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!
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!
[enters as James Earl Jones]... In space nobody can hear you cut it...
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.
...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?
If all they're looking to do is increase traction, there are much saner ways than pouring glue on their boots, (which would also cost you extra effort with every footstep.) Non-skid surfaces, for a start. I suppose they could bring a pot of glue with them and spread locally-mined crystalline silica if they wanted to save ferrying a pound or two of sand from earth.
What would be better is to find ways to use the advantage of the reduced gravity without worrying about the traction. Depending on the problem, solutions like "cable cars" or "conveyor belts" don't have to rely on motor-to-ground friction at all.
Finally, look back to the U.S. moon landings in the 1970s. Dust got everywhere. It was a huge problem. Do you honestly think "sticky" surfaces would last more than an hour before being rendered useless by the layer of dust?
Sticky is a non-starter.
John
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, minor miners are a minority in mines.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
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 : )
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)
\
You loonies have no clue what gravity does to a human body on earth and what's going on if this becomes less!
There is permanent challenge to the tonic muscle system to stay balanced and not fall over. If that challenge gets less, muscle- and bone structure atrophies i. e. disappears.
The changes happen very fast. If you lay horizontally in bed for one week, you loose muscles and noticeably weaker. It builds up right away on earth, but not so if the gravity is missing or less.
Astronauts in the space station have to excercise hard every day for 2 1/2 hours and still loose significant muscle- and bone mass in calves and lower back.
Guess why they are carried around in stretchers once they come back? It's not the stress of the return flight. They lost too much substance to be able to sustain their structure in gravity.
That's a major issue in space and obstacle for humans but never a popular topic.
Sticky floor - pffff!
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.
I have always wondered if it would be feasible to simulate Earth's gravity with a kind of large merry-go-round. Put apartments at the end of rotating arms, on hinges, and then spin it fast enough to make the vector sum of the moon's gravity and the centrifugal force in your rotating frame equal to 9.81 N/kg. The hinges at the top of the apartments would make the apartment always line up with the "gravity". You could spend all your non-working hours in a human-friendly force field. I wonder if the large (compared to Earth) delta between the force at your head and the force at your feet would cause an unsafe stretching of your spine.
Nice f'ing ad hominem attack there. Did I say anywhere it was the humans having to put the energy into this work equation? Did you actually read the very next line where I mentioned idler wheels? (FYI, statistically very few people that are born with idler wheels are accepted into the astronaut program.)
The only thing I wrote that said anything about human effort was the difficulty it would add to walking. Otherwise, I was referring mostly to machinery and energy, which, coincidentally enough, is the topic of TFA about mining. The "sticky" looks like it was simply a bad idea pasted on by the submitter of the article.
Yes, the ISS denizens are denied the health benefits of gravity. Yes, the residents will have to work hard to maintain some semblance of muscle mass, and even then they're almost certain to be wheelchair bound upon their return to earth several years later. (A mars trip would end in a year-long zero-G voyage, just what they wouldn't need after their extended 1/3 G stay on the surface.) They may even end up in something like an iron lung for a while, if the air pressure isn't kept high enough to keep their diaphragm working against earth-weight air pressure. But frankly, I don't care all that much -- it's a known hazard, and anyone accepting these missions knows full well what they've got to look forward to upon their return. It's part of the sacrifice that every single one of them is volunteering to make. Sure, it'd be nice if they weren't severely weakened by the environment, but it's their choice. Not mine, and not yours.
P.S. Maybe next time you'd get a less snotty reply if you didn't open your post with an accusation. A little politeness goes a long way.
John
"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.
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.