millions of tons per year.
So I doubt it would change anything.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
The space shuttle is only an EXAMPLE. Obviously it's not capable of performing the mission discussed here, but you can use it to get an idea of what it would cost to transport stuff to and from space. To do mining, you'd have to design an entirely new space transport system. You think that'd be cheap?
The point was that ANYTHING you mine on the moon would to humongously expensive to transport back to earth. Your choices are a) send back raw material for processing on earth or b) build processing facilities in space/on the moon. Either would be tremendously expensive - even if you were to build in place, there'd be expenses involved in sending up the capital equipment you'd require. Presumably you'd need workers, who'd want really, really big compensation in return for the high level of risk, spartan conditions, and rarity of home visits. The workers would require life support. So you'd have to bring water, etc, or mine THAT in place and do hydroponics. Think about what it would take to build a manufacturing plant in the middle of the Sahara desert. Then imagine having to lift everything needed to do this straight up for 250K miles.
But it's the only system we actually HAVE. See above for costs to design/build a "more efficient" system.
Exactly right. But if you want your returning materials to actually SURVIVE the return trip without burning up or getting smashed to pieces, gravity won't do the job. You'll need a re-entering spacecraft.
So all we'd need to do is bring/make railguns and massive solar arrays on the lunar surface. See above for the enormous cost of doing this. Not economically feasible even for titanium.
You obviously have a different definition of "need" than I do. We might "want" to do these things, but how do you figure we need to? Who would want to pay the gigantic costs for this stuff? The fact is, the only reason we would "need" any of this is to support the aforementioned space activities! Your reasoning is circular.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I'm definitely down with the idea that space exploration is valuable enough to do just for the scientific benefits. Maybe in the process we'll figure out enough about how to do it that economic activity becomes viable (I'm not holding my breath). But I'm not in favor of spending truly ludicrous amounts of money on space-based manufacturing just for the sake of space-based manufacturing.
Sean
I guess that depends on "market forces", eh? Of more value to whom?
Should we carry that through and never do anything anywhere because someone might want to look at it someday?