NASA Strikes Gold and Water On the Moon

tcd004 writes "The PBS NewsHour reports: there is water on the moon — along with a long list of other compounds, including mercury, gold and silver. That's according to a more detailed analysis of the cold lunar soil near the moon's South Pole. The results were released as six papers by a large team of scientists in the journal, Science Thursday. [Note: Nature's papers are behind a paywall; for a few more details, reader coondoggie points out a a story at Network World.] The data comes from the October 2009 mission, when NASA slammed a booster rocket traveling nearly 6,000 miles per hour into the moon and blasted out a hole. Trailing close behind it was a second spacecraft, rigged with a spectrometer to study the lunar plume released by the blast. The mission is called LCROSS, for Lunar Crater Observer and Sensing Satellite."

Comments

Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

Twas a Miner 2049'er, and his daughter, Clementine!

She tripped and fell out an airlock.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[iluvcapra]

If gold ever becomes so expensive that mining it from the moon becomes economical, I might take that as a gold sell signal :)

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[PopeRatzo]

If gold ever becomes so expensive that mining it from the moon becomes economical

I just find it amusing that humans gazing up at the moon think, "Gee, I bet there's some shit up there I could strip mine and sell".

If there are advanced races in the universe, it would be completely understandable if they decided to just go ahead and destroy Earth.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Bartab]

Cuz there's all sorts of reasons to -not- strip mine a moon with no atmosphere.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[lgw]

Pave the Earth. Chrome the Moon. Be a man - with finally a place to park.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[PopeRatzo]

Cuz there's all sorts of reasons to -not- strip mine a moon with no atmosphere.

Of course you're right. After all creation is ours for the taking. It says so right in the Bible.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[PopeRatzo]

And I bet Goldline will sell you options on that gold right now if you call the number on the bottom of the screen.

Of all the things you would think of to mine from the moon, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that gold is at the top of the list because we sure don't have enough gold down here. I mean how are we gonna make diamond encrusted grilles for all the new rappers and baubles for future generations of Kardashian sisters? And the Moon is just a useless hunk of rock sitting up in space, right?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No. That's stupid. Strip mining the moon in a way that were somehow economical would be useful in that it would improve the lives of people down here on planet earth, many of whom are dirt poor.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Bartab]

Your nihilistic noise is pathetic. It's ours for the taking because we're here. There isn't any reason needed.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Bartab]

Actually what's top of the list is the water. Just because you're fixating on the gold doesn't mean that everybody is.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[lxs]

Actually it's mine. Now get your filthy mitts off of my space rock.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

if they decided to just go ahead and destroy Earth.

That would, of course, be accomplished with deep thoughts alone and involve no 'strip mined' baryonic matter. Otherwise your ugly little self-loathing fantasy would lose all its brilliant moral consequence!

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Darfeld]

It's not yours! It's mine! I find the Certificate of Ownership in a box of cereal last week!

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[ultranova]

Cuz there's all sorts of reasons to -not- strip mine a moon with no atmosphere.

Of course you're right. After all creation is ours for the taking. It says so right in the Bible.

Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim. Strip mining it hurts nobody since it's a dead rock, and has the potential to help people, so it should be done.

Now, do you or do you not have a reason why Moon shouldn't be strip mined? Or was your appeal to ridicule meant to hide the idiocy of your knee-jerk reaction to the thought of humans doing anything at all? Are you perhaps one of those "greens" who oppose everything?

More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll throw off the balance of gravity and fling the moon out of orbit.

We should replace all the mass we remove. So... lets turn it into a garbage dump as we mine.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[CFBMoo1]

And yet with all that there still won't be enough spaces for student parking on college campuses.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

Because fucking with the mass of a satellite whose gravitational force impacts on our tides and other factors doesn't seem like it would be a good idea?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[PopeRatzo]

Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim.

By "ours" do you mean "The United States'"?

By "ours" do you mean "NASA's"?

Or do you mean "Haliburton and Exxon's"?

Who gets the money from the gold?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[PopeRatzo]

Strip mining the moon in a way that were somehow economical would be useful in that it would improve the lives of people down here on planet earth,

Who wants to bet that it will end up "improving the lives" of less than 1% of the "people down here on planet earth"?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the name Beelzebub has this comment made +5 Insightful? It's just as asinine as the parent, and far more pointless as it has pretty much bugger all to do with the thread. Pah...

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Toze]

Does anyone have a solution?

Well, bombing things from orbit seems to work for NASA.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[khallow]

If there are advanced races in the universe, it would be completely understandable if they decided to just go ahead and destroy Earth.

Doesn't sound even remotely "advanced", instead it sounds very "caveman in space". Ug! Earthlings make cool things out of Moon. We must nuke tribe for being different! Ug!

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[khallow]

More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?

Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Don't sweat it, just make sure the idiot doesn't speak for you.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[khallow]

Of course you're right. After all creation is ours for the taking. It says so right in the Bible.

Well, there you go. A reason even you can get behind. Now STFU. Unless, of course, you should sudden grow a brain and have something relevant to say.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[HeckRuler]

No, the scale makes that moot. Plus the moon isn't that perfectly balanced to start with. It's creeping away from the Earth at about 4cm/year. So sayeth a random internet page. But any mass that we would move would be a drop in the ocean. So it's really not a worry.

Unless this is some form of sarcastic hippy humor about humanity trashing the environment like poperatzo was implying. I'm all for the EPA and taking care of the Earth's ecosystem, but the moon has no ecosystem to take care of. So I'm really not getting this line of reasoning.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[HeckRuler]

I'm pretty sure he means "humanity" in general.
I believe the gold on the moon is on a first come first serve basis.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[musicalmicah]

Gaian Manifest Destiny: life is awesome, we're a part of it, and we all want it to survive, therefore let us spread it throughout the galaxy, because so far, we haven't found anyone else using it.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Smidge204]

To be fair, it IS the only way to be sure...

=Smidge=

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[mcgrew]

The moon's already being "flung" out of orbit and has been since it formed, and the Earth's rotation has been slowing as well; when the moon was young, a day was three hours long and the moon was HUGE in the sky.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Phoghat]

In other news, Levi Strauss announces a spacesuit made of denim for miners on the Moon. More at 11

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

There are morons everywhere -- advocating every viewpoint for the wrong reasons. Do what you think is right.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Cyrano de Maniac]

Heresy! There's no way I'm parking my Hypercar, ever -- I won't even permit it to slow down. Next thing we know you'll be encouraging consumption of non-cheeseburger foods.

To the Slave Pits with you!

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[VisceralLogic]

It'll throw off the balance of gravity and fling the moon out of orbit.

We should replace all the mass we remove. So... lets turn it into a garbage dump as we mine.

Interestingly, the mass of an orbiting object does not affect its orbit, it only depends on the mass of the body it is orbiting. However, moving a significant amount of mass from the moon to the Earth would make the Earth heavier, and the moon would then be in a decaying orbit because its energy would be too low.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[mounthood]

Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim.

I just have to point out that you've made exactly the same argument that was made when the Europe expanded to the Americas. Who's to say what crazy environmental morality we'll have 500 years from now; kids may be taught about the "destruction of the moon."

More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?

Stop accepting (and regurgitating) the binary duality of politics that the mass media promotes?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[lgw]

Last time I was sober, man I felt bad
Worst hangover that I ever had
It took six hamburgers and scotch all night
Nicotine for breakfast just to put me right
'cos if you wanna run cool
If you wanna run cool
If you wanna run cool
You got to run
On heavy, heavy fuel

- Knopfler

Words to live by.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Abcd1234]

You have *got* to be kidding. Whoever modded you "Interesting" needs a slap upside the head. The idea that we could substantially change the mass of the moon by mining it is so ridiculous it makes me think you must be joking.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have to point out that you've made exactly the same argument that was made when the Europe expanded to the Americas.

I just have to point out that there aren't any human beings already living on the moon. And that you're a fucking moron.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[WildBlueYonder]

I just find it amusing that humans gazing up at the moon think, "Gee, I bet there's some shit up there I could strip mine and sell".

If there are advanced races in the universe, it would be completely understandable if they decided to just go ahead and destroy Earth.

Are those advanced races going to destroy Earth because they are repulsed by our obsession with material goods? Or are they going to destroy Earth because there is some shit here that they can strip mine and sell?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Hognoxious]

Interestingly, the mass of an orbiting object does not affect its orbit, it only depends on the mass of the body it is orbiting.

My understanding is that's only true where the satellite has a very low mass compared to the main body, such that you can ignore the pull in the opposite direction.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[VisceralLogic]

Interestingly, the mass of an orbiting object does not affect its orbit, it only depends on the mass of the body it is orbiting.

My understanding is that's only true where the satellite has a very low mass compared to the main body, such that you can ignore the pull in the opposite direction.

True, in a two-body system they both orbit about the center of mass, which for the Earth/moon system, is approximately 3/4 of the Earth's radius from its center, or about 1/80 of the distance from the Earth to the moon.

So moving mass from the moon to the Earth would move the center of mass closer to the center of the Earth, increasing the orbital distance of the moon, but increasing the gravitational pull of the Earth simultaneously.

Now I'm trying to remember my orbital dynamics... working through the orbital velocity equations, it looks like the increase in mass of the Earth cancels out the increase in orbital radius of the moon from the center of mass, leaving it with the same orbital velocity, so it would actually remain exactly where it is relative to the center of the Earth regardless of mass transfer.

Equations: r = h^2/u (where u = greek letter mu)
h = r x v (orbital radius cross with orbital velocity)
u = G(M+m) (gravitational constant, mass of Earth, mass of moon)
r = R - Rm/(M+m) (R = distance of moon from Earth)
therefore:
r = r^2*v^2/(G(M+m))
rG(M+m) = r^2*v^2
G(M+m)/r = v^2
G(M+m)/(R-Rm/(M+m)) = v^2
G(M+m)^2/(R(M+m)-Rm) = v^2

G(M+m)^2/RM = v^2

Which assuming I've done my math correctly and interpreted the results correctly, shows that the moon would remain in orbit.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[CapOblivious2010]

Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim.

I just have to point out that you've made exactly the same argument that was made when the Europe expanded to the Americas. Who's to say what crazy environmental morality we'll have 500 years from now; kids may be taught about the "destruction of the moon."

True, that's the argument that was used. But there's a teensy weensy difference: the Europeans were WRONG and ultranova is RIGHT. Do you seriously think there are indigenous "loonies" living on the moon who would be harmed? Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you: we go up and start mining, and if any locals complain, we pay them for the damage and pack up and go home.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[aliquis]

Would it spin faster? And slow down the earth rotation less?

Spin faster = more pull outwards + more gravity from earth = balance?

Though the maths in that will read wrong if you read it as an equation instead of logic :)

Rather pull from gravity - push from increase of velocity = 0?

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

Come PaveDay (TM), you heretical moon chromers will be the first into the hydro pits! Or, possibly used as the carbon content of the steel of our hypercars.

Re:Well, that sure will change the song

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you stand on the cheeseburger question? Bacon, or no-bacon? Also, caffeinated beer? Yes or no?
As far as slowing down, there's a strong argument that it would be fun to back up over a pit slave that you've just hit and then run over them again. Not that it would be necessary of course - with the incredible weight of a hypercar, there really won't be much left after the first pass - but it's the principle of the thing. Also, let's not forget that slowing down and speeding back up again is wasteful of energy, which is a very desirable thing.

AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[unrtst]

I've heard loads of these "there is water" "there isn't water" on such and such place over the ages, and I'm starting to be a bit of a doubting Thomas. They have yet to examine any of this stuff in-hand, or even in-robot-hand. We can send multiple robots to mars... where's the one picking up the gold on the moon? What are we waiting for? Bah humbug.

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Anarki2004]

We all know that the moon is not in fact made out of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs? Would ya eat it then? I know I would. Heck, I'd have seconds, and then polish it off with a cool Budweiser.

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[AnonymousClown]

We all know that the moon is not in fact made out of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs? Would ya eat it then? I know I would. Heck, I'd have seconds, and then polish it off with a cool Budweiser.

A Bud with Moon Ribs?!? Yuk! I'd go with some Sweetwater Ale.

And Moon Cheese? That's have to be some full bodied red.

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Bartab]

No wai! Cold ribs are blech, and rewarmed arn't much better

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Bai jie]

My favorite planet is the sun. Its like the king of the planets!

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[LongearedBat]

I've heard loads of these "there is water" "there isn't water" on such and such place over the ages, and I'm starting to be a bit of a doubting

I suspect the moon has nothing at all. No water, no minerals, no elements at all. Just moondust, which of course is not made of minerals, but of moondust, or possibly cheese. ;)

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Water found on the sun!

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Anonymous Coward]

No wai! Cold ribs are blech, and rewarmed arn't much better

As for the Budweiser, there's no way you could get that stuff cold enough to taste good.

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[Killjoy_NL]

Try it at -1 K :)

Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE!

[mcgrew]

Barbecued pork ribs are actually best the next day after they've been in the fridge all night, then warmed up with a microwave. Jucier, more tender, and tastier.

I can see it now...

[Lord Jester]

Miners trapped in mine collapse on the moon...

And I thought the miners in South America had it rough waiting for rescue.

Re:I can see it now...

[amicusNYCL]

It really wouldn't matter if there were miners trapped on the moon. We would just shut them down and build a few new ones, or probably have reserves on standby. Maybe we could recover them for parts when it's convenient.

Or were you assuming humans would be doing the mining?

Re:I can see it now...

[Lord Jester]

I wouldn't put it past some of the unscrupulous companies out there to do so to avoid the purchase price of the robots.

Re:I can see it now...

[nebaz]

Yes

Re:I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think for one second about the cost of buying, transporting, and maintaining a radiation-hardened robot that can lie practically dormant at night (which lasts half a month, remember) if they run out of saved solar power.

Now think for one second about humans, who need radiation shielding, food, water, O2 (whether they're working or not), generate waste, and create political backlash at home if abandoned/neglected.

Now tell me again about "avoid the purchase price of the robots", with a straight face, OK?

Re:I can see it now...

[Lord Jester]

I didn't say it was logical. I've seen plenty of examples of both corporate and government stupidity where corners were cut at the beginning without thinking it through.

But, more than anything it was a joke. No need to get your panties in a bunch. :P

Re:I can see it now...

[Cstryon]

That is a scary thought, but intriguing to think about actually having miners on the moon. Maybe with the discovery of these metals, it might encourage the private sector to get to the moon. Heck, if I had the time and the money, I'd pay for a space station in orbit around the moon. Have it be to collect what's sent up from the surface, and ship to earth, and also receive new equipment, personal, and supplies from earth, until my surface station can be self sufficient. Then I'd start selling gold, silver, what ever has real value, use the water for my surface dwellers, and when I've gotten more money (Because I spent it all setting up my awesome space operation) I'd start developing and then selling, space tours, more stations, real-estate, ships, and get some healthy competition out in the black. Then, plan for Mars, and eventually figure out the Asteroid belt.

Re:I can see it now...

[aliquis]

Miners trapped in mine collapse on the moon...

So what? In space no-one would hear them scream.

Re:I can see it now...

[aliquis]

A lunar station. Without black-jack and hookers? Something's fishy here.

Re:I can see it now...

[Lord Jester]

The issue is, the mining of precious metals from the moon will devalue the gold.

Re:I can see it now...

[sir1real]

You think outsourcing human space mining jobs to robots is a joke? He took mah job!! Derp!

Re:I can see it now...

[Abstrackt]

I'm not so sure about that, look at De Beers and diamonds. If a company can maintain such a monopoly on earth diamonds it should be possible to make a killing on moon gold.

Re:I can see it now...

[khallow]

Mining precious metals on Earth devalues gold as well.

Re:I can see it now...

[huckamania]

That would be a shame for anyone heavily invested into gold. Probably the market would take that into consideration long before it ever became an issue.

More than likely, once a successful mining operation is established, most of the resources would stay in space. The price of heavy lifting any resource is going to ensure that there is a huge benefit in keeping it out of the Earth's gravity well. They will make a killing the first year, but prices on Earth will drop quickly and demand for resources in space will be immense due to them making a killing and everyone else wanting to get in on the action.

Worrying about the commodities market at this point is just an insane mix of both optomism and pessimism. Reminds me of the Whiners http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkggyqUWDME.

elements

[Bradmont]

Last I checked, none of mercury, gold or silver was a compound...

Re:elements

[gumbi west]

Not when they are reduced, but they could be part of compounds. (i.e gold nitrate)

Re:elements

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, gold and silver most often occurs in ores; the ores would be a compound, right?

Re:elements

[Anonymous Coward]

You continue to obey, and to beg for more orders to obey.

Re:elements

[insufflate10mg]

I can't believe no one has comprehensively replied to this story yet. This is a huge deal -- a HUGE deal, and no one can deny that. Common knowledge has been, "well there's nothing on the moon, but perhaps on Mars or [celestial body]" and now we are hearing conclusively that both water and gold are present. This could be monumental, only time will tell.

Re:elements

[countSudoku()]

No, they said it was in gold nugget rings, big thick chains, and little post earrings. All of which should be sent straight away to Cash For Moon Gold dot com!

"Dag burnit! Darn NASA done jumped my claim!" -- Grizzled Moon Prospector

Re:elements

[FooAtWFU]

I would also like to point out that we also have water and gold on Earth, and a lot easier and cheaper to get to, using any technologies available now or likely to be available in the intermediate future. You're not getting gold off the moon unless you have heavy industry on the Moon, and putting that sort of investment there would be a monumentally stupefying waste when there are trillions of other things we can invest in down here on the surface and get much better returns much sooner.

So, nice to think about it, but don't expect it to be a really big deal this century.

Re:elements

[CAIMLAS]

Great. There goes the neighborhood. And here we were hoping for some up-scale development.

Re:elements

[gumbi west]

Water = yes, gold = not really. Gold is about the most useless of all the elements. Yes, you can use it for wiring, but copper is about as good and much more plentiful. Gold is mainly valuable because fruit cakes think it is valuable.

Re:elements

[c6gunner]

Common knowledge has been, "well there's nothing on the moon, but perhaps on Mars or [celestial body]" and now we are hearing conclusively that both water and gold are present.

I wouldn't call that "common knowledge". We're fairly sure that the matter which makes up the moon was once parts of the earth, and got blasted off as a result of a massive collision. Therefore it stands to reason that the composition of the moon would resemble the composition of the earth, to a large extent. I've always figured there would have to be some water on the moon, as well as all the heavier elements which we see here on earth. We've just never had a chance to go take a serious look.

Re:elements

[CAIMLAS]

You're not getting gold off the moon unless you have heavy industry on the Moon, and putting that sort of investment there would be a monumentally stupefying waste when there are trillions of other things we can invest in down here on the surface and get much better returns much sooner.

True - but long-term, it's quite fascinating. It means there are at least some of the requisite resources on the moon for us to colonize it - for any number of definitions of "colony".

At the very least, there's water - a big cost for short-term missions. If there's water and "soil", you can create a cultivatable environment (if on a small scale). Get a small nuclear reactor up there and autonomous building drones (battery/nuclear powered, of course), and you've got an "unlimited" supply of water and hydrogen which could be used as a longer-term fuel source.

Such developments would almost immediately improve things here on earth, too: if you've got a portable, small ore refinery for moon use, you can use it for terrestrial industry, too (for those small-return, hard-to-reach locations).

Before long, you'd have enough materials and/or infrastructure on the moon that you could consider a permanent human settlement. This could be used for a number of things:

* Increased industrialization. With a little more research, we'd be able to package up the results and space-drop them to Earth.
* Increased research opportunities in low-gravity environments (good for long-term space development)
* A permanent low-gravity base from which spaceships could be more easily and potentially more cheaply built and launched. A 'space elevator' from the moon to a nearby colony vessel, for instance, would have significantly fewer requirements than one from Earth (strength and distance due to gravity well strength and size).
* Deep space telescopes (because building a large 'permanent' telescope in a gravity well would be easier than doing so in space/for space, as would its maintenance).

You minimize it, but "small" monumental jumps have had a very big impact, historically.
* Winged flight? Who needs it when we've got rail!
* Motor cars? What silly contraptions!
* Trains, for passengers? Ridiculous, nobody needs to go that fast!
* Go to the moon? What benefit is that? (Electronics industry revolution)

Also, imagine the opportunity for jump-starting another technological revolution. Due to the nature of space, this one, would, I suspect, be largely focused on 'reduce, reuse, recycle' as a core basis of functionality, not a dogma). Imagine: a small portable device which could take any waste petrol (eg. a processed food wrapper, or a great many of them) and turn it into a new, useful item. We're probably pretty close to being able to do that today, just not at an economy of scale. If there were a marketing push or something similar (say, the novelty brought on by 'astronauts are doing it'), such a thing - or something similar - could catch on.

Additionally, change in venue or requirements has often resulted in some interesting/novel/revolutionary improvements:
* Westerners improved their garments by observing the natives.
* New breeds of cattle were developed for use out West
* Canned goods were essentially 'invented' for Napoleon's large armies
* Larger, faster, more stable ships were invented to deal with the increased requirements of increased trans-Atlantic transit.

Just think how many 'common day' things we use today, on a daily basis, because someone decided the tool they were using did not work well within their specific constraints (but ended up being broadly applicable elsewhere, too):
* carbiner clips
* multitools/swiss army knives
* PDAs (and now, smartphones)
* post-it notes

I'm sure you can think of more. Those are the opportunities that further space exploration present.

I'm sure that, if there is a financial interest in doing so, someone will figure out how to get to the moon and stay there on a semi-permanent basis - if there's a financial case for doing so.

Re:elements

[tibit]

Try doing microelectronics without gold. LOL.

Re:elements

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet you keep on coming back for more.

you are a glutton for punishment.

Re:elements

[rubycodez]

OMG, they crashed the probe into Mr. T!!!!

Re:elements

[iggymanz]

Mr. T was quoted as saying "I pity the fool who broke my bling!". Tossing the remains of the crushed probe aside, he flexed his forearm and made a fist. "I'm going to introduce the fool to my arm-y friend, Major Pain!".

Re:elements

[froggymana]

Copper is actually better at conducting electricity than gold. Its just that gold doesn't tarnish, rust or react to very many things. Silver is actually the best conducting (pure) metal out there, followed by copper and then gold.

Re:elements

[ceoyoyo]

I think gold is usually found in elemental form, as is silver, although silver is more common to find as a compound or alloy.

Re:elements

[AfroTrance]

Most gold (that is mined) occurs in its elemental form. Some will occur in other minerals, such as galena and pyrite. It can also occur in an alloy with silver (electrum). I believe the most common silver mineral is tetrahedrite.

Ore just means rock that is profitable to mine.

Re:elements

[khallow]

I would also like to point out that we also have water and gold on Earth, and a lot easier and cheaper to get to, using any technologies available now or likely to be available in the intermediate future. You're not getting gold off the moon unless you have heavy industry on the Moon, and putting that sort of investment there would be a monumentally stupefying waste when there are trillions of other things we can invest in down here on the surface and get much better returns much sooner.

Why don't you name those trillions of things that are ahead of heavy lunar industry? I'm patient.

Re:elements

[Tacvek]

When talking about Conduction though it is good to specify electrical conduction or heat conduction. They are definitely correlated, but not equivlent.

The best known heat conductor is diamond, but diamond is a terrible conductor of electricity.

It is also good to specify the arrangement in question. Consider that the best heat conductor is diamond, but graphene is not a very good heat conductor.

The most common solid phases of silver are among the best electrical conductors known, although that status does depend on the temperature in question, since for example, at superconducting temperatures, superconductors easily beat out silver.

As for uses of Gold. Gold's most notable attributes are relatively high heat and electrical conductivity, its appearance, the ability to easily create thin wires or thin sheets of it, and its highly inert nature (including not oxidizing).

Just about all practical applications (as opposed to vanity applications) of gold could use some other metal, however, due to those properties gold is often seen as the better choice. For example, even microelectronics could use other metals in place of gold, but in such applications gold is often used as very fine wires, so even slight oxidation could be problematic, and further most other metals are far more difficult to shape into such fine wires.

Re:elements

[Tacvek]

True, except that current theory suggests that some (perhaps most), but not all matter on Luna came from Earth. The problem with water on Luna is obviously that it can only exist trapped below the surface, otherwise it would vaporize and drift away, given Luna's lack of atmosphere.

Re:elements

[Alex Belits]

Because the only thing that is valuable is green paper printed on Earth.

Fucking idiots.

Re:elements

[jeff4747]

That's 'cause it's not about the gold. It's about the water.

The cost of shipping water to a moon base is the primary reason we don't have moon bases. If there's water already on the moon, then we can just use that.

It's about making a moon outpost practical for a bunch of reasons other than profit.

Re:elements

[khallow]

Because the only thing that is valuable is green paper printed on Earth.

Money is not investment. You have a legitimate point?

Re:elements

[Alex Belits]

Investment is just as worthless as money, as far as development and survival of mankind is concerned.

I don't think, you understand sarcasm.

Re:elements

[khallow]

Investment is just as worthless as money, as far as development and survival of mankind is concerned.

That would be very wrong. How do farmers grow food? They grow it on a farm, land specially cultivated to grow food. They use tools specialized for growing the crops they use. And they often do so by borrowing against future income. These are all investments and they result in people growing food, which is necessary for the development and survival of mankind. QED.

Re:elements

[DavidTC]

Diamond may be the best heat conductor, but it's not a very useful heat conductor, seeing as it's impossible to actually shape it where it fully touches the thing you're trying to remove heat from. And the same problem if you're trying to make a heat-sink...good luck carving a diamond like that.

So, essentially, to use diamond, you have to put something between it and what you're trying to remove heat from, or put heat into, which means you might as well just have used that other thing for the whole thing.

Re:elements

[Magada]

Why not for profit? There's nothing that would drive a real space program better than profit. Back in the day, the US and the USSR saw it as profitable, politically, socially, economically and, well, survival-wise to compete in the space race. Now, not so much. Bring on the profits, I say!

Re:elements

[Hognoxious]

Verily sir, you deny alchemy! Fie upon you for a knavish runyon!

Re:elements

[Hognoxious]

You clearly use the word "usually" in a creative way.

Re:elements

[Hognoxious]

I don't think, you understand sarcasm.

I do think, you can't punctuate.

Re:elements

[Alex Belits]

This is how it is done in Capitalist society. There were plenty of social-economic systems before Capitalism, and there will be plenty of them after.

Re:elements

[khallow]

This is how it is done in Capitalist society. There were plenty of social-economic systems before Capitalism, and there will be plenty of them after.

Well, I see what you're talking about (and I think I might understand what you meant earlier by "sarcasm"), but I still have to disagree. "Investment" is a capitalist label, but it isn't merely a capitalist activity. Any sacrifice made in anticipation of greater future gain (not necessarily personal gain) is an investment.

Planting seeds to harvest later is an investment. Taking the time to study the behavior of animals that can pay off with greater hunting success or identification of edible food in the future is an investment. Learning how to do something useful is an investment. Giving to others in the tribe or society with the expectation that you'll be helped in turn when you're in need is an investment.

These are all examples of investments that could have happened a million years ago, perhaps even a million years from now.

Capitalism merely provides a framework upon which one can make rather complex investments and similar economic activity.

Re:elements

[ceoyoyo]

How is that?

Re:elements

[Hognoxious]

Silver can't be usually found as an element and also be most often found as a compound, dimwit.

Re:elements

[ceoyoyo]

I realize the sentence is a little ambiguous, but as you pointed out, one interpretation is nonsensical. The other is: gold is usually found in elemental form, as is silver, although silver is more common [than gold] to find as a compound or alloy.

Dimwit.

NASA found life on the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was of the dead variety of life.

Space exploration has been vastly underwhelming since the mid '90s and earlier. They say they might have found life on Mars but $2 days they did it just to appease the scientific (atheist) crowd.

Obligatory Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And did they conviently slam the booster into the Apollo moon landing site? The moon not Nevada.

Now that there's water...

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

...I'm looking forward to the best episode of Man vs Wild ever.

Lunar real-estate

[rickzor]

From TFA: "Roughly 5 percent of water ice - that's combined water vapor and ice - was found buried in the crater. This water ice could provide a valuable resource for human space travel, generating drinking water, but also possibly hydrogen and oxygen for breathing and rocket fuel."

Not to mention the profit from gold mining, my dream of living in space may not be too far off..

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

cheaper mining?

[ddxexex]

If you don't have to worry about the environment on the moon, how much gold (or rare earth metals or whatever) do you need to make a robotic lunar mining mission viable?

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

realistically if the moon was made of solid gold, it would still not be viable. it costs upwards of $50,000 per kg to get robotic stuff onto the moon. it also costs a metric shitload to mine not to mention run the he3 fusion reactor to power the mining operation. it costs an even more metric shitload to return the material to earth and handle moon launch reentry and terminal guidance. not gonna be economically viable anytime soon. you need something which costs around $1 million per kg for the whole operation to be paid for easily. the only thing that expensive might be computer chips which are best made on earth anyway.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Darkness404]

A lot. First off is the fact to even send something to the moon requires a pretty big rocket, something like the Saturn V isn't cheap. Secondly, mining robots aren't hardly even used on earth, let alone on the moon. Thirdly we've found some water and some rare elements, not that we've found a lake and huge gold nuggets so we'd have to send many more missions to locate a suitable "mine".

Will we eventually mine the moon? Yes. Will it happen in the next 5 decades? Probably not and even then, the materials mined would make more sense to be used on something like a lunar colony, not for export back to Earth.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

"not to mention run the he3 fusion reactor to power the mining operation"

I know you were trying to inject some reality into a Space Nutter thread, but we have no such technology. Your sentence made it sound like we can buy one at Home Depot but it's just a matter of getting it to the Moon.

There is NO such technology. And if suddenly there WERE, you wouldn't need to go into space to get stuff, you'd have tons of power here on Earth (which also is made of elements...)

Most likely, a working fusion reactor would be as large, if not larger than a fission plant, much more complex, rely on even more exotic materials, have about the same electrical output (1GW) and only have a 90% uptime (like a fission reactor), and require a crew of people to operate.

For what? To get the same materials you can get on Earth from any Third World country ready to send its kids into mines?

Re:cheaper mining?

[insufflate10mg]

That's extremely pessimistic. A living module and a couple astronauts could, with a reliable power source (whether solar or nuclear), begin mining the gold. You saw the old moon landing videos, those guys got out and walked around decades before microprocessing was a dirty thought.

Spirit and Opportunity were $400,000,000, and they had no purpose besides observation. A project to begin mining gold on the moon? I'm 100% positive it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that if a substantial amount of accessible gold was located, Earthlings would begin moonmining. It would be a symbol of a nation's advancement and status to be mining wealth from the heavens.

Re:cheaper mining?

[mysidia]

you need something which costs around $1 million per kg for the whole operation to be paid for easily.

In other words.... rare earth metals which go @ rates like $600,000 per Kg, before China cuts off the supply.

But not until the more cheaply available supplies on earth are exchausted.

Re:cheaper mining?

[c6gunner]

As stupid as it would be to go to the moon just for the sake of mining gold, I'd pay good money to see the looks on the faces of all the gold-hoarding doomsday-libertarians when the value of their stockpile plummets overnight.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

To get the same materials you can get on Earth from any Third World country

Why do so many of you randomly capitalize words that are not proper nouns? Is this the new way to show off your functional illiteracy because failing to use there/their/they're, lose/loose, and where/were finally stopped being trendy? Is it a tribute to Emily Dickinson?

It's a legitimate question and I'll tell you why. It takes more effort to capitalize "third world" than it does to leave it lower-case. You are having to take the extra step of using the "Shift" key twice. In this case, doing it correctly is actually less effort than doing it incorrectly. You still choose to do it incorrectly. This is unique because most ways to show that you have no skill at using your own native language can be explained by laziness. That doesn't apply here.

Somebody explain this to me please.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a symbol of a nation's advancement and status

And here I was thinking that having a reasonable government that isn't out-of-control and heading down the path of totalitarianism was the litmus test for a nation's advancement and status.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be impressed if mining gold on the moon is cheaper than mining it on Earth. I'd be even more impressed if it's cheaper than punching some numbers into a computer.

Re:cheaper mining?

[tibit]

What AC said above: even if Moon was solid, 24k gold, it'd not make economical sense to mine it there. End of story.

Re:cheaper mining?

[lee1026]

Well, if you can build the reentry vehicles on the moon itself, returning stuff to Earth would be reasonably cheap. The moon's gravity well is not terribly deep compared to Earth.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rare earths are not going to be exhausted because it is not rare. It's more or less spread equally all over earths crust and what's rare is places where is economically viable to extract it (slightly higher concentration, environmental impacts, cost of labor, ...). If prices goes up, a lot of places are going to be viable, even extracting some of the minerals from the ocean bottom, before it becomes economically viable to mine the moon. Even if it was made of pure Inconel.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do so many of you randomly capitalize words

Third World
noun (usu. the Third World)
the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

So there you go. Also, why do you misuse the word randomly? There was obvious intent in the capitalization. Is it to show that you have no skill at using the language?

Re:cheaper mining?

[DerekLyons]

Spirit and Opportunity were $400,000,000, and they had no purpose besides observation. A project to begin mining gold on the moon? I'm 100% positive it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that if a substantial amount of accessible gold was located

Oh, it's possible. It's just not feasible - because the cost per oz. mined [on the moon] would be several orders of magnitude higher than terrestrial costs. (A Spirit sized robot with a little modification could mine enough ore to extract roughly .001 grams of gold a day. You do the math.)

Re:cheaper mining?

[Moridineas]

Just FWIW, I think a lot of those "gold-hoarding doomsday-libertarians" are really more "gold-hoarding libertarians and others who think the US dollar is doomed" (or at least to fall drastically vis-a-vis other forex pairs.

I'm not giving up on the usd yet but eur, aud, chf, gbp, and others do seem pretty strong in comparison.

Makes sense to me on one logical level -- the US is not the world's unquestioned superpower anymore. Countries like Brazil, China, and India are growing incredibly rapidly, countries like Australia are booming as a result, and so far forex traders seem to think the Europeans are doing a decent job of defending the Euro (we'll see if that holds up). There's nothing especially special about the dollar anymore, the way there was say 50 years ago.

Re:cheaper mining?

[lennier]

It would be a symbol of a nation's advancement and status to be mining wealth from the heavens.

Ooh, space treasure fleets! And then we could have space pirates heaving-to alongside the bullion galleons to storm the airlocks at the cutlass-call of Cap'n Nellie Blackstrong, terror of the Terran Fleet.

Yarr. Hsss. Yarr.

Re:cheaper mining?

[lennier]

when the value of their stockpile plummets overnight.

... literally, if the lunar mining consortium chooses the cheapest way of de-orbiting their cargo.

Whoosh ROAR sloosh KA-ASTEROID.

"Joe's Budget Reentry Services: We get your cargo from space to ground, 100% guaranteed. What happens in the next millisecond is your problem, not ours."

Re:cheaper mining?

[ikkonoishi]

Because of course the gold mined on and shipped from the moon would be way cheaper than say gold mined in California. It would be more likely that the moon gold would be sold for a premium with a certificate of authenticity stating its origin.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Darkness404]

Something tells me that the value of fiat currencies are going to plummet to nothing before a major advancement such as mining gold on the moon happens.

History is filled with stories of lands filled with gold, alchemists and the like and yet none of them have ever turned out to be practical.

On the other hand, history is filled with empires and countries that the debasement of their currencies lead to mass poverty for many citizens.

This idea that a currency based on nothing can survive is laughable, our nation's currency is no better off than a gum wrapper with a logo printed on it.

While, eventually, mankind may advance to the point where gold no longer has enough scarcity to be used as currency, I don't see it happening anytime soon considering its worked quite well for the past 4,000 some odd years with a new "breakthrough" is proclaimed every year.

I wouldn't laugh at the doomsday prophets too much, their history is pretty solid.

Its silly to think that the US is immune to the laws of economics, we owe a shitload of money to China, we're fighting two wars which we can't really pay for, we think we need to 'bail out' any large company in financial trouble, etc. Eventually China is going to want payment on our loan, and when that happens because our debt is expressed in US dollars, the only way to settle that debt is to print a lot more dollars just like what happened in Post-WWI Germany.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation do you really think that the US is immune to these forces?

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

We do It to Piss off grammar Trolls.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Iron Condor]

What AC said above: even if Moon was solid, 24k gold, it'd not make economical sense to mine it there. End of story.

No, not end of story by a long shot.

Mining gold on the moon makes economic sense exactly if it results in gain in excess of the original investment. How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon? The gold market is already based strictly on what people think is valuable. The price of gold has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the price of mining gold.

Does it even have to be gold? How about a speck of genuine moon rock (in a nice clear plastic cast) - yours for only ... $59.99? How many slashdotters would buy such a thing? What would it cost to get, say, a couple kg of that back to earth? A billion dollars? That's the price of a nice oil rig. In other words: that's the kind of money that is already available and people are already expending it because they expect a decent return on that investment.

You may want to be just a shade more careful with calling things economically infeasable.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Nikker]

While you are completely right about the transportation of gold and other metals from earth to the moon one good thing is that we do not have to bring it there to manufacture anything that comprises it.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Cwix]

What good is our money to china if its worthless. They wont cash it in all at once, it would be stupid.

Re:cheaper mining?

[AfroTrance]

it costs an even more metric shitload to return the material to earth and handle moon launch reentry and terminal guidance.

That would actually be the cheapest (relatively) part. You would only need a purpose built rocket that only takes gold. There wouldn't be an life support systems etc. Just gold, fuel, guidance, comms... and a parachute? The greatest cost would be getting the cargo rocket and fuel up to the moon in the first place.

Re:cheaper mining?

[luther349]

conserding we have lots of gold and water why bother spending billions getting it from the moon. this may make them go back to study the water to see if anything is living below the service or once lived.

Re:cheaper mining?

[luther349]

gold isn't rare nor is water. people just like shiny things and corporations made it rare so keep prices up. like diamonds. the reasons shady company's like cash for golds exist. even in a economy crash gold does not lose it value but rather gains it. in other worlds it would be utterly point less to mine to mine the moon.

Re:cheaper mining?

[luther349]

moon rocks go for much more then 59.99 lol. as long as you can prove its legit. more along of the line of 10K +.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Adambomb]

Why the crazy crack-piping hell are people talking as if bringing these minerals to earth is even a suggestion? The fact that these minerals are possible to find on the moon means that a future moonbase wouldn't have to rely entirely on shipments from earth to increase their available supply of these compounds. Can you imagine how much cash would be saved not having to bring water, let alone denser shit like gold, as payload from earth?

hell it sounds like half the electronics for anything built spaceside or on the moon could be assembled using materials mined and processed outside earths gravity. with water processing to fill tanks or at least supply the manufacturers.

Re:cheaper mining?

[ultranova]

This idea that a currency based on nothing can survive is laughable, our nation's currency is no better off than a gum wrapper with a logo printed on it.

The value of currency is based on what you can buy with it. This is true, whether the currency in question is made of gum wrappers or pretty yellow metal.

But hey, fiat currency is going to prove unworkable aaany day now...

Re:cheaper mining?

[drinkypoo]

Its silly to think that the US is immune to the laws of economics, we owe a shitload of money to China, we're fighting two wars which we can't really pay for, we think we need to 'bail out' any large company in financial trouble, etc.

It's not that the laws of economics will do us in, because the laws of economics are all mutable. They're just observations like all other laws so far, and moreso than some. That aside, China's wealth is predicated upon that of the USA.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation do you really think that the US is immune to these forces?

Supposedly the USA is about to dump a big wad of money, so if you are sitting on a bunch of cash now is a good time to invest in that business, or buy those food and ammo stockpiles.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Combatso]

1 tenth of one ounce.. its about making it happen, not the results... the knowledge we gain is infinately more valuable than any gold we harvest from the moon

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Launch a mass driver to the moon
2) Dig up gold
3) aim at backyard on earth and fire
4) PROFIT!!!

There is no ??? :)

Re:cheaper mining?

[drinkypoo]

Mining gold on the moon makes economic sense exactly if it results in gain in excess of the original investment. How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon?

That doesn't work so well for elements as for other stuff like rocks. Diamonds from the moon? You'd have a point. But Gold is Gold is Gold...

As the sibling comment says, the value to mass offplanet is that it's not here. We wouldn't bring back more than samples.

Does it even have to be gold? How about a speck of genuine moon rock (in a nice clear plastic cast) - yours for only ... $59.99?

Now THAT is a viable business model. People pay bunches of money for stupid dirt like ash from Mt. St. Helens or sand from Hawaii.

Re:cheaper mining?

[rjstanford]

Informative? Please...

The only reason moon rocks go for thousands is that we only have a few kilos of them dilute that a thousandfold and their rarity value drops.

Besides, it's not about how much you can charge per rock, but how much you can sell total. And many more people can afford $60.

Hell, people will pay $15-20 for 2 US quarters in a pretty enough paper sleeve...

Re:cheaper mining?

[HopeOS]

When you say "money," what exactly do you mean by that? And when you qualify that with "good," what precisely are you implying? Because aside from elements, rare elements specifically, there is nothing in this universe that meets any combination of those two words and their specific meanings. Just sayin'. -Hope

Re:cheaper mining?

[jeff4747]

This idea that a currency based on nothing can survive is laughable

There is nothing inherently valuable about gold. It's a convenient medium for exchange. We use fiat currency because it's a more convenient medium for exchange. If something apocalyptic happens tomorrow and destroys civilization, the survivors will find both dollars and gold worthless. The only things of value will be bullets and food.

we owe a shitload of money to China

And the problem is....? Plus, we owe a much, much larger shitload to ourselves. (Most US treasuries are bought by US entities)

Eventually China is going to want payment on our loan

Well, first of all you don't understand US treasuries. We are already repaying on every treasury. They have a fixed yield. So no, they won't "come due" sometime. They're already due and we're already paying.

Second, you have to understand why China bought so much debt. It wasn't because they wanted to finance the US. They bought treasuries in order to inflate the US dollar relative to their currency. China's economic boom means that their currency should rise relative to the dollar. But if it does, their exports will be more expensive and thus go down. So China buys US debit and keeps their currency low and exports up. China can't "dump" their US debit without destroying their own economy.

ake a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation do you really think that the US is immune to these forces?

Actually, what we need to worry about is deflation right now. Our economy is running at about 80% capacity. That's enormous deflationary pressure. That's why we currently have ~0% inflation despite all the inflationary things the Fed has been doing. Yes, if we keep doing inflationary things after the output gap is closed, we'll have an inflation problem. But there's no particular reason to believe we won't change policy when the economy has recovered.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Darkness404]

By that logic I shouldn't need life insurance should I? Even though I've observed other people die, I haven't died yet and some of those people were younger than me so the logical conclusion is that I'm immortal.

Buying gold, silver, platinum and the like is like buying insurance, you might not like buying it, you might wish you could spend the money on something else, but you will, based on observation, eventually need it.

Governments throughout history have always overprinted fiat currency or debased their money, often times when they are in a war they can't afford to fight (sound familiar?) or to pay off debts.

The time is coming where the US will experience hyperinflation just like every fiat currency before it. To say that it won't is akin to saying you are immortal and don't need life insurance. Just look at the dramatic rise in prices over the last few years.

While we probably won't see hyperinflation tomorrow or perhaps even several years down the road, saying that it will never happen is like saying because you haven't died yet you don't need to get life insurance.

Re:cheaper mining?

[khallow]

realistically if the moon was made of solid gold, it would still not be viable. it costs upwards of $50,000 per kg to get robotic stuff onto the moon. it also costs a metric shitload to mine not to mention run the he3 fusion reactor to power the mining operation. it costs an even more metric shitload to return the material to earth and handle moon launch reentry and terminal guidance. not gonna be economically viable anytime soon. you need something which costs around $1 million per kg for the whole operation to be paid for easily. the only thing that expensive might be computer chips which are best made on earth anyway.

Alternately, you fly your solar powered self-replicating factory up there. It makes a few copies and then builds a launch infrastructure from aluminum-LOX hybrid motors. When that's established and you're making money from providing LOX to low Earth orbit (LEO), then you find a large platinum group metal (PGM) deposit in one of the mares and begin to mine it. Your code monkeys figure out a ceramic-based heat shield and you start dropping refined PGMs in the Australian outback. The only real cost to you above what you've already paid for a profitable LOX to LEO system is the one time cost of paying the code monkeys to design your lunar infrastructure to mine the gold as well.

Re:cheaper mining?

[HopeOS]

That's wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Their goal is to extract the maximum value possible. Think strip mining. They will pull every last cent that can be economically retrieved, and they'll do it as efficiently as possible. The final result will be the same regardless -- no remaining value.

If you think the currency won't devalue because China is afraid to start extracting, well, that's like suggesting that a mining company is afraid to start stripping because they might jeopardize the stability of the load. Careful maybe, but afraid, no.

To be more specific, China has no choice in the matter. They purchased this mountain of money, and if they want anything at all back, they will have to mine it. Doing so will reduce its value, and unfortunately, the lower-bound on the price of the dollar is actually its value as used fabric/paper.

Here's the mechanism.

China: US government, you owe us $100.
US: We don't have it, but we'll print up $100 for you right now. Here you go.
China: We figured us much and thanks for the $100. Global market, we'd like to buy $100 worth of copper.
Global market: Done. Here's your copper. Oh, and since you bought it and are not putting it back in the market, the price of copper just went up by $1. Come back soon.
China: US government, you owe us $100...
Global market: I just traded copper for $100 that I know were newly minted. I better trade this quickly for something that will hold value or I'll get stuck with it...

And so the new dollars disperse into the market, China converts dollars to metals, and prices in dollars slowly rise as everyone who touches them quickly trades them away. Eventually someone gets stuck with them, either because they were too slow, or because they were on the losing end of a currency exchange option.

This is happening today. The input is continuous, not a unit step function at $100 a pop. The output may seem slow and linear now, but the rate is accumulative, so it's reasonable to expect exponential factors to dominate.

-Hope

Re:cheaper mining?

[Darkness404]

There is nothing inherently valuable about gold. It's a convenient medium for exchange. We use fiat currency because it's a more convenient medium for exchange. If something apocalyptic happens tomorrow and destroys civilization, the survivors will find both dollars and gold worthless. The only things of value will be bullets and food.

While that is true, gold has been a valuable currency for over 4,000 years. Gold can't be manipulated to the extent that fiat currency can. I can't start up a printing press and make one ounce gold bars out of nothing.

However, in many war-torn regions gold is the currency that is in demand in places that we would call pretty apocalyptic. If people believe that thing will ever get better, gold is still a useful currency. If people don't think so, then gold is useless.

However, the collapse of the dollar won't be "apocalyptic" what will happen is that prices keep on rising and people will turn to alternate currencies if they are still stable (Mexican Peso in the south, Canadian Dollar in the north) along with pre-1965 US coins made of silver, and bullion. If you look, the people who had precious metals during historic hyperinflation scenarios ended up rather unscathed compared to the people who had a lot of paper money.

Well, first of all you don't understand US treasuries. We are already repaying on every treasury. They have a fixed yield. So no, they won't "come due" sometime. They're already due and we're already paying.

And how are we paying? We're paying by printing more money. Which is inflation. When our tax revenue comes in and its not enough to pay for our debt, we still need to pay it so we print more money.

Second, you have to understand why China bought so much debt. It wasn't because they wanted to finance the US. They bought treasuries in order to inflate the US dollar relative to their currency. China's economic boom means that their currency should rise relative to the dollar. But if it does, their exports will be more expensive and thus go down. So China buys US debit and keeps their currency low and exports up. China can't "dump" their US debit without destroying their own economy.

Except for the fact that China is a secretive, communist nation run under a near dictatorship. China wouldn't mind ruining their people's own economies at the prospect of ruining a rival's. After all, what are the people in China going to do? Vote for a different candidate in their one-party elections? Heck, look at China's "Cultural Revolution", China doesn't care about their people.

Actually, what we need to worry about is deflation right now. Our economy is running at about 80% capacity. That's enormous deflationary pressure. That's why we currently have ~0% inflation despite all the inflationary things the Fed has been doing. Yes, if we keep doing inflationary things after the output gap is closed, we'll have an inflation problem. But there's no particular reason to believe we won't change policy when the economy has recovered.

...Deflation from who's perspective?

Other than gasoline which fell sharply in the recession, prices for most other essentials, food, clothing, etc. have all increased or remained constant.

While we might have a "technical" deflation, what is happening is like what happened in post-WWI Germany, massive deflation. So the government printed, and printed and the economy wasn't getting better so they printed a bit too much and it hit hyperinflation stage. Something tells me that this is the direction the US is heading. We'll print some money here, print some money there, because people don't -want- to spend in a recession they save it away and then when the time comes and the economy recovers.... Bam immediate increases in price which triggers a panic of inflation so people take out their money from savings and the economy is hi

Re:cheaper mining?

[HopeOS]

Historically speaking, fiat currency has never proved workable.

In the most recent cases, they were receipts for gold on deposit. Once they abandoned that, it was simply a matter of time. Forty years for the U.S. dollar is a remarkable time-frame, but not special in the overall picture. And if you want to go back to the creation of the Federal Bank, you'll find that the dollar has done nothing but depreciate since then. As a store of value, it seems pretty unworkable to me.

-Hope

Re:cheaper mining?

[unick]

How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon?

Hey, I can sell you stuff that used to be part of a star. Can't tell you which star though, it exploded some time ago. And you know what, its elements probably came from an even older star. And that exploded too! Let me know how much you want.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically speaking, fiat currency has never proved workable.

Of course not, Fiats are too unreliable. That's why smart people use Mercedes and BMW currency.

Re:cheaper mining?

[corbettw]

What are you talking about? It's already happened once (almost) within my lifetime (the events played out in the months and weeks before I was born). Why do you think the US is no longer on the gold standard? Because Switzerland, France, and other European countries called our loans with them in the early 70s, and the value of that debt was greater than the gold reserves the US currently held. So Nixon declared we were off the gold standard and told the Federal Reserve to turn on the presses to pay off Europe. And suddenly we went from $10,000 per year being a good income to needing $20,000 just to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Re:cheaper mining?

[ultranova]

By that logic I shouldn't need life insurance should I? Even though I've observed other people die, I haven't died yet and some of those people were younger than me so the logical conclusion is that I'm immortal.

Well, no, you will never benefit from life insurance. Bad example :).

Buying gold, silver, platinum and the like is like buying insurance, you might not like buying it, you might wish you could spend the money on something else, but you will, based on observation, eventually need it.

Even assuming that fiat currency collapses, wouldn't it make more sense to buy stock? It's backed by actual production capability, actually makes you some money on average (unlike insurance), and any economic collapse serious enough to destroy said stocks value will certainly devalue pretty metals as well.

The time is coming where the US will experience hyperinflation just like every fiat currency before it. To say that it won't is akin to saying you are immortal and don't need life insurance. Just look at the dramatic rise in prices over the last few years.

And the time will come when someone finds a large enough deposit or enough people are selling at the same time to completely collapse the value of gold. What's your point?

Besides, no, hyperinflation doesn't need to ever happen. Simply don't print more money unless the economy is expanding, and it won't. It's as easy as that.

While we probably won't see hyperinflation tomorrow or perhaps even several years down the road, saying that it will never happen is like saying because you haven't died yet you don't need to get life insurance.

The problem with your example is that you're assuming that your gold and silver will still have value in the case of economic collapse. They won't, because if the economy collapses I'm not willing to exchange my canned food and ammunition for inedible, useless metal.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about carbon. The output of synthetic diamonds is 4 times greater than naturally extracted which people pay extra for even though they are of far lower quality. Yes, a multi billion industry would arise from moon-bling.

Re:cheaper mining?

[ultranova]

And if you want to go back to the creation of the Federal Bank, you'll find that the dollar has done nothing but depreciate since then. As a store of value, it seems pretty unworkable to me.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Constant inflation is supposed to make investing your money a better alternative than simply sitting on it. This, in turn, keeps the economy growing, rather than stagnating.

Re:cheaper mining?

[DavidTC]

The dollar isn't a 'store of value'. It's a medium of exchange.

Re:cheaper mining?

[c6gunner]

The problem with your example is that you're assuming that your gold and silver will still have value in the case of economic collapse. They won't, because if the economy collapses I'm not willing to exchange my canned food and ammunition for inedible, useless metal.

Exactly. Everyone know that the real safe currency is bottle-caps.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Magada]

Mining robots would have it much much easier on the moon where you can strip-mine to your heart's content. Anyway, I can see sending some guys up there with the werewithal to bootstrap the operation anyway but a full colony? With a self-sustaining population etc etc? That's just nuts, unnecessary. It's not like the Americas where you just moved a couple-ten thousand people over and they carried on basically just as if they had never left home. It's not the high frontier. It's a shitty hot irradiated desert on one side and a shittier frozen desert on the other with no air to breathe and no soil to grow plants from. Basically, robots are it, forever, or until we're so rich as a species that it doesn't matter anyway anymore.

Re:cheaper mining?

[tibit]

The parent is interesting for its entertainment value.

Gold's value is not like diamond value -- its value is not because of what people think, but because it costs a lot to extract it. Way more than you imply.

Typically, gold is extracted from ores that have gold content measured in single ppms -- that's parts per million.

To give you an idea of what that means. All of the gold ever extracted would fit in a cube 20.3m on edge.

This gold would cover Times Square area in a layer about 1.3m thick (area is 6500 m^2 if you razed the buldings between 7th and Broadway, and assumed TS extends between 42nd and 47th streets).

All of the stone discarded from that mining, at assumed 2.5ppm ore concentration, would cover City of New York in a layer 4 times as thick. Or, it'd cover the entire State of New York in a layer an inch thick.

This gives you an idea of the scale of gold mining operations. If you think digging that much rock should be cheaper, you're welcome to get investors, buy some mining leases, undercut everyone else, and start buying up competitors.

Re:cheaper mining?

[tibit]

s/what people think/what people are made to think by DeBeers/

Re:cheaper mining?

[Darkness404]

Well, no, you will never benefit from life insurance. Bad example :).

Well, the same thing could be said for health insurance, after all, I'm healthy I'm never going to get sick, etc.

Even assuming that fiat currency collapses, wouldn't it make more sense to buy stock? It's backed by actual production capability, actually makes you some money on average (unlike insurance), and any economic collapse serious enough to destroy said stocks value will certainly devalue pretty metals as well.

Yes and no. The problem with stocks are you've got to have good knowledge of the company and such. For example, several years ago GM was considered to be a very safe stock to invest in with constant gains. Several bailouts later and GM has emerged as possibly recovering but sickly. Even in a very healthy economy it is hard to pick which stocks will be good.

Stocks are a gamble, the yields are a whole lot better than precious metals and the like but the risks are a lot greater too. If there is a company which you think will grow like crazy, go ahead and invest in it, the problem is, mismanagement can bring even the greatest companies down.

It takes a lot more research to avoid losing money in stocks when compared to something like precious metals. If you do the research, the results are usually a lot greater, but the risks are greater too.

And the time will come when someone finds a large enough deposit or enough people are selling at the same time to completely collapse the value of gold. What's your point?

But we haven't found a large enough deposit of gold. Other than aluminum which was already really, really abundant and just needed a practical way of extracting it, there have been no metals which this has happened to. On the other hand, just look at the list of hyperinflated currencies:

Confederate Dollar
Continental Currency
Angola Kwanza
Argentine Peso
Austrian Krone
Belarus Ruble
Bolivian Peso
Brazilian cruzeiro
Bulgarian Lev
Chilean Peso
Chinese Yuan Dynasty
Chinese Yuan
Georgian Coupons
German Mark
Greek Drachma
Hungarian Pengo
Israeli Shekel
Japanese Yen
Mozambican Metical
Nicaragua Cortoba
Peruvian Sol
Philippine Peso when under Japanese control
Polish Zotoly
Romanian Leu
Russian Ruble
Taiwanese Dollar
Turkish Lira
Yugoslav Dinar
and of course the infamous Zimbabwe Dollar.

Something tells me I'll take my chances with a metal which has been searched for 4,000 years for massive deposits than currency with a long history of failings.

Re:cheaper mining?

[jeff4747]

Gold can't be manipulated to the extent that fiat currency can. I can't start up a printing press and make one ounce gold bars out of nothing.

Which is actually a bad thing. The great depression would have been far shallower if nations weren't on the gold standard at the time.

There are odd times in economics where things that are usually "good" become "bad" and vice-versa. One easy example is the paradox of thrift.

However, in many war-torn regions gold is the currency that is in demand in places that we would call pretty apocalyptic.

The problem I speak of is not gold, it's the destruction of the concept of currency. Fiat money, or gold, has value because you can trade it for necessities like food. In a post-apocalyptic wasteland, that breaks down.

what will happen is that prices keep on rising

Doubtful. You're coming from the position that Fed policy is absolutely immutable. Current policy is inflationary. When inflationary policy is no longer necessary, it will change.

And how are we paying? We're paying by printing more money.

No, we're selling more treasuries.

China wouldn't mind ruining their people's own economies at the prospect of ruining a rival's. After all, what are the people in China going to do?

Riot, general unrest, yet another revolution. The only reason the democracy movement has slowed in China is because the economy's doing well enough to keep people happy. The leadership, aside from great personal financial benefit, is rather fond of their positions of power.

Other than gasoline which fell sharply in the recession, prices for most other essentials, food, clothing, etc. have all increased or remained constant.

Actually, remained constant. That's what 0% inflation is. We do not currently have deflation because of the inflationary actions of the Fed.

Something tells me that this is the direction the US is heading.

Well, it's not any economic data telling you that.

and then when the time comes and the economy recovers.... Bam immediate increases in price

Economies do not recover with a "Bam". We may remember a "Bam" when the next boom cycle started, but economic data showed that there was a recovery underway long before the boom. Which provides ample time to change policy to not be inflationary.

The problem is that our inflationary money policy is going to be leaving people with a lower standard of living. While inflation has rose

My entire point is that inflation has not occurred for the last 10 years. Core prices are actually slightly lower today than in 2000.

When your pay is $50,000 a year since you had your job in 2000 and that $50,000 a year is now worth only $45,000 a year in 2000s dollars, you just took a silent pay cut of $5,000.

Why should we be responsible for your inability to negotiate a raise in the last 10 years?

And to be less sarcastic, that $50k 2000 salary is actually worth a little more than $50k today.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see you've swallowed the propaganda. Of course I can give you an even more impressive story about Lead - which is even rarer than Gold. So is Mercury. But you're not seeing folks throwing a $1000 at an ounce of Lead or Mercury. Because extraction of either of these materials (while certainly not free or trivial) accounts for a dollar or a few per ounce - and the rest of the Gold price is pure speculation. People telling each other that it's valuable. Like tulip seeds.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon?

Exactly the same as gold from, say, California. The entire point of gold is that gold is gold is gold. There is no 'cut' or 'quality' or 'age', only purity and, rarely, a small markup for history (but that's mostly limited to coin collectors, so it's really the coin that is valuable, not its raw material). The bulk of the speculative bubble right now is about gold as a portable nonperishable base metal, not about bling. Bling is being melted down into ingots and coins to sell to the speculators. Double the supply of refined gold on Earth and most of that will go right into private stashes at base metal prices, maybe also some industrial uses (electronics) at base metal prices, but not much into overpriced moon bling.

If you've got gold mines and refineries on the moon and are shipping it back to earth, the lunar novelty of it all is already gone, because by the time you're set up, everyone on Earth already has a few paperweights with an ounce of moon dust baked in. And the paperweights can actually be tested to see if they really have moon dust in them; you can't do that with moon bling, all you've got is the seller's word, because gold is the same no matter where it comes from.

Re:cheaper mining?

[HopeOS]

And yet, when the dollar was a receipt on gold, it was both. It only lost this nature, when it was decoupled.

A dry read, but informative: Money Mischief-Episodes in Monetary History

-Hope

Re:cheaper mining?

[DavidTC]

Gold isn't a store of value either, unless you're operating some sort of microprocessor plant.

There are two schools of thought about 'value', either that it is inherent or it's subjective.

You are clearly operating under the inherent one, as, subjectively, money does have value. You're trying to make the claim that gold has some inherent value that cash does not.

Sadly, that doesn't work. Gold actually has almost no inherent value. If it did, almost all the gold in the world wouldn't be sitting in gold bars in a warehouse somewhere.

Gold has most of the time, about the same level of inherent value as glitter. Ooo, it's pretty to look at!

There are some circumstances where the actual metallic properties of gold are useful, but, frankly, an equal weight of aluminum is much more useful in general. Or a slab of beef.

You can either live in a world where things have the value that humanity ascribes to them, aka, how useful they are in trade, in which case gold and cash are both pretty valuable, or you can live in a world where the value is only some sort of measure of their usefulness in some objective sense, in which case cash is valueless and gold is almost valueless.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is gold _not_ a fiat currency? The value of gold is based on loose consensus about its value and, through most of history, government regulation. Through a lot of history, the value of gold and other precious metals has often been set by governments. Consider the 1/16 rules for silver setting the value of silver to 1/16th the value of gold that most western countries had around the middle of the last millenium.

Face it. Take a look at gold prices vs the US dollar over the last thirty years and all the points where the gold has dropped sharply to 2/3rds or 1/2 or less vs the dollar. In those times, despite inflation, dollars maintained their buying power and the gold did not.

Imagine that civilization has collapsed and there is no government and no more fiat currency and you have a big bag of gold coins and you come across a farmer heading to town with some of his crops, which he hopes to exchange with the blacksmith for some work on his plough. If there's a social convention on the value of gold, with fixed rates, etc., then he will probably sell you his crops for gold which he will take to the blacksmith to pay for the work he needs. Without some sort of social convention enforcing the value of your gold, the farmer will prefer to take his food directly to the blacksmith. After all, he knows the value of food since people die without it. He knows the value of the work the blacksmith will do for him since without it he can't grow his crops, or at least, not as easily. Without an authority to say, he doesn't know the value of the gold. The blacksmith might not have a use for it, so why would he trade his work for it? A medium of exchange is, of course, very useful and that's where the "value" of gold comes from. In other words, it isn't that the gold is worth something, it's what you can buy with it that's worth something, and you can only buy things with it because society says you can and because it's convenient.

Re:cheaper mining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is, gold is actually too rare. There isn't enough of it to go around. Maybe there was 300 years ago, but today, with the current population there's maybe an ounce of gold available for each person in the world. How do you work with that? How do you buy a loaf of bread or a cup of coffee? Piece of gum? With a coin that can blow away in a light wind and smears together with the other coins in your purse because they're tiny and thin and gold is soft and malleable? Your answer is probably that you use another, less valuable metal for coins of lesser value. Silver perhaps. That's all well and good, but now you have two metals of fluctuating relative value. Not too long before enterprising characters start going to town A where they give you 12 silver coins as change for a gold coin, then to town B where they give you one gold coin for 10 silver coins, and back and forth and back and forth... Well, then you just need a trusted authority to define an exact exchange rate for the two precious metals. Or how about people who cast gold coins with a silver, or lead, core? Well, you can take care of that by having a trusted authority in charge of ensuring that coins actually contain the amount of gold they should and place their stamp on the coin to certify it. That's also convenient because you don't need to worry about exact weight of the coins as much because you know that a gold coin is worth its official face value, even if one is 95% of the stated weight and another is 105% of the stated weight. Regardless of the differing weights you can exchange them without needing to weigh them super carefully with a super-accurate scale and constantly worrying that it's not accurate enough. But, there's still the problem of wearing on the coins, especially intentional wearing where people trim a little gold off a coin or sand some off, etc. then change the coin and do it again and again and again until they have a big pile of gold without actually spending anything. Oops. Maybe then you can just store all the gold coins in a vault (maybe just keep them as ingots) and issue people official certificates that are indivisible, unlike the coins. But, after a while, you might start to realize that you have tons and tons of gold in a big, heavily guarded vault that just sits there, doing nothing except costing money to guard. So, maybe then you realize that the gold isn't actually necessary to the process. You can dump the gold and people continue to exchange the certificates because you have an authority supporting them (just like they supported the gold itself).

It's easy to see why we've arrived at the current situation. And it should also be easy to see how the current situation with fiat currencies isn't really that different than it's always been. You can have inflation in gold-based economies. There was inflation when US dollars really were silver certificates. There has been inflation in economies that used precious metal coins exclusively. There's currently deflation where gold is concerned but, it's almost certain to experience a rapid inflation soon as the price of gold drops suddenly just like it has after every spike. Yes, hyperinflation is something you can only really see with pure fiat currencies, but that generally only happens when the country itself is collapsing. In such situations with gold-backed countries, you can bet the gold in the big vault isn't safe anyway. With pure gold economies in nations in that level of trouble, the economy seems to manage to collapse reliably anyway without hyperinflation.

Anyway, don't forget the point of this whole thread, space mining may drastically change the price of gold. An increase of 10% in gold production will probably drop the value of gold to 10% of what it is right now because the gold market is driven by speculation, not some great intrinsic value of gold itself.

Quick!

[cunniff]

Call Yukon Cornelius!

Incentive for Private Companies?

[Afforess]

Since NASA has no chance of ever establishing any more manned missions outside Earth's atmosphere, thanks to the weak political will in Washington, the continual myopic budget cuts for NASA, and the idiotic use of NASA as a jobs program for certain states by certain politicians (who I will not name, to avoid the obvious trolling that will ensue), this discovery may actually lead to future lunar missions in space. The Moon is just close enough to Earth to be nearly practical for the private space companies, and may be rich enough to be worth the haul. Especially with reports of China embargoing Rare Earth Elements.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[sensei moreh]

Unfortunately, REEs aren't overly abundant in basalts and anorthosites, the rocks that apparently make up virtually all of the lunar crust.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[The Yuckinator]

That's ok, we'll be mining "Rare Moon Elements" anyway.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[pspahn]

Since NASA has no chance of ever establishing any more manned missions outside Earth's atmosphere

Really? Ever? As in For?

I highly doubt that. While at times I do share the same cynical outlook, political landscapes change. There is a lot of uncertainty in regard to the future of government sponsored space missions. You say "no chance". I say "some chance".

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Darkness404]

Its been 38 years since the last manned moon landing. In that time the world has changed immensely. Think about it, in 1972, all the computing power in the world back then would fit into a cell phone today. But we haven't even been back to the moon despite it being easier to do than in the 60s.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[ColdWetDog]

But we haven't even been back to the moon despite it being easier to do than in the 60s.

You're basically correct but the reason we're not back on the moon has little to do with electronics and lots to do with the fact that physics hasn't changed much in those 38 years. Gravity sucks.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[EdIII]

Private Space Companies?

Ok. Who owns the Moon? I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a little while back how somebody claimed ownership of the Moon and started selling plots. If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.

I am not sure if we really know what the Moon is comprised of anyways. Sure we know about the surface, but do we know what is 10,000 feet below the surface? I am not sure there are craters deep enough to give us insight into what is that far down.

If the Moon really does contain valuable ore determining who owns it is going to be delicate issue.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[j_sp_r]

Like building a lander while both canceling the payload (robot) and the heavy lift vehicle?

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[kaizokuace]

in 1972, all the computing power in the world back then would fit into a cell phone today.

So you're saying all I need to get to the moon is a cell phone?

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[AnonymousClown]

gravity sucks?!?

I thought it was acceleration down?

Shit! So it's 9.8 meters per second squared of suck?

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[c6gunner]

Ok. Who owns the Moon? I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a little while back how somebody claimed ownership of the Moon and started selling plots.

I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a while back, like some guy selling the Eiffel Tower. Just because scam-artists are selling something doesn't mean that it's ownership is being disputed.

If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.

You could make the same argument about Antarctica. I mean, yeah, you're right, but it's not an issue at this point, and we'll deal with it when the time comes. On the other hand, missiles won't have much to do with it - it's not as if there are hundreds of nations who can launch such a program at this point. Even if all 5 of the nations with advanced space programs manage to get there at the same time, the moon is more than big enough to share.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[ikkonoishi]

Private Space Companies?

Ok. Who owns the Moon? I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a little while back how somebody claimed ownership of the Moon and started selling plots. If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.

Thats the way everything on Earth works so why not the moon?

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Cwix]

the moon is more than big enough to share.

Yea.. Lets see once you get the U.S. China, Russia, U.K, France, Germany, and maybe Australia, India, and a few other assorted countries together.. there wont be any left... at all.

Id be willing to bet that squabbles WILL happen, as soon as we can get their and back cheaply enough.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure if we really know what the Moon is comprised of anyways. Sure we know about the surface, but do we know what is 10,000 feet below the surface? I am not sure there are craters deep enough to give us insight into what is that far down.

Didn't you pay attention in school? It's made of cheese boy, green cheese.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Iron Condor]

If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.

So?

That's how the US was settled.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Nikker]

Pretty much.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[MichaelSmith]

Computers aren't all that important. The apollo 15 lunar module landed at Hadley Rille by using a five vector terrain model of the surrounding mountains. That was good enough on the day. Computers don't give you free momentum.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[MichaelSmith]

Gravity sucks

And inertia creeps.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

By this time, any plots sold can pretty much be counted as abandoned as soon as someone put their feet on it. Selling land on moon is obviously nothing but a scam.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[jeff4747]

Ok. Who owns the Moon?

Nobody. By treaty, no country can claim ownership of celestial objects.

If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first

Since the ownership is "nobody", you can plop your mining company down wherever you feel like and start digging. Nobody has the right to stop you.

Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.

Yes, your mining company will need more than shovels.

Sure we know about the surface, but do we know what is 10,000 feet below the surface?

Why do we care? Mines on Earth are deep because 1) we've been mining for a long time so surface stuff is gone, and 2) erosion removes surface minerals. The Moon hasn't been getting mined, and there's no erosion.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Toze]

Ownership is 9/10 of the law. See also the settling of North America. If nations want to lay claim to the moon, they'll need a presence there. Expect either Robot Wars On The Moon or a colonization race the instant we figure out the technologies necessary to make it feasible.

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

By treaty, no country can claim ownership of celestial objects.

That treaty won't mean squat once people actually have the technology to colonize the solar system. You think a country, company, or person who has the technology to populate a celestial body is gonna give a rats ass what some silly earth based court says? They'll just go "got a problem? Come and get me!"

Re:Incentive for Private Companies?

[DavidTC]

Since the ownership is "nobody", you can plop your mining company down wherever you feel like and start digging. Nobody has the right to stop you.

Legally, all space missions have to be 'flagged' under some nation, just like any ship in international water(1), and you are, indeed, under their jurisdiction. So says the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Other countries can only object to this (and any other space mission) if they feel it would cause 'potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies'.

As there is a rather huge area on the moon available for exploration, it's hard to see how any mining operation would impact that. Arguably, it could (and should) be used to keep you away from any existing 'exploration or use', like the existing Apollo landing sites, but you'd probably be lynched if you screwed with them anyway.

1) And if you're not, you're a SPACE PIRATE! WHEEE!

Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The moon men announced that they are diplomatically officially in a "huff" with the Earth, and that no rare Earth metals would be shipped from the Moon to the Earth.

Off the record, sources close to the moon men said, "Get your own damn rare metals from your own planet!"

Sources to close for comfort to NASA officials have commented, "Do we have to bomb the Moon again, until they get it?"

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You Earthicans, putting your labels on EVERYTHING.

They're called rare Moon metals!!

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[spidercoz]

You joke but that's exactly what we should do. If there is an adequate amount of the minerals present, there's our incentive to get back to the moon.

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[sconeu]

Would that be Gidney and Cloyd?

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[Nefarious Wheel]

"I don't think we should send any more rocks to Cheyenne Mountain" said Mycroft

"Why?"

"It isn't there any more."

-- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - R.A.Heinlein

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which poses the question: Are Rare Earth Metals rare Moon Metals?

Re:Rare Earth Metals, from the Moon ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon men know they're safe until we discover a new source of mooseberry bushes. And if we do that, they'll just scrootch the guy who finds it.

Any rare earth metals? :)

[Anonymous Coward]

.. looks like the US could use a new supplier. :-/

Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Kugrian]

This is a great discovery, but what are we going to do with it? The obvious thing is to mine it out, but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[spidercoz]

Insignificant. It would take millennia to remove that much mass from the moon.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Da Cheez]

This is a great discovery, but what are we going to do with it? The obvious thing is to mine it out, but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?

The mass of whatever rare elements we pull off the moon would probably be negligible compared to its overall mass. I would be more worried about the seemingly permanent change in appearance the moon would suffer with mining operations running on it. Without something like an atmosphere, any changes we make will be there for eons. I guess there's no practical reason for it, but I kind of like looking up into the sky and seeing a pristine lunar landscape. Maybe if they only mined the dark side of the moon....

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[spidercoz]

screw that, I want to see cities on the moon

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

but don't worry ... we would get there --- just so we can fuck up future generations

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so long as the materials are used for construction on the moon. Until we have some breakthrough in the efficiencies of space travel it wont make sense to bring the materials back to earth for use anyways. Not to mention it would take a very long time to bring down the mass of the moon by even 1%. And if/when we do get to the point for it to be economic to bring back materials from the moon it would likely be as trivial to take advantage of the asteroid belt.

This is great news for a future moon base, mined and built on the moon.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being concerned about the image of the lunar surface make as much sense as being concerned over how your comment impacts the aesthetics of Slashdot.

Life is change. The Universe knows it - why don't you?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[turbidostato]

"The obvious thing is to mine it out, but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?"

You are joking, aren't you?

And who the heck modded that "interesting"? Unless, of course, the "interesting" part is looking for how the heck are we going to mine to an extent that makes anything about a tiny fraction of a tiny scratch out of a whole damn body as massive as the Moon.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass of moon is around 7.4 × 10^22 kg.

Ain't nothing we humans do gonna make much of a dent in that sucker.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[DigiShaman]

How do you know it's not already being mined?

http://www.ironsky.net/ Enjoy =)

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just made some calculations:
To make the moon 1% lighter over 1 million years you would have to send 1.7 BILLION metric tons to earth every day. I would rather worry to flood Amsterdam by spitting into the ocean.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[pclminion]

To get material from Moon to Earth you need a delta-v of about 1 km/sec. That corresponds to a change in energy of 500000 J per kilogram. To remove even 0.000001% of the Moon's mass and send it down to earth, it would take 3.7e20 J, roughly the equivalent of 87 gigatons of TNT.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[AnonymousClown]

With Amazon Women!

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[baegucb]

Just remember, they slammed extra metal onto the moon at mach 8! It evens out ;)

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[rockNme2349]

Just like when you stand on the moon and look down at the earth you see the landscape we ruined?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Kugrian]

No, I'm not joking - I'm ignorant.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow prison colonies at a rate such that their weight keeps perfect pace with the weight of the removed materials.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Joe Snipe]

Did someone say massive cash contract- err, I mean environmentally friendly resources? Count me in!

Signed,

Haliburton

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Dachannien]

but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?

Nah, that sort of thing only happens to Klingons.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[uofitorn]

Exactly. Look how long we've been mining the Earth and we have yet to make a significant dent in its mass.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Until they revolt over the wardens inept and corrupt administration and the fact that crucial survival resources are dwindling to the danger point from being shipped to earth.
      That's when the loonies start dropping big cans of whatever is handy on earth. With difference in gravity wells it's not that hard to effect kilo or even megatons of energy release at the impact point.
      With a smart enough computer aiding in the logistics of the revolution it can happen.

Mycroft

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[iggymanz]

go ahead and laugh, but I saw The Time Machine and Cowboy Bebop . we cracked that sucker wide open! 8o

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Lanteran]

Sarcasm. Woosh.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[sconeu]

Full of Whalers!!!

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[turbidostato]

"No, I'm not joking - I'm ignorant."

No, you are not an ignorant. You are a willingly ignorant, a different beast.

It took me about two minutes to find the figures that made you look funny (it took quite more to write down this):

Moon volume: 2.1958 × 10^10 km^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon)
Total world mass moved by mining per year: 17.8 Km^3 (from the first match on Google for "overall world mass moved by mining": http://www.maden.org.tr/resimler/ekler/9fde5402cbc75ae_ek.pdf)

So you'd need more than 10 million years to move just 1% of Moon volume at current Earth's minery rates (and please pay attention that just moving lands from here to there within the Moon won't affect gravity; just the material you get away from the Moon would do it, which would be something like 1:1000 to the overall moved land, best case scenario).

Unless you are younger than, say, 10~12 years (which by your ID number, you aren't) all the knowledge you needed to spend two minutes testing your idea by yourself as suspicious were the knowledge of the Moon being really, really big for human standards, not like something too esoteric.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Except that we're not taking what we mine to another planet/celestial body. Mining's net impact on Earth's mass is zero. The net impact on lunar mining, by contrast, would be negative for the moon and positive for the Earth. It's a bit different, and certainly a bigger deal.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad idea. That's obviously where the monsters live. Plus, it's dark there.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[roystgnr]

We could always replace the removed lunar mass with something that Earth has a surplus of. I suggest using people who can't do back-of-the-napkin arithmetic.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[PhunkySchtuff]

OK. so the mass of the moon is, oh about 7.346 x 10^22kg that's approximately 73459000000000000000 tonnes. If we extract, say, 1 million tonnes of stuff from the moon, that's about 1.3 x 10^-17 %, also known as a poofteenth of a percent.
According to my calculations, this will be enough to move the moon closer to us by about 4.76 x 10^-11 metres or approximately the diameter of a hydrogen atom.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing that, all BS screaming aside, Earth is still just as beautiful as it always was from space.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[pjt33]

Some of the damage we've done is visible from the moon. Take the Aral sea: down from almost 70000 square kilometres to under 20000.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?

We'll be fine, as long as nobody starts firing rockets at it.

Oh wait..

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Cwix]

Give us time.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[chichilalescu]

and Yahoo chicks?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[luther349]

i gotta agree mining the moon wile never gonna happen taking the stuff off the moon who knows what kind of impact it would have on earth. the moons a pretty small body so it would be alot more effected by taking a few tons off it then earth. maybe this is how humanity kills themselves.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Terrasque]

Today, the ACME mining corporation got the needed fundings for mining the moon. Sources for the fundings are currently unknown.

The mining plans were also laid out, with a pattern suspiciously similar to the Nike logo.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[EmagGeek]

Since the moon is moving away from the Earth, currently at a rate of a few cm/year, how much mass would have to be removed to stop the rate of departure?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Combatso]

the earth isnt alone in the universe.. every day tonnes of space shit falls to the earth. same with the moon... its less than a drop in the global bucket..

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Combatso]

they would make the mines in the shape of a Google logo, or whoever sponsors the mining expedition

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[theBuddman]

Since the moon is moving away from the Earth, currently at a rate of a few cm/year, how much mass would have to be removed to stop the rate of departure?

All of it?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to view the previous 70,000 km^2 Aral Sea from the moon. So when I never get to see the current 20,000 km^2 Aral Sea from the moon, I won't know what I'm missing.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[HeckRuler]

Up. You'd still have to look up to see the earth when standing around on the moon. They may all be moonbats up there, but they don't walk around on their hands.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[sabre86]

You would say that, wouldn't you, Mike?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[chuchmo]

I hate to break it to you, but the lunar landscape is far from pristine. There are craters all over the place!

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[rwa2]

This is a great discovery, but what are we going to do with it? The obvious thing is to mine it out, but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?

Well, the moon is moving away from us approximately 3.8cm per year, so we better hurry up and grab what we can before it disappears completely!

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[speroni]

Screw that I'm going to go build my own moon mine, with hookers and blackjack and whiskey.

In fact, forget the moon mine!

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[speroni]

The Earth is down.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[mcgrew]

Maybe if they only mined the dark side of the moon....

"There is no dark side of the moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark." -- Pink Floyd

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[mcgrew]

We've been mining since prehistoric times. How much time do you want?

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[WildBlueYonder]

That's not the same thing though, because until 60 years ago every single bit of material we mined out of the Earth stayed here. Even today the vast majority of what we mine stays here, and the majority of mass that we've sent off of Earth is in LEO and will come back to Earth within a few decades.

Of course even if we had been shipping things off of Earth this whole time it wouldn't have made much of a dent. The earth has a radius of 6,371 km, and we mine--what--10 miles deep? 50? The crust is a lot less dense than the core too.

Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea?

[WildBlueYonder]

The Earth would appear to be straight up from some parts of the moon, but from others it would be very close to the horizon, and anywhere in between.

Respurces on the moon?

[Rod Beauvex]

Water? Gold? Silver? Why have we not brought democracy to the moon yet?

Re:Respurces on the moon?

[Faluzeer]

That only happens when they discover oil...

Re:Respurces on the moon?

[Lotana]

We discovered plenty of hydrocarbons on Titan. Where are the liberation convoys? Time to get cracking boys!

Re:Respurces on the moon?

[alxkit]

Don't worry, operation "lunar freedom" is on it's way...

Re:Respurces on the moon?

[Arancaytar]

We'd need oil for that.

Re:Respurces on the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to remind everyone of the story Robert Heinlein told about a fictional first moon landing. The backers pulled the astronaut aside before the launch and gave him a bag of raw diamonds. They wanted him to tell everyone when he got back that he found them on the moon. The idea was that this would make it easier to get financing for further lunar exploration.

Then I saw this post and was about to point out that without hydrocarbons, there is little chance of oil on the moon. Then I realized the same holds true for diamonds. Oh, well, too bad, Heinlein.

Maybe the gold story is a page taken from Heinlein.

Oil on Moon?

[c0lo]

TFA

"You know how volatile mercury is on earth," said Randy Gladstone of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, in a press conference on Thursday. "It's probably more volatile than other metals on the moon."

Must be because the Moon shows more oil and interest rate shocks

Gold?

[fyngyrz]

I have to wonder how much of that gold was debris from the spacecraft - plating for connections, etc. Once the thing hit, I would imagine (and I am just guessing) that the plume that resulted was pretty well mixed with well-blended spacecraft.

Oh well, with the article behind a paywall, I'm not about to find out. Nice to pay for the science - NASA - out of the taxpayers pocket, then charge us again for the results, eh?

Re:Gold?

[Facegarden]

I have to wonder how much of that gold was debris from the spacecraft - plating for connections, etc. Once the thing hit, I would imagine (and I am just guessing) that the plume that resulted was pretty well mixed with well-blended spacecraft.

Oh well, with the article behind a paywall, I'm not about to find out. Nice to pay for the science - NASA - out of the taxpayers pocket, then charge us again for the results, eh?

Thanks to google, I can find it all by myself.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/oct_21_media_telecon.html
-Taylor

Re:Gold?

[fyngyrz]

The word "gold" does not appear on that page. Nor did I see anything about accounting for the metals in the spacecraft in the general sense. So I'm still in the dark. Unless there's something indirect there you expected me to follow?

Re:Gold?

[Jarik C-Bol]

that was my first question. all the materials listed in the summary could logically be found in a basic space probe.

Re:Gold?

[Facegarden]

The word "gold" does not appear on that page. Nor did I see anything about accounting for the metals in the spacecraft in the general sense. So I'm still in the dark. Unless there's something indirect there you expected me to follow?

Jesus christ you're lazy!

I don't know, poke around. They even list a number to call to get a rebroadcast version of the press conference:

"Media Telecon: LCROSS and LRO Science Science Results of Lunar Impact10.21.10
Date: Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010
Time: 11 a.m. PDT / 2 p.m. EDT
A replay of the teleconference will be available until Nov. 4, 2010 by dialing 888-566-0674 from within the United States, or 203-369-3084 internationally. Passcode is 6267."

You complained about not being able to access the information that we have a legal right to access freely (everything NASA does is public domain, or something like that).

I guess i figured my point went without saying, but i must have been wrong. My point was: If you look around, the information *is* available. It just might not be in the format you want. Some reporter for a newspaper sat around and listened to that press conference though, and made the data easier to get to. That paywall pays for that man's time. If you don't want to pay, NASA provides the number to call and listen yourself. Or, the other point I was trying to make, is that you could just google around. A quick search for "nasa lcross gold" brought up:
http://www.universetoday.com/76329/water-on-the-moon-and-much-much-more-latest-lcross-results/

I'm sure NASA will put the data online at some point, but people have to write reports and all that. Until then, your options are pretty clear, and I don't see any cause to complain, except to be annoying.
-Taylor

Re:Gold?

[aliquis]

Mercury, gold, silver, ..

... and cheese!

Re:Gold?

[magarity]

Jesus christ you're lazy!

That's OK; he's a lot smarter than the science team who are clearly morons for not once taking into account their own spacecraft parts during the years it took to put the program together.

Re:Gold?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder if your post is any better then a f1R$t P0sT. You posted this as a reply to a post that had nothing to do with it. The sad part is you had what I thought was an interesting comment, that prob would have stood out even if it was further down the list.

Re:Gold?

[sir1real]

Lazy, huh? The link you provided says nothing about gold.

Re:Gold?

[Darfeld]

So you did read the entire GP message either, did you?

I guess you're lazy after all.

Re:Gold?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists are humans too - they have an interest in publishing positive results, so they might ignored some inconvenient facts - worth checking.

Re:Gold?

[Foobar of Borg]

Scientists are humans too - they have an interest in publishing positive results, so they might ignored some inconvenient facts - worth checking.

And when someone else determines that the "positive results" are hogwash, they are shown to be a bunch of fools and lose their valuable reputation.

Funny how this whole "peer review" thing works.

Re:Gold?

[pnewhook]

Well it would follow that the composition of the moon soil would be similar to the composition of the earth's crust since the moon was formed out of the earths's crust from an asteroid impact. This shouldn't be a surprise but is further proof of the asteroid impact theory.

Re:Gold?

[mcgrew]

The object that collided with the Earth was Mars sized. I think that's a little large to be calling an asteroid. More like two worlds colliding.

Re:Gold?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Even better, just go to NASA's site: www.nasa.gov, search LCROSS, and the first hit you get is a link to a page which gave you the option to dial into a telecon discussing the LCROSS results:

So to the parent bitching about non-free, tax funded results, perhaps you should just try finding the information for yourself if you are really all that interested. Rather than complaining because Slashdot, a news aggregator, linked you to the wrong source.

Re:Gold?

[rwa2]

No! Anyone who watches the Colbert Report must realize by now that scientists are evil conniving bunches conspiring to take over the world! I bet this whole report was concocted by them in secret to drive a gold rush to the moon, securing their funding for the next few decades! And like fools, we're believing them! By the time we figure it out, it will be too late, and they will leave for the stars on the expensive mining equipment our tax dollars paid for! And we'll be stuck here with nothing but national debt and the same old moon made out of green cheese.

Well I for one am not going to listen to them!!!1!

Re:Gold?

[pnewhook]

Ever since everything here became a car analogy, I get my information from wiseGeek: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-largest-asteroid-ever-to-hit-earth.htm

Re:Gold?

[Hognoxious]

Ever since everything here became a car analogy, I get my information from wiseGeek

It says: "The largest asteroid ever to hit Earth was probably Theia, a Mars-sized body".

Perhaps you should find another site, preferable one that isn't full of shit. If it's the size of Mars, it isn't an asteroid. Heck, even poor old Pluto hasn't been demoted that far.

Re:Gold?

[pnewhook]

Size has nothing to do with being called an asteroid. If it's not in a planetary orbit, and its not orbiting a planet (moon), then its an asteroid or a comet.

Re:Gold?

[Hognoxious]

Size has nothing to do with being called an asteroid.

"it has increasingly come to particularly refer to the small rocky and metallic bodies of the inner Solar System and out to the orbit of Jupiter [...] Like most other small Solar System bodies the asteroids are thought to be remnants of planetesimals [...] Traditionally, small bodies orbiting the Sun were classified as asteroids, comets or meteoroids, "

Also called minor planet. Astronomy . any of the thousands of small bodies of from 480 miles (775 km) to less than one mile (1.6 km) in diameter that revolve about the sun in orbits lying mostly between those of Mars and Jupiter.

I've emphasised the bits where it says they can be any goddam size.

If it's not in a planetary orbit, and its not orbiting a planet (moon), then its an asteroid or a comet.

Not quite sure what definition of a "planetary orbit" you're using, but Theia's collision is thought to have occurred because it was sharing Earth's orbit. Sounds pretty planetary to me.

Re:Gold?

[pnewhook]

I've emphasised the bits where it says they can be any goddam size.

Right. So if they can be any size, then size has nothing to do with being called an asteroid. Than you for agreeing with me.

Besides, if something the size of Mars came hurtling towards Earth from an out of plane trajectory, what exactly would you call it? Asteroid or comet are your only two real choices. No one would call it a planet.

Soo...

[mozumder]

they found out all the elements that made up the booster rocket?

If there's water on the moon...

[roesti]

Are there whalers on the moon? Do they carry a harpoon?

Re:If there's water on the moon...

[SkeeZerD]

Oblig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60BjkUtqxPE

Re:If there's water on the moon...

[Anonymous Coward]

No there aint no whales so they tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune.

Re:If there's water on the moon...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but mining the moon is just like making love. You know, left, down, rotate 62 degrees, engage rotor.

So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[Gavin Scott]

It seems to me that everything that you can find on the moon (or in asteroids for that matter) can be found here on earth in similar quantities and accessed more inexpensively, probably by a factor of 1/1,000,000 or so.

Sure, building your starship construction facility on the moon has advantages, ok, one advantage, that of 1/10 the gravity of earth, but honestly is it really cheaper to build something there rather than just do it on earth? Sure it would cost a lot more to launch stuff out of Earth's gravity well, but is it so much more expensive that it justifies the cost of learning how to do all this stuff on the moon?

You tell me what you want to do on the moon and I'll tell you how to do it faster and cheaper here on Earth.

There are lots of fun reasons to explore space (and maybe even the moon) but not for silver mining (and spaceport construction).

I know people get all romantic about human space flight, but personally I'd say send the robots until we find something worth visiting in person. They're better at the job.

G.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[geekoid]

No, they are not better at the job. They might be better in a specific task, but not over all.

Having someone on Mars to make judgments about where to look it far more productive, and humans are far more adaptable to obstacles....but it's also far more expensive.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[symbolset]

The Earth doesn't make a good mining base for interplanetary industries. Far too much gravity. The point of mining in space is not to bring stuff back to Earth. It's to make stuff in space so you don't have to have lift it out of that well.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[Nefarious Wheel]

In the long run, the one commodity available from the Moon will no longer be easily available from Earth.

Acreage.

Not this decade, perhaps, or the next, but you may or may not have noticed it's starting to get a bit crowded down here.

Hard to say this when I'm ringing in from Australia, but we're pushing inward from our rather pleasant coastlines too. Eventually, we'll cover the deserts -- and once we get to that point, we'll know a lot more about living in hostile environments (I'm minded to think of the underground settlements in Coober Pedy). Moving to the Moon wouldn't be that huge of a jump.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[Peeteriz]

By far the greatest problem and cost is getting stuff out of earth's gravity well. So if we need stuff X in outer space for whatever use, if the machinery for making X weighs less than X itself, then it would be more cost-efficient to build X from moon's materials. If you need two tons of water for drinking/agriculture/whatever, then it's cheaper to launch a complex multimillion dollar robot weighting 1.5 tons that can mine 2 tons of water instead of simply launching the water.

If we want a small rover on Mars or anywhere else, then it's efficient to just build it here and launch it.
If we want a facility on Mars or a starship, then it's efficient to build as much of it as possible from stuff mined outside the earth.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[theBuddman]

You tell me what you want to do on the moon and I'll tell you how to do it faster and cheaper here on Earth.

Find an unclaimed gold vein?

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[MaWeiTao]

Boo!!! Why do you have to crush our flights of fancy? Are we wrong to dream?

And anyway, the more you do something, the easier and cheaper it gets. Think of the upfront cost as an investment which would undoubtedly pay off in the long run. Unfortunately that payout wont come soon enough for politicians to be re-elected. Better to spend our money on "bribes" which ensure reelection and keep the people dependent on government.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

No you're not, so you don't have any excuses.

-Because we can.

Re:So unless there's Unobtanium there too...

[painandgreed]

You tell me what you want to do on the moon and I'll tell you how to do it faster and cheaper here on Earth.

Build large space stations and a moon base for exploration of space and the rest of the solar system.

The point of materials such as water and gold on the moon is not that we'll ship them back down the gravity well, but that if we are looking at large scale space exploration or habitation, it will be much cheaper to ship the industry to the moon and do it there than build everything on Earth and ship it up the gravity well. This is true even if we only use robots to do it. We can ship water to the moon, but once the amount of water needed is less than the amount of machinery needed to extract water from the moon, there is little reason to ship water.

Cue the "Get Off This Rock" crew

[Un pobre guey]

Now the "Get Off This Rock" gang will start shouting to the four winds that we can now have cheap, self-sustaining moon bases and then go to Mars right away. The real loonies will start wondering if it can pay its own way through gold mining.

Re:Cue the "Get Off This Rock" crew

[AnonymousClown]

Loonies? What does the Canadian dollar have to do with moon bases?!?

Are the Canadians going to build them?

Re:Cue the "Get Off This Rock" crew

[overtly_demure]

There's gold in them thar craters!

Re:Cue the "Get Off This Rock" crew

[Lanteran]

why not? We need some sort of initiative to get off this rock, as you put it.

Re:Cue the "Get Off This Rock" crew

[Un pobre guey]

Because it would not be even remotely profitable, therefore it wouldn't work. Therein lies the "joke": the "Get Off This Rock" crowd is generally unable to grasp the practical realities of their emotional goals and beliefs, so they would instantly believe that gold mining on the moon would be just as profitable as on earth if not more so. I guess it was too opaque...

I like gooooooooold!

[thatskinnyguy]

Now we need to launch a nuke at the moon to make said gold radioactive for years. Almost worked for Goldfinger.

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA

[Joe The Dragon]

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA it self? Neil Armstrong?

Mooninite Statement

[Anonymous Coward]

To: NASA, Earthlings, et. al...

Your recent violation of Mooninite ground is a clear violation of our gravity well, as well as the sacred ores contained within our 'Shrine to Cold Storage'. Unfortunately, that Shrine also contained our only weapons cache, else we would have destroyed your atomosphere by now. This act of aggression has set us back, technologically, 10 years. For future reference, mark the day 10 years for your 'experiement date', so that you may prepare for Earths astmospheric destruction.

Regards,

Mooninite Hall of Justice
Mooninite Sacred Crater Guild
Mooninite Defensive Strategies Conglomerate

Whoop!

[silentkillzr]

Thats pretty awesome!

Freaky

[az1324]

Kind of strange that I saw this story whilst watching "First Men in The Moon" where they also happen to find gold on the moon.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

If something crashed into Earth and broke a bunch of debris off to form the moon, then it should have elements on Earth and maybe frozen water in it.

Assuming that's how the Moon was formed...

So the new question is simple

[Tanman]

Is there any amount of materials on the moon that would make it profitable for a company to build the capability to mine it and ship material back to earth? I'm not sure there is. Lets say you found a boulder of gold that weighed three tons. A solid nugget. What are the costs associated with recovering that nugget? Now, realizing that they won't find that, but instead ore and other materials that need processing, there are additional considerations: Do you pay for the shipping weight of ore, or do you pay to process the ore on the moon and ship the material? If you process it on the moon, how do you handle the additional maintenance and engineering requirements?

I didn't RTFA, but just seeing that valuable materials on the moon made me question how valuable ANYTHING is when you have to pay so much per unit of weight to retrieve it. Maybe Chuck Norris' cancer-curing tears, if they were found on the moon. But I can't think of much else.

Re:So the new question is simple

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Freight costs overwhelm material costs, but that works in both directions.

Once you're out of Earth orbit, resources from the Moon are much cheaper to you than resources blasted out of Earth's gravity well.

Water is especially wonderful. Electrolyze it and liquefy the results, and you have rocket fuel.

Next California Gold Rush

[stupiddumbname]

Backyard spacecraft is the new stagecoach.

Mooney-Niner?

[Trip6]

Selling rockets and LEMs for the gold rush...

Would love to go out there with a shovel..

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps with the low gravity and massive impact craters rare elements that are normally deeper or even molten here on Earth might be near the surface. Now where's my darn spaceship and my moon-donkey? I needs to do me some Moon prospecin'

Re:Would love to go out there with a shovel..

[MichaelSmith]

my moon-donkey? I needs to do me some Moon prospecin'

There are three LRVs waiting for new batteries.

wonders why it took 40+ years to find out,

[Anonymous Coward]

but so be it. awesome!

and they're off!

[macbiv]

Let the Moon Wars begin!

What?

[PinkyGigglebrain]

What, no Unobtainium?

If they had found that you could bet some nation would be there by next summer, at the latest.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[PGGreens]

We better get on this. We must not allow a mineshaft gap!

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

those who have the will and the ability to take those "rights". come on, you weren't born yesterday.

Excellent news ...

[Kittenman]

If anything gets our species back into space, it'll be greed. Sad but true.

Re:Excellent news ...

[royallthefourth]

If it means jettisoning the rich out into space, please hurry up about it!

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA it self? Neil Armstrong?

Actually, I own thousands of acres on that particular site...I bought it for $20 here: http://www.lunarregistry.com/

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[The_mad_linguist]

100 acres per human landing, I believe.

IT'S A TRAP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA finally found a way to get all the teabaggers to go to the Moon. MOON-GOLD NEVER DECREASES IN VALUE!!!

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[chiapup]

I nominate Buzz Aldrin.

Luna Bottled Water?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the bottles of water they left in my hotel room will cost $500 each if I open them instead of $3.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Breaking news!

[miknix]

Terrorists members from Al-Qaeda are hiding in the moon! We must go there and defeat them!

gold being discovered there is just plain coincidence

ANNOUCEMENT: PILOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Mulder and Scully investigate the strange deaths of members of a high-school graduating class in the Pacific Northwest.

Wrong moon?

[symbolset]

Liberate Titan!

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

usually, like other land disputes, first one gets dibs

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Penguinisto]

If someone is smart enough, he/she can make it an independent entity. Strangely enough, a lot of the complexities were covered in Heinlein's story "The Man Who Sold The Moon".

For example, the problem of the moon being theoretically owned by all the countries it orbited directly over. This was determined by what most folks consider as universal property sovereignty rights: a country owned a wedge of Earth in the cross-sectional shape of that country, starting as a pin-point at the Earth's core, and spreading out through the surface, then onward to infinity. In the book, Harriman (the protagonist) set up dummy companies in all countries the moon passed over, then bought the "rights" to the Moon from each of those governments (for a relative pittance, since most governments in the book bet against anyone actually making it to the moon). This gave his corporation full ownership of the beastie.

Eventually, Heinlein had his guy (Harriman) fund and establish a permanent colony on the Moon, then had that colony apply for recognition by the UN as an independent nation. Once recognized, that new 'government' owned the whole damned thing as an independent entity.

The reasoning was pretty solid, since whichever country parks a self-sustaining colony on the Moon could theoretically own it out here in Real Life. Otherwise, it'd turn out like Antarctica, which is pretty worthless - nobody owns it via treaty, so nobody can do anything with it. Nice sentiment and all, but pretty worthless when it comes to the long-term prospect of accommodating an expanding human population (and/or dwindling resources).

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Penguinisto]

You, I believe, got ripped off. You cannot in reality own what you cannot occupy - at least when it comes to places outside the reach of law enforcement. I suspect that said law enforcement, if/when it does arrive on the Moon, will be more beholden to the government that sent them, than to some dude who decided to sell you something he couldn't possibly lay claim to, let alone hold.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

That fag that bought the rover on the moon? I can't remember his name though and its not worth it to me to google it.

But... but..!

[RCC42]

No diamonds?

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Lanteran]

moon treaty. In theory, all of space is preserved for research. In practice, who knows?

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

That will be the fun part. We'll completely destroy the rest of the Earth and all life on it warring over the rights of something that won't matter once the war is over.

*War Ends*
"We won!!! The Moon elements are oooooooooooours!!"
*Looks around*
"Crap... only ten of us men left..."

$100k/ounce

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do moon rocks cost?

Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments from Luna 16, weighing 0.2 g, were sold for US$ 442,500. In 2002, a safe, containing minute samples of lunar and Martian material, was stolen from the Lunar Sample Building. The samples were recovered; in 2003, during the court case, NASA estimated the value of these samples at about $1 million for 285 g (10 oz) of material. Moon rocks in the form of lunar meteorites, although expensive, are widely sold and traded among private collectors.

- Wiki
 
...and the moon is MADE of that shit.

I think it's gonna be awhile.
Hmm...unless basalt is a rare-earth element and that's why China is going there....

Proving 20's science fiction right

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Professor Mannfeldt was right after all

Mod Parent Up

[vaporland]

I always think of that book whenever this subject comes up. Maybe we can send all the folks who want less government to the moon and they can lob rocks back at us...

Perhaps not Unobtanium, but free energy...

[Nefarious Wheel]

With no atmosphere to conduct heat, any Stirling engine would be massively more efficient. Solar collector concentrator at the hot end, black finned heat sink facing away into shadow, near-perfect vacuum for thermal insulation -- that sucker would spin.

Re:Perhaps not Unobtanium, but free energy...

[blueg3]

It's not that simple. Heat engines all need a strong heat gradient to operate: both a source and a good sink. With no atmosphere to conduct heat, building a heat sink is surprisingly difficult. Radiating out into space (which, at a few Kelvin, is pretty cold) just isn't all that efficient once you're talking about objects that are producing substantial amounts of heat.

/me readies his SCV

[ctataryn]

Ahh, you scared me!

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Xiterion]

Whoever can manage to profitably extract it first, would be my guess.

Gold?

[Arancaytar]

Enough to make further manned moon missions profitable? That would certainly revitalize lunar space flight... :P

(And yeah, probably not enough for even a tiny fraction of the fuel cost.)

Radioactive elements

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you can think of more. Those are the opportunities that further space exploration present.

I'm still worried an unforeseen accident will send the moon off into space.

"rare earth" vs. "common moon"

[LongearedBat]

Obviously the moon contains (actially, consists of) minerals. It wouldn't be there otherwise. Especially seeing as it was a large chunk broken off from Earth a few billion years ago. And sure, earth has been supplemented by asteroids since then, but so has the moon. So the question is not really "Does the moon have minerals?" but more a matter of "How much can we expect to find on the surface?".

Gold and silver are somewhat financially valuable to us now. But from what I understand, they are also relatively common. I suspect the reports highlight gold and silver because that's language that beancounters who pay for the space programs understand. But there are far more valuable resources that we'll desparately need in 25-75 years time.

So, more importantly... because lacking in rare earth minerals could stymie advancements in technology...
What "rare earth" minerals might be "common moon" minerals?

Re:"rare earth" vs. "common moon"

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally someone talking some sense.

There was a TED talk about cold fission, which said that we had viable, workable process that can be implimented NOW. Unfortunately it requires a very rare hydrongen (helium?) isotope that primarily exists on the moon. We have bought some of it back and extracted it some samples. The processes aren't out of the question for what we could manage for initial space mining tech.

A tiny amount of the isotope on question could power entire counties for years. This is the kind of thing that can solve mankind's power issues (for a reasonably long time) while simultaneously blowing open the door to space. IIRC the primary source of the isotope is the sun's internal processes, with the moon acting as a collector.

Re:"rare earth" vs. "common moon"

[Anonymous Coward]

Helium-3

Re:"rare earth" vs. "common moon"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheese

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[sosaited]

Those rights will belong to the first and only citizens of Moon of course: Mr. Man-in-the-Moon and Mrs Chang'e Moon
Why do you think NASA has not been able to make any plans to mine any of that? China has blocked export of Rare-moon materials with US too.

Nice post, but...

[Chicken_Kickers]

See, it's all nice to go misty eyed, chest out, with the Federation flag flapping in the wind behind you about space colonisation but think of it this way. We are living at the bottom of a deep and steep (gravitational) cliff, though generally, it is pleasant here and we (still) have what we need. The Moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri, with all its riches, gold and hot green women is on top of this cliff. Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here? Factor in the cost of going to the moon, mining it and transporting it back to Earth, it is probably more economical to extract gold from sea water. I'm not saying space colonisation will never happen. It could happen. But then again, I have a dim view of our chances. Also, there is no soil on the moon. In fact, moon dust is very abrasive and would be very hazardous to humans and our machinery.

Re:Nice post, but...

[The Hatchet]

Actually, after the initial base it would be cheap as hell. Once you set up a small base, you can send tons upon tons of moon rocks (which sell for quite a lot), gold and other things, and send them back to earth using very small amounts of energy. The base can be entirely robotic, and it could pay for itself in just a few months. If we found rare earth metals, platinum, rhodium, or helium compounds this could also be incredibly profitable for a plethora of mining opportunities. With threats from china to stop exporting anything rare, and hoard it to drive up costs, it would be worth it to search.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, there is no soil on the moon

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=moon+grow+crops+in+regolith

Re:Nice post, but...

[Combatso]

Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here?

Becuase we can, what else have we got going on. I for one am tired of watching my roomba bounce off the coffee table.

Re:Nice post, but...

[BadBlood]

I know you feel our chances are dim, but don't you hope for more from us as a species than to be forever relegated to this planet? Is that all we were ever meant to be? Earth-bound? At some point we need to take that next step away from here and it will never make "sense" to do so in the short term. I just think the payoffs would be huge, the knowledge gained worth it, and the species as a whole would be motivated to do more than what we're mired in now.

Re:Nice post, but...

[khallow]

Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here?

Just because something is harder to get, doesn't mean it is more expensive to get. I doubt water will have a draw (unless the novelty of drinking water from the Moon commands enough of a premium), but gold is at a price per mass that could work down the road a bunch of decades from now. For example, if someone sets up an automated manufacturing infrastructure on the Moon so that the marginal cost of mining gold is paying some code monkeys to tell the infrastructure to do that too, then that's going to greatly reduce the cost of mining gold on the Moon.

Re:Nice post, but...

[theBuddman]

Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here?

You said it yourself. The hot green women are at the top...

Re:Nice post, but...

[Toze]

I feel the need to point out that moon rocks sell for a lot because they are rare. If it starts raining moon rocks, they will devalue rapidly.

Honestly, though, hot green alien chicks should be enough motivation for anyone.

Re:Nice post, but...

[corbettw]

We are living at the bottom of a deep and steep (gravitational) cliff

And that's why someone, sometime, will set up a colony on the moon. What better way to control the earth than by setting up a simple catapult that can launch 100-ton boulders at any city on the planet at will?

Re:Nice post, but...

[MozeeToby]

Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here?

Quantity mostly. I'm not saying gold from the moon, but the amount of metals in even a smallish asteroid dwarfs our annual production rates on the surface. A single 1 mile diameter asteroid has an estimated worth of $20 trillion dollars in metals. Of course, you've got to find ways to get the equipment up there and get the resources back down, but a carefully chosen asteroid could also be used as an orbital water and refueling point, using water and fuel created from resources gathered on the asteroid itself.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You try extracting hot green women from seawater you dummy.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I'm going to drop one fairly big rock on everyone living at the bottom of the cliff. Bang! That eliminate everybody? Good. We're done here.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Magada]

The moon makes no sense as a stopover. However, it is way cheaper energy-wise and generally simpler because of a lack of atmosphere to lift stuff out of the moon's gravity well. What I'd do is set up a fuel station there which would break the water into hydrogen and oxygen (yay for no atmosphere and solar ovens!), liquefy both (yay for cold dark outer space and miles of ceramic plumbing!), mine the leftovers for metal and throw the resulting cans of rocket fuel into LEO, GEO or to where ever else they are needed (Wanna go to Mars in a reasonable amount of time? Send some of these cans ahead, no need to drag all your reaction mass with you when you leave home!).

Capturing an ice asteroid or three would probably be next on the agenda.

Re:Nice post, but...

[CAIMLAS]

I was actually kind of thinking of more of a Serenity/Firefly, BSG, or Wing Commander type situation. They're more in line with human nature than Star Trek, which is quite fantastical regarding human nature - to the point of ruining the shows for me (to the exception of Voyager and DS9).

Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here?

I suppose it's a worldview thing.

I don't know where you're from, but America was founded by people who sought opportunity, freedom, and adventure. Short of joining the military or doing deep-sea exploration, there isn't much of those left in the world - at least not in an open-ended fashion.

So going to space would be an adventure. I probably wouldn't be doing it unless it became feasible for colonization purposes in the next 5-10 years - I'm too old and have responsibilities to family. But I could at least live vicariously through the efforts of others, and the dream that there's something bigger - new, exciting, and fresh - for my children and grandchildren would be a real thrill.

Factor in the cost of going to the moon, mining it and transporting it back to Earth, it is probably more economical to extract gold from sea water.

Maybe. Probably. Who cares? Mining gold on the moon would not be the goal - it would be a financial offset to get to financial profitability.

How many asteroids are there out there containing precious metals, ores, and what have you? Quite a few, I'm sure. Wouldn't it be nice to have zero industrial destruction of the Earth itself? Idealist and somewhat unrealistic, I'm sure - but if enough advancements were made out of necessity, we'd be well on our way to meeting that goal partially. (As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. There's only so much pen and paper groundwork you can do for something you've got no experience doing in the first place.)

Re:Nice post, but...

[The Hatchet]

Sure they will devalue rapidly, but not until a few hundred million worth has been sold. Plus, when that loses too much value we can just ship back gold, make reserves of water for spacecraft passing through, ect. Cheaper to ship things off the moon than off the earth.

Re:Nice post, but...

[MozeeToby]

They're more in line with human nature than Star Trek.

To be fair, Star Trek takes place in a universe where a single starship has literally more power capacity than the sun (if you believe their numbers), replicators that can create almost anything instantly, holodecks that can allow you to experience pretty much anything you could want. And they've had these technologies for generations, there's really no telling how much human society would change. So much negative human behavior is driven by scarcity which unlimited energy and material goods does away with. Another large part of negative behavior is based on insecurity which being able to do anything you want in a holodeck would probably eliminate, if nothing else the holodeck is a therapist's wet dream when it comes to diagnosing and treating issues.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Hognoxious]

So much negative human behavior is driven by scarcity which unlimited energy and material goods does away with.

You reckon? If everyone had his own planet, people would still want a bigger one - and with more moons - than the next guy.

Re:Nice post, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, it's all nice to go misty eyed, chest out, with the Federation flag flapping in the wind behind you about space colonisation but think of it this way. We are living at the bottom of a deep and steep (gravitational) cliff, though generally, it is pleasant here and we (still) have what we need. The Moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri, with all its riches, gold and hot green women is on top of this cliff. Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here? Factor in the cost of going to the moon, mining it and transporting it back to Earth, it is probably more economical to extract gold from sea water. I'm not saying space colonisation will never happen. It could happen. But then again, I have a dim view of our chances. Also, there is no soil on the moon. In fact, moon dust is very abrasive and would be very hazardous to humans and our machinery.

See, it's all nice to go misty eyed, chest out, with the Spanish flag flapping in the wind behind you about oversea colonisation but think of it this way. We are living at the edge of a vast (infinite) ocean, though generally, it is pleasant here and we (still) have what we need. The new world, with all its riches, gold and hot Mayan women is on the other side of this ocean. Why should we have to expend money and time to sail this ocean, to get stuff that we can easier get from the Arab traders? Factor in the cost of building the ship, feeding the men, and transporting it back to Spain, it is probably more economical to extract gold from sea water. I'm not saying colonisation will never happen. It could happen. But then again, I have a dim view of our chances. Also, there is no land overseas. In fact, the world is flat and would be very hazardous to humans and our ale.

Yeah, I fudged actual history a bit. So sue me.

Re:Nice post, but...

[nutshell42]

The base can be entirely robotic, and it could pay for itself in just a few months.

Sorry, but no. The dust is abrasive as hell, the whole enterprise would be a maintenance nightmare and we're definitely not at the point where we can send up a small replicator that produces everything needed as long as you feed it materials and energy.

The support infrastructure for a fully automated mine would be massive, sending replacement parts to the moon would be prohibitively expensive, building factories even more so.

Launch costs need to come down 2 or 3 orders of magnitude before we see large space based industries and colonization.

Re:Nice post, but...

[The Hatchet]

Airship Launch pad. Yes, the dust is abrasive, but on a microscopic level. The biggest problem is that it sticks to everything. The abrasiveness is only a problem for internal components which can be easily protected and biology.

Re:compounds

[tonique]

and observe what is released?

Perhaps, some elements like water and carbon dioxide.

Won't water make the moon spoil and rot?

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS made of green cheese after all.

Water?

[zmollusc]

If there is water, then there must be whales. Neato!
Get your harpoons, lads!

No yellow cheese?

[flyingfsck]

Damn, now what will astronauts eat when they get there?

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever can get there and take it.

And

[mahadiga]

Is this news a hoax?
Historically people have been investing in Gold during economic recession.

6000 miles per hour

[Loki_666]

I hope they took into account the effect on the orbit of the moon when they were smashing rockets into it at such speeds.... otherwise it will be Space 1999 time.

Re:6000 miles per hour

[Combatso]

uhm... oh nevermind, I havent got time to explain physics to you right now

Deception Point

[Anonymous Coward]

by Dan Brown

But Where's the WMDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame they didn't find evidence of WMDs as well, we would've been back to the moon like a shot if they had...

Just Great!!!

[eltora49]

Humans... now we are blasting holes .. soon, there's gonna be a mining camp up there along with the usual junk that we always manage to carry with us everywhere we touch.. :(

Re:Just Great!!!

[Combatso]

how were you able to post this message from your cave? since obviously you are a naturalist

No Vespane gas?

[DeBaas]

No Vespane gas?

Not earth, but earth orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Mining this stuff and shipping it back to earth probably doesn't make much sense, but shipping it back to earth orbit might. Long term sci-fi inspired vision - mine stuff on moon, electric catapult to reach escape velocity with it and ion engine tug to nudge it to space station (whatever) in earth orbit. No chemical fuel needed, no expensive rockets.

Water, oxygen, fuel, metals all available cheap once the minor (not) matter of setting up the lunar base has been cracked. A lot of the stuff you need for interplanetary trips. And if you find uranium, you can launch a reactor from earth and fuel it up there without worrying about radioactive dust being spread around when a rocket explodes (maybe the Iranians would donate a few centrifuges?).

Where are the whalers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the whalers?

Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[Ihlosi]

In space, it becomes just yet another metal, and not a particularly useful one at that (as opposed to things like silver, platinum, palladium, etc). And transporting the stuff back to Earth would be more expensive than its value, and hence quite uneconomical.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. Gold is a good non-carosive conductor. It's also workable at reasonably low temperatures. Gold would have value in space, even if not for shiney jewelry.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[mcgrew]

Gold is very useful for plating electrical connections. It's nearly as conductive as silver but doesn't oxidise like silver does.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

and not a particularly useful one

Yep, that makes sense, seeing as how just about every spacecraft designed nowadays uses gold foil attached to the bus for thermal and radioactive control. No, really, from a materials or chemistry perspective, you might be dead on. But gold is one of the most commonly used materials in spacecraft design and engineering being implemented in everything from microelectronic connections to full size gold sheets buttoned on the side of the spacecraft. Gold is inert and conductive for both heat and electrical energy. It is also very easy to process into thin/small parts. It is very useful.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[SleazyRidr]

Oxidising isn't so much of an issue in space...

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[mcgrew]

It is in a crew capsule or space station.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[quantumRage]

I've heard that gold makes a fine shield material against cosmic rays. I'd say that makes it quite useful metal, when it helps to keep you alive.

Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth.

[Ihlosi]

I've heard that gold makes a fine shield material against cosmic rays.

It's not much better in this regard than, say, lead.

It reflects infrared and visible light quite well and is therefore used in thermal insulation of satellites against overheating, but its properties are hardly unique (especially when you start assembling things in space and don't have to worry about corrosion).

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA it self? Neil Armstrong?

Richard Garriott?

Mooner Fourty Nooners

[eyenot]

Pfft. Fucking great. Now people who have absolutely no valid interest in the moon as a scientific and archaeological object being the Earth's oldest possible artifact and hugest object in our neighborhood are going to go there and start fighting over it. We will see a face or shattered moon and/or moonless sky in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)

Cheese

[RavenChild]

Did they also find large amounts of calcium, fat, and vitamin D?

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rights" are a legal construct, and therefore require a legal system first. So, to answer your question, we'd first need an answer who governs the moon. Nobody does, right now, so there is no legal system and there simply are no rights.

There are some UN treaties about the Moon and Space, which generally prevent any earth-bound country from claiming or recognizing such rights. These treaties were written when it still seemed feasible some countries would establish a permanent moon base, and with that a legal system on the moon.

WTF?

[hesaigo999ca]

You are telling me that we know what is on the moon, by smashing something into it, and then analyzing the dust cloud it leaves behind, I thought there was no such thing as dust clouds in space because of the lack of gravity...?
I call BS on this story.....just more misdirection...are there some elections coming soon or something?

The best use for Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, colonizing and industrializing Moon has only one real purpose: to make future space programs cheaper. As you said, "We are living at the bottom of a deep and steep (gravitational) cliff". Planet Earth's surface is lousy place for space harbor and shipyard. Moon is much better for that, provided there were building materials and shops on it. Regarding the price of gold from hypothetical "pure gold Moon", there is cost of getting there first calculated in it. However, if shipments and vessels are originating on the Moon, then sending packages from above is much, much cheaper - it is easier to just drop something over that deep, steep cliff, then to climb it up first for each and every shipment. There is, of course, a "gravitational cliff" on the Moon as well, but it is much smaller. Besides, once we make fleet of mining and freight ships there, we can mine Asteroid belt and just move between it and Earth's orbit - a cake walk, as far as fuel cost goes.

Of course gold is precious outside earth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they not need Monster Cables in space?

2076

[SplunkDotNet]

I for one am not looking forward to the riots of 2076.

Free Luna!

sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Not taking anything away from the discovery but it's kind of sad that we landed there 40 years ago and the best we can do today is crash a robot into it.

For the taking

[huckamania]

Like everything else in life, the resources on the moon will belong to whoever gets a mining operation there first. The rest is all paperwork. There is so much stuff out in space and we are so far from getting it, that trying to make it a political football now is just completely counter productive.

Whoever does get a mining opertation setup on the moon is not going to sit on it, they are going to sell it to other people willing to spend currency. The money from the sale of the gold will be spent, probably to make another mine. Even the people who aren't involved directly will eventually benefit from the increase in resources, not to mention the technological advances that would have to proceed said mining operations.

"Haliburton and Exxon", hmm, maybe time to up your meds?

Modern day gold rush

[NetServices]

This news could set off a modern day gold rush on the moon. The think of how the first did wonders for developing California and Alaska. Greed has a way of motivating progress.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[theBuddman]

The first to say, "Mine!"

Links to source materials at Science & AAAS

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, I'm an employee of the nonprofit AAAS, which publishes Science.

These are Science articles, behind Sciencemag.org's paywall, not Nature's. Nature is a completely different journal by someone else.
The original post is linked to one freely-available summary; you can find the rest of the Science summaries linked from the table of contents.
You an also find a good description of this research on AAAS' website in " Science: LCROSS Impact Ejects Minerals and Frozen Water from Crater on the Moon." That contains links to publicly accessible news releases and, at the bottom, links to all 6 summaries.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Penguinisto]

Wow - looks like someone with mod points bought some too.

It's not that cold, nor is the energy free

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, a sibling shot you down, but I'd like to explain that space isn't that "cold". Sure, it's absolutely cold, but with no atmosphere there is no convection, so you only lose heat at the rate you radiate it, which isn't that bad. So astronauts on the moon or in deep space freezing to death isn't that big of a concern.
See space activity suit for more learnitude.

Also, it's not free energy. That's solar heat. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky here, but the term "free energy" was placed next to Unobtanium.

The point is

[gagol]

There are ressources aside from useless dirt on the moon. It could be conceivable to start mining, separating and refining it's ressources to stockpile them for future colonies. I think the point is to expand humanity and this will be the first step.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[kent_eh]

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA it self? Neil Armstrong?

Delos David Harriman

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[DavidTC]

Heinlein's story was pre-Outer Space Treaty, which essentially removed ownership of the moon as possibility, ever, from the countries that signed it. 'Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means'.

Technically, you can't even have 'private property' on the moon. Same treaty: 'Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.'

Read that carefully, and realize that legally stops the US from building a shack with a locked door on it on the moon. No one can bar other nations from any area of 'celestial bodies', at all. You cannot say 'This area of the moon is the US's.'. Russians can wander in and hang out in your living room. (Nations can, however, bar people from space stations and areas on them.)

Of course, that wouldn't apply to a colony that claimed self-governance and, obviously, had signed no such treaty. OTOH, just 'claiming' to be a nation, and have no one recognize you, is pretty useless.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC none of countries that can actually make it to space signed that.

Ultimate baller status

[Parlett316]

Rocking moon gold in da club

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[speroni]

Whoever can effectively land and start taking minerals first.

Re:Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? N

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has the mine rights? The us? USSR? China? NASA it self? Neil Armstrong?

A notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area, is the Homestead Act of 1862, by which the government opened the Western frontier for settlement and turned "public land" over to private owners. The government offered a 160-acres farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property. Although that land was originally regarded, in law, as "public property," the method of its allocation, in fact, followed the proper principle (in fact, but not in explicit ideological intention). The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of "property": by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them. - Ayn Rand