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.
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.
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
Hmm.
I thought i was understood. The O2 went into the concrete which continues to set for a very long period of time.
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.