Slashdot Mirror
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."
Not when they are reduced, but they could be part of compounds. (i.e gold nitrate)
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.
Water? Gold? Silver? Why have we not brought democracy to the moon yet?
screw that, I want to see cities on the moon
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
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.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Just like when you stand on the moon and look down at the earth you see the landscape we ruined?
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
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?
Your nihilistic noise is pathetic. It's ours for the taking because we're here. There isn't any reason needed.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
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?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.