NASA Now Accepting Applications From Companies That Want To Mine the Moon

I'm afraid this means war by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:22 · Score: 1

Since no one really owns the moon, this will be the spark that will leads to the third world war. Nice knowing you all.

Re:I'm afraid this means war by JMJimmy · 2014-02-10 08:33 · Score: 1

Can't wait to see the scars on the moon's surface and the eventual "oops" that screws up the orbit.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Minwee · 2014-02-10 08:37 · Score: 1

Hey, what could possibly go wrong that wouldn't go wrong on the Earth eventually?
Re:I'm afraid this means war by sneakyimp · 2014-02-10 08:51 · Score: 1

Yeah. Can't wait to see the scars left by the huge strip-mining operation.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2014-02-10 08:56 · Score: 5, Funny

We're all doomed when they mine away the Helium that's been keeping the moon floating up there. :P

--
God spoke to me
Re:I'm afraid this means war by gnick · 2014-02-10 09:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Hey - TANSTAAFL.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Sporkinum · 2014-02-10 09:06 · Score: 1

That's harsh.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:16 · Score: 0

What are some other crackpot academic exercises coming out of NASA? Not challenging, just curious.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by cayenne8 · 2014-02-10 09:17 · Score: 1

There is no dark side of the moon, really.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.....thump thump....thump thump...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Mister+Liberty · 2014-02-10 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Indeed. And this is also in reponse to the dickhead Anon Coward below (you
know who you are): China will sooner bury you.

The moon is not mine to mine, it's not yours to mine. The NASA understands that.
They just want your money, that is going to the NSA right now (not te missing A).
They have become a PR machine, launching ideas such as these now and again,
just to entice non-thinking though plenty aggressive fools -- such as you, anon.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by MBGMorden · 2014-02-10 10:07 · Score: 1

Meh - we've been mining and messing with Earth for millenia. We still haven't screwed up its orbit nor leave almost any detectable changes visible from orbit (at least not without magnification). The moon won't be any different.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 10:26 · Score: 1

The moon is not mine to mine, it's not yours to mine. The NASA understands that.
This is ridiculous. If we can't mine anything in the solar system, how do we ever expect to get off the planet? The moon can mined until there's some presence there that can enforce property rights...or until we have an agreed upon set of laws that state we all agree not to mine the moon.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by ernar · 2014-02-10 10:40 · Score: 2

War is a hard mistress as well
Re:I'm afraid this means war by mbone · 2014-02-10 12:08 · Score: 1

No, it won't.
Read the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. No one may own the Moon, but you get to exploit it. You just can't stake a claim without working it.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by The+Grim+Reefer · 2014-02-10 12:17 · Score: 1

Yeah. Can't wait to see the scars left by the huge strip-mining operation.
As long as we can clearly see "CHA" from the earth when they are done, I'm cool with it.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by JMJimmy · 2014-02-10 13:48 · Score: 2

I highly doubt we'd ever mine enough to cause anything to happen - it'd take ~682 billion years of mining at the capacity of the world's largest coal mine to move it all. That said, the moon's surface is less than that of Asia's and it's mass is ~1.2% that of Earth's. To put that in perspective, to fully cover the surface of the moon with mines you'd only need 317 Alberta tar sands (total area). How much can one remove before gravity shifts just enough to cause something bad to happen? Do we know where that limit is? All I'm saying is we should have a better understanding before we open it up to mining. Eventually it'll be inevitable for the creation of more substantial space ships/stations/etc
Re:I'm afraid this means war by tragedy · 2014-02-10 17:15 · Score: 2

You're joking, right? There are huge changes to Earth visible from space even if you completely ignore the really obvious changes if you're looking at the nightside. Do you have any idea how many man-made deserts there are in the world? Then there's the 16,000 square miles or so of "reclaimed" land in the Netherlands that used to be underwater. All the areas once covered by forest that are no longer covered by forest. The Aral sea is practically gone, having lost an area close to the size of the state of Maryland. There's all the man-made atmospheric effects visible from space. Ice sheets? Glaciers? There's pretty much... everything really. I mean, if you just think of Earth from space as a bunch of undifferentiated green and brown blobs then sure, I get your point. If you're actually paying attention, however, then you just sound crazy.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by crutchy · 2014-02-10 23:19 · Score: 1

what do you think nasa mostly does? how many rockets does it launch? how many people dows it employ? what does it actually do? when you track down the answers to those questions (for yourself) the answer to your question will be staring you in the face.
there are already plenty of moon exercises alone, including manned mission studies and research into missions to mars (with prototype habs etc already developed)
Re:I'm afraid this means war by crutchy · 2014-02-10 23:24 · Score: 1

you are a sad, sad little man... and if it comes time when beta is forced on me i'll just write a php script to strip all the shit out... at the moment i'm still using the good ol' version.
if you don't like my rantings of wisdom, you're free to gtfo yourself... you won't because you're the troll, but unfortunately for slashdot you're just not intelligent enough to come up with a half-decent argument... you poor douchebag.
Re:I'm afraid this means war by crutchy · 2014-02-10 23:45 · Score: 1

its not laws or lack thereof that is preventing nasa from mining the moon... they simply don't have the funding
remember the only reason why nasa got the funding to go to the moon in the first place was because the military industrial complex was involved in a cold war with the soviet union.
the funding for the space race was never allocated for scientific purposes, it was always primarily a military operation dressed in civilian clothing.
no cold war... no moon... it's as simple as that
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 02:25 · Score: 1

I am pretty sure we are not there for the soil, but the Helium-3, if you do a bit of research
it is replaced by he solar wind.
What we could figure is what is the replacement rate...
We could also increase the impact rate that the moon already has to return some mass if needed.
Maybe a few of the near miss asteroids could be "parked" on the moon.
No small feat, I am sure, but its in the realm of feasible to get it to hit the moon vs. the earth.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 02:29 · Score: 1

In the end mining will not be needed as much, as future variants of the nano tubes will out perform
what we can dig out of the ground and melt with fire...
I think someday we will see nanotube buckyball materials that are superior to anything made
via legacy industry.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 02:33 · Score: 1

Well hopefully someone will convince them they can go mine the other moons
robotically such as the 100+ moons around Jupiter and Saturn.
Not really feasible for humans due to radiation, O2, medical needs, food, etc...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2014-02-11 02:47 · Score: 1

I think you might need your eyes checked. We have made some pretty big holes in the earth over the years. On this zoomed out imgage from google maps you can see a SW to NW string of purpleish areas in northern Minnesota (north and east of Duluth ) that are the iron mines in the Mesabe Range. Some have been abandoned while others like the Hull Rust mine are still active today. The Hull rust mine is huge at about 2 miles wide by 3 miles long it is a huge hole in the ground and there are other larger holes in the ground for other mining operations, like the Kennecott copper mine in Utah, the Chuquicamata mine in Chile, the Black Thundar coal mine in Wyoming, or the Mir daimond mine in russia. While operations like these don't move enough material to affect the orbit or anything like that they are all visible from space, especially their tailings ponds which have very interesting colors.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:I'm afraid this means war by JMJimmy · 2014-02-11 05:31 · Score: 1

Good point - though that's not the only reason... http://www.space.com/13247-moo...
Re:I'm afraid this means war by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-19 04:11 · Score: 0

Thinking of this?

I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by bazmail · 2014-02-10 08:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey NASA, race ya.

Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by dk20 · 2014-02-10 08:41 · Score: 1

Was just about to post the same thing. Wasnt there some global agreement over owernship of "foreign bodies" or such? Why do you need NASA's permission for something they dont own or control?
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by crutchy · 2014-02-10 08:42 · Score: 2

I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now?
it's more likely you need vladimir putin's actually... even nasa uses russian rocket motors
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Trevin · 2014-02-10 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

The Moon Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty) is only signed by 15 members of the United Nations, and by none of the countries which engage in manned space flight. So doesn’t have any legal force.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by bazmail · 2014-02-10 09:37 · Score: 1

Forget treaties.

NASA's premise is clearly that they OWN the moon, and in order to mine it, you need to ask them, nicely.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Razalhague · 2014-02-10 09:38 · Score: 1

Maybe you're thinking of the Outer Space Treaty? Wikipedia says it forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, but doesn't say much about private entities AFAIK.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by mythosaz · 2014-02-10 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Due to the landmark case Finders v Keepers, I'm pretty sure NASA owns the moon.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by amicusNYCL · 2014-02-10 10:17 · Score: 2

I don't read it that way at all. This sounds more like NASA is trying to find a company to build some lunar mining robots for NASA to use.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by mbone · 2014-02-10 12:49 · Score: 1

Again, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Article VIII) :

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.
The US is responsible for what you do (assuming you are a US National), so the US makes you get a license to launch. By the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, that is done by the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. While there is AFAIK no specific mining license, look for that in due course.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 12:51 · Score: 0

From the Outer Space Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty): "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty".
That's why.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by manu0601 · 2014-02-10 15:08 · Score: 1

Private entity cannot own anything if it is not backed by a nation state.
Re: I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 18:31 · Score: 0

Unfortunately for NASA, the Russians landed a flag there first during their Soviet era.
So technically Russia owns the Moon.
Or, no-one owns it. Take your pick.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Xest · 2014-02-10 20:39 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure NASA didn't find the moon. In fact, I'm quite certain that humans knew it was there long before they even knew the American continent existed let alone a nation state that borrows the same name.
In fact on that note America, you didn't "find" that name either, so it's not yours to use, in fact for most of you it's not even your country to live in as you didn't find it. It belongs to the native Americans, the Scandinavians, or the British who all found it previously.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 02:41 · Score: 1

The fact the US has to rely on Russian rockets is a small hint at what is going on.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by mythosaz · 2014-02-11 04:47 · Score: 1

Lighten up, Francis.
Re: I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by astar · 2014-02-11 13:55 · Score: 1

Also us yanks cannot orbit without permissions as I recall. Some treaty with a sort of traffic control formalism plus maybe some other reasons about flocks of geese and nuclear spasm. I think the details say that even the feds have to let the neighbors know the initial orbit before hand. It does not quite say we cannot sort of cheat on the orbit a little bit later.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Xest · 2014-02-12 04:38 · Score: 1

I'll be honest, the level of retardation on Slashdot nowadays is such that I couldn't really tell if you were being sarcastic, or if you actually genuinely held that belief because there are all too many people here now that really are that fucking stupid as to post such a thing seriously.
I figured I better post the obvious just in case it was another case of Slashdot retardation.
But I both apologise and congratulate you if you were just being humorous. Your sarcasm was effective enough that it genuinely was indistinguishable from the idiots you mock :)
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by mythosaz · 2014-02-12 04:47 · Score: 1

Next time I'll stick in a 'murica! to make it more obvious.
Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by GoonDuIO · 2014-02-12 17:02 · Score: 1

I skimmed through the article and I don't think it implied that. Private companies seem to be using NASA infrastructure to send their hopefully-looking transformer-esque mining bots to the moon. Sure those companies could build their own infrastructure but NASA has the manpower and experience and is opened to collaborations.

Can we just mine the dark side? by alta · 2014-02-10 08:27 · Score: 3, Funny

I mean I'd rather not look up at night and see a strip mining operations on the moon.

Or maybe all mining has to be underground, no above ground mining. You're allowed one small area to be your entry point and that's it.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.

Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Charliemopps · 2014-02-10 08:45 · Score: 1

Well, first off, there is no "Dark side" of the moon.
Secondly, since the moons in tidal lock with the earth, the side facing us pretty much gets the least amount of light with the exception of the full moon. So, if light were a concern to them, the majority of the mining would be done outside of our view. Also, I believe most of the resources they'd be interested in are at the 2 poles. So again, it's unlikely you could see it from earth.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by confused+one · 2014-02-10 08:50 · Score: 1

The Moon is well over 2000 miles in diameter. You're expecting to see a mining operation from 230,000 miles away?
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:00 · Score: 0

There most certainly is a dark side of the moon. It's no less illuminated than Darkest Africa was, but it exists. One side of the moon always faces Earth, the other side always faces away. The far side is commonly referred to as "the dark side of the moon" because we can never see it from Earth.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by alta · 2014-02-10 09:12 · Score: 1

blah blah blah, you know what I'm talking about. Stop being pedantic :p I think everyone knows what I'm talking about... Mine the side that we don't have to LOOK at.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by alta · 2014-02-10 09:16 · Score: 1

Well, if they use a lot of industrial lighting to illuminate the operations a new moon could easily become a sparkly moon...
May be pretty at first, but I like the way it looks now.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-10 09:32 · Score: 1

Secondly, since the moons in tidal lock with the earth, the side facing us pretty much gets the least amount of light with the exception of the full moon.
Actually, both sides of the moon get about the same amount of light - they're in direct sunlight half the time.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-10 09:38 · Score: 1

I mean I'd rather not look up at night and see a strip mining operations on the moon.
Hmm, a strip mine on the moon that was 10km on a side would be about 1/38440 radians wide from Earth.
Which is about the same size as an airplane window appears to be from the ground, when passing overhead at cruising altitude.
So, when was the last time you could pick out an individual 767 window as a plane flew overhead at cruising altitude?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-10 09:42 · Score: 1

Not quite. Lunar eclipses darken the near side of the moon, but never the far side.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-02-10 09:46 · Score: 1

Well, first off, there is no "Dark side" of the moon.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Junta · 2014-02-10 10:06 · Score: 1

*about* the same amount of ligth
I think the delta because of lunar eclipses counts in the 'about' neighborhood.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by mythosaz · 2014-02-10 10:10 · Score: 1

I mean I'd rather not look up at night and see a strip mining operations on the moon.
I think seeing strip-mining on the moon before I die might be the greatest thing I could have ever imaged.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Belial6 · 2014-02-10 10:15 · Score: 1

No kidding, if we start mining the moon, we might turn it into a lifeless ball of rock with craters pitting it's surface.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by SleazyRidr · 2014-02-10 10:18 · Score: 3, Informative

I can't tell if you think that is a possibility, or it you're just trolling. Look at this picture of how far away the Earth is from the moon: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... The moon is both incredibly large and incredibly far away. The idea that we could affect it to the extent that you could see it from Earth is completely ridiculous. Look at the "dark side" of the Earth as seen from the moon: http://sciencenordic.com/what-.... If all the lights on Earth don't make an impression to the moon, then nothing we'd even think about putting on the moon will have any noticeable difference to us.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 10:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

if they use a lot of industrial lighting to illuminate the operations a new moon could easily become a sparkly moon
We're too far away to see those lights without strong telescopes. And considering the mining would probably be done by robots, we might not even need visible spectrum lights.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by GumphMaster · 2014-02-10 12:36 · Score: 1

Any practical lunar mining endeavour, no. With a naked eye the smallest feature you could expect to discern is in the order of 1 arc-minute across or about 110 km at the Moon, However, if you put the largest Earth open-cut mines (about 4km across) on the Moon then the pit would be visible through large amateur telescopes under good seeing conditions.

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by dryeo · 2014-02-10 12:41 · Score: 1

And the near side is also lit up by the Earth. This quite noticeable around full Earth with the dark side easily visible besides the sun lit crescent in the evening/morning.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by SilentTangerine · 2014-02-10 20:53 · Score: 1

I can't tell if you think that is a possibility, or it you're just trolling.
Or joking.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by jellomizer · 2014-02-11 01:59 · Score: 1

I want to be sure I don't see anything even with a telescope.
I think a lot of us are on the similar line of thinking.
If you think you can Mine the moon effectively and affordability, go all for it... However just don't mine the side that we look up at. Do the side facing away from us.
A single mine on the earth facing side of the moon probably wouldn't be a big deal... However as it grows and we add more lights, and traffic, we will slowly change it face, a sparkly new moon, Some creators with road marks in them.... In general a way to screw up the night sky.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:01 · Score: 1

Robots will be able to see in non visible light spectrum, in fact
they can likely look at the moon surface in spectra that would
be more helpful to the mining operation.
Each robot might have a visible light on it if a remote operator
felt the need to look around or use one robot to repair another one.
In the end they will be near totally autonomous like the new grumman drone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
In the end the robots will repair each other, and load canisters
for mass driver mag coil return to earth based on prior NASA
planned projects for the moon.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Optali · 2014-02-12 04:27 · Score: 1

What the heck? There's nothing on the moon that could be "destroyed" by strip mining, it's just gray dirt and no ecosystem. And even the biggest mining operation wouldn't be visible from earth mate.

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

NASA? by schneidafunk · 2014-02-10 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I didn't realize NASA owned the moon.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:32 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter. We all know what happens when you mine the moon.
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:33 · Score: 0

The government agency that sold the moon... It just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:37 · Score: 1

They don't, but they do have a say on who gets to launch from the US.
Re:NASA? by sts2nihon · 2014-02-10 08:37 · Score: 1

You mean this one?
Re:NASA? by edibobb · 2014-02-10 08:46 · Score: 1

I own the moon, and I hereby give NASA authority to mine lunar coal.
Re:NASA? by sneakyimp · 2014-02-10 08:54 · Score: 1

Can I get 40 acres and a M.U.L.E. please?
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:54 · Score: 0

Nope china does now :) Begin the luna wars!
Re:NASA? by WillAffleckUW · 2014-02-10 08:57 · Score: 1

I own the moon and have claimed it for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Squid.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:15 · Score: 0

No. In the linked rendition of "The Time Machine," it was moon mining that caused the moon to break apart and crash into the earth, reducing humanity nearly to extinction.
And then the humans evolved into morlocks.
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:16 · Score: 1

Some dickhead will argue that since they've put a flag up there they do own it.
Re:NASA? by netsavior · 2014-02-10 09:36 · Score: 1

They are the organization most likely to be able to wage war on the moon... I am pretty sure that makes 'merka the owner, and NASA the steward.
Re: NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 11:00 · Score: 0

*cough* Your being a bit racially insensitive to the Eloi aren't you?
Eloi are people too...
Re:NASA? by drooling-dog · 2014-02-10 12:01 · Score: 1

They don't and they know it, but science fiction fans are an important part of the public support that keeps their funding flowing, and this is just the kind of thing that appeals to that demographic.
Re: NASA? by gmhowell · 2014-02-10 13:13 · Score: 1

*cough* Your being a bit racially insensitive to the Eloi aren't you?
Eloi are people too...
Tasty, tasty people...

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:NASA? by hcs_$reboot · 2014-02-10 14:59 · Score: 1

Ever heard of Christopher Columbus? The one who put a foot first somewhere owns the somewhere.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 02:48 · Score: 0

I believe there were humans in North America, known as native americans, before Columbus.
Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 04:15 · Score: 0

If I had to bet, I'd bet on the Chinese as winners in such a war. However, regardless of who wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Other belligerents will continue hurling missiles at any mining - or other - operations on the moon and not accept the "resident belligerent's" ownership of the moon as a fait accompli until the cost of "owning" the moon has practically ruined the "winner" so that regardless of profits from mining operations on the moon (if they can afford any at that point) will be peanuts when their economy is completely crippled. Missiles fired from Earth to the moon would be orders of magnitude harder to intercept than missiles on Earth. The speed would be much higher and an intercepting missile would have to alter the trajectory instead of just destroying a warhead (none would be needed, after all) the precision needed would also be much higher. In a war on the moon, intercepting missiles would be at least as difficult as intercepting a meteorite bound for Earth and we don't have that capability here yet and in a war on the Moon we would 1. need to have it on the Moon and 2. it would have less time to analyze an incoming missile's trajectory and 3. there would be a lot more missiles coming than there have been meteorites bound for Earth so far during our time here.

Space 1999, Sorta by tiberus · 2014-02-10 08:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Okay, am I the only one have flashbacks to 13 September 1999, when the nuclear storage facility on Moonbase Alpha exploded sending the Moon hurtling out of orbit?

So, mine the Moon, ship the material to Earth... Um, won't this change it's mass and as a consequence, it's amount of gravity in generates and then it's orbit? Sorry for being all Doom & Gloom here.

Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Okay, am I the only one have flashbacks to 13 September 1999, when the nuclear storage facility on Moonbase Alpha exploded sending the Moon hurtling out of orbit?
So, mine the Moon, ship the material to Earth... Um, won't this change it's mass and as a consequence, it's amount of gravity in generates and then it's orbit? Sorry for being all Doom & Gloom here.
So does sending a rocket up from Earth. Hey, if you shine a flashlight up in the sky, some of those photons will escape all the atmosphere and due to conservation of momentum actually push Earth in the other direction.
Re: Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:42 · Score: 1

No. It's like a little kid pissing in the ocean. It won't affect it's overall volume. We could spend centuries mining and removing billions of tons of material and not make a dent in it's gravity.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Minwee · 2014-02-10 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Um, the moon has a mass of 73,476,730,900,000,000,000,000 kilograms. A few million tons either way isn't even a dent in that.
There are entirely different reasons why you should worry about huge masses of rock being produced on the moon and thrown down to Earth.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by msauve · 2014-02-10 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Moving mass from the Moon to Earth would have no effect on the orbit. The orbital period is dependent on the sum of the masses.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Jason+Levine · 2014-02-10 08:55 · Score: 1

I looked up some figures (http://www.infomine.com/minesite/) and found that some mines operate at 63,000 tonnes per day. Let's assume that Mine Base Moon ramps up to that level fairly quickly. The mass of the Moon is 7.34767309 × 10^22 kilograms. 63,000 tonnes = 63,000,000 kg. At this rate, it would take 1,166,297,315,873,016 days (or 3 trillion years) to use up the entire Moon. We'd be in greater risk of the Sun going red giant first.
Of course, we don't need to "use up" the Moon. Let's assume we just need to change the mass by 1/100% to make a difference. This means we only have 116,629,731,587 days or over 300 million years.
I don't think changing the Moon's gravity due to mining is something we need to worry about for quite some time.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by gnick · 2014-02-10 09:11 · Score: 1

Your link was the first thing through my mind. You have to be careful when you decide to "throw rocks." TANSTAAFL.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by tiberus · 2014-02-10 09:18 · Score: 1

And now I know, and knowledge is power!
Sorta figured with Moon's smaller mass and the fact that we would be removing that mass some sort of effect might occur. Just didn't expect the impact to be that trivial. Factor in that while the mine may process 63K tonnes/day, we wouldn't be shipping ore only the cracked, smelted, processed material and it becomes even more so.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by lexman098 · 2014-02-10 09:24 · Score: 1

I'm not exactly an astrophysicist, but I think orbital period may be misleading. The force of gravity is G*m*M/(r^2), and the balancing centrifugal force that the moon needs to not crash into the earth is m*v^2/r (assuming it had a perfectly circular orbit). Set them equal and you get v^2 = G*M/r. It's true that the mass of the moon doesn't matter, but if you bring that mass back to earth you might have problems. Of course the transition of the mass away from the moon might increase r enough to balance things out. Interesting thought experiment.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:25 · Score: 0

You'd have to start mass importation of boring useless moonrock before you'd hit a significant enough percentage to make any real difference.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by lexman098 · 2014-02-10 09:29 · Score: 1

Also, you were looking at the wrong equation. The moon orbits the earth, not the other way around. Scroll up a little.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by msauve · 2014-02-10 09:37 · Score: 1

Nope. They orbit each other. The barycenter is about 4600 km from the Earth's center. The "other equation" is just for the case where the minor body mass can be completely ignored (e.g. an artificial satellite).

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Chris+Mattern · 2014-02-10 09:39 · Score: 1

The moon orbits the earth, not the other way around.
As in any orbital system, they orbit each other. The greater the mass imbalance, the less the lighter body matters, but that is still true. The equations aren't in and of themselves going draw a distinction between the two.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Chris+Mattern · 2014-02-10 09:41 · Score: 1

The "other equation" is just for the case where the minor body mass can be completely ignored (e.g. an artificial satellite).
And in such cases, the first equation can still be used and will give the correct answer, it's just that it's easier to use the second one when the lighter body is completely negligible.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Jason+Levine · 2014-02-10 09:48 · Score: 1

Just to add some more to the mix, NASA has some information on asteroid sizes ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/asteroidfact.html ). Let's assume we picked a small asteroid, Castalia, and mined that at 63 million kg per day. We'd "use it all up" in just over 21 years. (Again, this is assuming the "perfect case" of the asteroid being entirely made of materials we'd want. No waste products produced at all.) A larger asteroid like Ida would take us 4.3 million of years to use up. Remember, not only is space is really big, but many of the things that occupy it are really big as well!

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by recharged95 · 2014-02-10 10:21 · Score: 1

Note that a few million tons will be transferred to the Earth.
Entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) and energy conservation are pains in the arse of course.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by cpt+kangarooski · 2014-02-10 10:38 · Score: 1

How could that have possibly happened, given that in 1994, a runaway planet hurtled between the Earth and the Moon, breaking the moon into two big chunks, unleashing cosmic destruction, and casting man's civilization into ruin.
And while it would be good to get rid of mining operations on Earth, replacing it with space mining, the main advantage of mining in space is that you do not need to use a giant rocket to get that stuff into space; it's already up there, and can be used for industrial purposes in situ.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 10:53 · Score: 0

I was thinking the same thing. Altering the mass of the moon sounds like a really terrible idea.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by sycodon · 2014-02-10 11:24 · Score: 1

Just don't piss off the computer.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 11:29 · Score: 0

Denier!
Industry Shill!
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Crypto+Gnome · 2014-02-10 14:03 · Score: 1

Your link was the first thing through my mind.
And as a result you were rushed to hospital as a result of your injuries?

Beware the kinetic impact of a high-speed URL!

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 14:41 · Score: 0

No it's
"now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
GI JOE!"
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:30 · Score: 1

Exactly, they are there only for the stuff valuable enough to matter, or
could be used to make more robots to send to other moons,
or the asteroid belt(s).

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:35 · Score: 1

Also robot miners don't need healthcare, food, O2, breaks, lunches, sleep, vacations, sick time, FMLA, etc.
Gee I wonder how long before the corporate overlords replace us all, lol.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by cpt+kangarooski · 2014-02-11 05:43 · Score: 1

Hey, I'm totally happy with getting rid of as many jobs as possible through automation, so long as people still get paid enough to live comfortably. The leisure society is where it's at.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Space 1999, Sorta by ebvwfbw · 2014-02-12 15:19 · Score: 1

Okay, am I the only one have flashbacks to 13 September 1999, when the nuclear storage facility on Moonbase Alpha exploded sending the Moon hurtling out of orbit?
Yep, right over their head. Still, Barbara Bain was a hot chick.

Tritium ? by stooo · 2014-02-10 08:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Mining tritium on the moon ?
not a good idea.
If you bring it back and it explodes in the athmosphere during reentry, we are all dead.

BTW, slashdot beta is shit.

--
aaaaaaa

Re:Tritium ? by Minwee · 2014-02-10 08:43 · Score: 1

Would you rather they all went whaling?
Re:Tritium ? by confused+one · 2014-02-10 08:46 · Score: 1

How, exactly, are you proposing that could happen?
Re:Tritium ? by callmetheraven · 2014-02-10 08:55 · Score: 1

It could combine with O2 and go bang and make a little heavy water.
Nobody dead.

--
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Re:Tritium ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:18 · Score: 0

On the moon? Awesome! "Houston, call me Ishmael."
Re:Tritium ? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-02-10 09:43 · Score: 1

But there ain't no whales, so you'll just have to tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune.
Re:Tritium ? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-10 11:28 · Score: 1

Are you REALLY suggesting that reentry produces enough energy to initiate fusion???
If so, might want to look at some actual numbers for a change...
Deuterium-tritium fusion requires about 100,000 eV. Which translates to a reentry speed in the vicinity of 1800 km/s, assuming that basically everything were perfect to induce fusion.
Note that reentry speed from the Moon is about 11.2 km/s.
Note further that everything will NOT be perfect to induce fusion.
The only danger from dropping tritium from the Moon would be if the reentry vehicle landed on you. Then it might get ugly for you and anyone in your neighborhood....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Tritium ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 12:37 · Score: 0

Deuterium-tritium fusion requires about 100,000 eV. Which translates to a reentry speed in the vicinity of 1800 km/s, assuming that basically everything were perfect to induce fusion.
Googling "100000 eV to femtojoules" gives "16.0217656 femtojoules". That is not exactly a large amount of energy. Did you forget to mention some key detail, like that being the energy per molecule or something?

Rare Earth Metals? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:35 · Score: 0

Wouldn't they be Rare Moon Metals?

"rare earths" by avandesande · 2014-02-10 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Rare earth minerals aren't rare at all- they are just costly and polluting to process.

Also with a lack of geologic processes such as volcanism and water I doubt minerals will be concentrated anywhere.

Seems like more of a publicity stunt than anything.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Re:"rare earths" by TheBilgeRat · 2014-02-10 09:45 · Score: 1

This is why we need thorium reactors
Re:"rare earths" by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 09:53 · Score: 1

And Helium-3 is rare, but worthless until we make massive advances in fusion research.
There is absolutely no reason to go to the moon in the near future.
Re:"rare earths" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 10:18 · Score: 0

And Helium-3 is rare, but worthless until we make massive advances in fusion research.
Then why do labs have to pay over a thousand dollars a liter for it...
Although the demand for it is not particularly great without fusion, it is not zero and there are some uses that are rather inelastic and will pay almost any price. There is enough demand for small $100M+ worth of production, which might still be too small to come anywhere near fixed costs with setting up a lunar mining situation.
Re:"rare earths" by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 10:39 · Score: 1

There is enough demand for small $100M+ worth of production, which might still be too small to come anywhere near fixed costs with setting up a lunar mining situation.
That's at least two orders of magnitude too small to warrant lunar mining.
Re:"rare earths" by cpt+kangarooski · 2014-02-10 10:46 · Score: 1

It has plenty of oxygen and aluminum, which would be useful. Near Earth asteroids are probably a better bet, however.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:"rare earths" by sandertje · 2014-02-10 10:57 · Score: 1

Although pollution and interfering governments would be no issue, since there is no environment to pollute in the first place (unless you're a geologist concerned about the destruction of some interesting rock formation).
Re:"rare earths" by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 11:18 · Score: 1

You know what else has plenty of oxygen and aluminum? Earth.
Re:"rare earths" by tomhath · 2014-02-10 11:33 · Score: 1

Shouldn't they be called "Rare Moon" minerals here?
Re:"rare earths" by cpt+kangarooski · 2014-02-10 12:09 · Score: 1

But ours are all stuck at the bottom of a big gravity well. Materials mined on the moon, or better yet, nearby asteroids, are not. They could be sent down to us as raw materials to be turned into finished goods here, but alternatively we could begin to industrialize space.
There are plenty of plans on the books for building solar power arrays that could send power down to us cleanly, for example. It's too expensive to build them with parts that come from the Earth, but it might be more practical with parts that didn't.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:"rare earths" by dryeo · 2014-02-10 12:47 · Score: 1

There would be concentrations around some meteor strikes. Even on Earth some of the best nickel mines are old meteorite sites.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:"rare earths" by mbone · 2014-02-10 15:37 · Score: 1

Helium-3 is actually in such short supply that is described as a "supply crisis", and a "White
House He-3 Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) Steering Committee" was set up to deal with it.
And, yes, fusion has nothing to do with it.
Re:"rare earths" by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:38 · Score: 1

University of Wisconsin is pretty much there.
http://www.technologyreview.co...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:"rare earths" by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:41 · Score: 1

There is a working HE3 reactor now, the fuel is the only issue, time for you to read up.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/galle...
Scaling up to power production is not done, but the experimental stage is there.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:"rare earths" by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-11 05:15 · Score: 1

That reactor is consuming energy. So, no, it doesn't need to be "scaled up". It needs to start producing energy. Scientists have been "five to ten" years away from that milestone for 40 years.
Re:"rare earths" by bulletman · 2014-02-11 07:52 · Score: 1

Rare earth's were brought to earth by asteroid impacts, not through volcanism.
Re:"rare earths" by avandesande · 2014-02-12 09:28 · Score: 1

I did mention water? They are found in carbonates which are created by the action of water.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Don't we need to talk with other countries first? by sts2nihon · 2014-02-10 08:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I can just imagine a space-age gold rush erupting and the face of the moon forever altered...

Enough with the euphemisms by Sloppy · 2014-02-10 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny

I think "mining" is a pretty damn euphemistic way to talk about viscious slaughter of all the moon's whales.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re: Enough with the euphemisms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:44 · Score: 0

What do you have against self sustaining, clean burning whale oil?
Re: Enough with the euphemisms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:52 · Score: 0

maybe he hates it because it comes from walmart
Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Hillgiant · 2014-02-10 09:11 · Score: 2

They will not harm the whales. Only the petunias.

--
-
Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:12 · Score: 0

I think "mining" is a pretty damn euphemistic way to talk about viscious slaughter of all the moon's whales.
viscious - You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2014-02-10 09:14 · Score: 1

Haven't you been to the theme park?
There ain't no whales.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 10:25 · Score: 0

And I suspect that you're confusing an incorrect spelling with the word "viscous."
Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Sloppy · 2014-02-10 10:56 · Score: 1

If I were to justify my misspelling as an attempt to invent a new word that includes the meanings of both "vicious" and "viscous" would you call my bluff? Oh shit, I mean: what if I asked you that, but didn't say anything about it being a bluff?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re: Enough with the euphemisms by Sloppy · 2014-02-10 11:02 · Score: 1

It's "self-sustaining" until you run out of whales. They say that by the year 3000, there won't be any of them left up there. This isn't some virtually limitless resource like sardines, which are capable of supplying all the oil we'll ever need.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re: Enough with the euphemisms by dryeo · 2014-02-10 12:57 · Score: 1

I think you mean Ooligans rather then sardines. Dry them and light them and you have a candle, perfect for lighting up those long Lunar nights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Really? by FuegoFuerte · 2014-02-10 08:41 · Score: 1

Something about this just seems like a bad idea.

Oh, and we would never again have a true full moon - some of it would be missing.

My team is ready to go by PPH · 2014-02-10 08:45 · Score: 2

Clones of Sam Rockwell.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Akratist · 2014-02-10 08:48 · Score: 2

Old Steve Jackson game supplement, but it was very interesting in terms of speculation with how real-world interactions would probably go between permanent moon settlements and earth. The arc of independence almost seems inevitable once there is sufficient development and an inability to directly control events happening in a distant location, not unlike what happened with British colonization in America. Of course, long-term habitability of the moon remains to be seen, although it seems likely people are going to give it a shot at some point.

Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 09:58 · Score: 2

Shout out to GURPS.
Even a high sustainable moon base wouldn't have manufacturing facilities for things like computer chips. Even if they can eat and breathe indefinitely, they will not be able to be truly independent of Earth.
Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by msmonroe · 2014-02-10 11:02 · Score: 1

Agreed, the supply chain would be enormous. Just to get started there would be a lot of infrastructure around the earth, that isn't here at the moment!
Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 00:32 · Score: 0

Give it twenty years, you'll be able to print your own computer chips with nothing more than a computer, a printer and a supply of (mostly recycled) raw materials. Naturally, that means you'll be able to print a spare computer and printer for yourself, too. 3D-printing (or whatever technology it merges with / evolves into) is going to be a huge boon to off-grid / off-world self-sufficiency.
Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:12 · Score: 1

Food, Water, Air, Shelter are the main needs.
The methods outlined for MARS ONE would work on the moon as well.
They'd want redundant medical facilities, solar works much better on the moon
then it does on earth due to no atmosphere.
To live thru long term radiation exposure they'd need to live underground most of the time
just like MARS ONE plans.
A mag coil mass driver relay system could toss canisters into orbit,
and send HE3 back from the moon.
This was an old NASA plan with mag coil mass drivers.
Technically we could do it from earth as well into at least LEO.
Don't know if we can toss something all the way to geosync orbit.
From the height of the ISS, a capture and re-toss station could be setup.
At some point the moon base could grow and make most everything it
needs with the next generation of 3d printers that are capable of
carbon fiber and materials that are not yet used.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:13 · Score: 1

Yeah they already have 3d printers that can print copies of the 3d printer.
Kinda reminds me of the replicators off SG1.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-11 05:20 · Score: 1

Today's CPUs have features 22 nanometers across. In 20 years it will be a fraction of that. Short of nanobot assemblers, no 3D printer will be able to produce that kind of detail in the foreseeable future.

Rare Earths? by argStyopa · 2014-02-10 08:51 · Score: 2

OK I must be COMPLETELY misunderstanding something.

First I keep hearing about "the Chinese have a monopoly on rare earths".
Now NASA is talking about people mining rare earths on the moon?
(Both the article, and it's original referent at Phys.org refer to 'rare earth elements', although I'm inclined to believe that Phys.org *may* have been using an unfortunately-confusing term for 'elements that are indeed rare on earth' like He3.)

RARE EARTHS ARE (largely) NOT RARE AT ALL.
They simply don't exist in concentrated veins. The processing is dirty and polluting, which is the only reason China might be considered to have a 'corner' on the market - they don't give a shit about their pollution.

As much as we NIMBY rare-earth refining, it can't be so bad that we're seriously willing to go to the MOON to do it?

--
-Styopa

Re:Rare Earths? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:06 · Score: 0

"Rare" as in "rarefied"? Suddenly the term makes a lot more sense to me. Thank you.
Re:Rare Earths? by LuckyPhil · 2014-02-10 15:46 · Score: 1

As much as we NIMBY rare-earth refining, it can't be so bad that we're seriously willing to go to the MOON to do it?
NOMM - Not on my moon.
Re:Rare Earths? by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:17 · Score: 1

China has some rare earths that are a bit more concentrated in their borders.
I am pretty sure the HE3 is the #1 reason the moon is about to be mined.
I think it should be saved to power starships to the other moons, a
permanent space station at La Grange point 5, and star ships to
head to the other moons in the solar system, and setup space stations
there as well.
Honestly thou it is much more cost efficient if robots do all the space
exploration as humans need alot more to function in space.
We also have bone issues in long space travel, etc etc...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Rare Earths? by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:18 · Score: 1

You are correct , HE3 is is the #1 reason, thou you could call it a rare earth technically.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/galle...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

so NASA/the US owns the moon now? by JustNiz · 2014-02-10 08:51 · Score: 1

Is it really upto NASA/the US to say who can and can't mine the moon?

Re:so NASA/the US owns the moon now? by fullmetal55 · 2014-02-10 08:59 · Score: 1

actually it sounds like they're offering a partnership, not permissions. you need NASA's permission to launch from their facilities, use their resources, and work with them on getting there and back.
China didn't need permission for Jade Rabbit, so I think this is just for american companies to work WITH NASA, not in competition with NASA...
Re:so NASA/the US owns the moon now? by sandertje · 2014-02-10 11:01 · Score: 1

Though I would guess youre right, since when does NASA launch rockets again? NASA these days also relies on Russians. I wonder why these companies would want to team up with NASA, instead of SpaceX.

could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 08:51 · Score: 0

they could have initiated a study on mining methane on uranus

Good luck with the UN by Karmashock · 2014-02-10 08:54 · Score: 1

mining an asteroid or comet is one thing... but the moon? Good luck. Maybe if you kept your activities to the dark side and left even that as subsurface?

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Good luck with the UN by sandertje · 2014-02-10 11:03 · Score: 1

What's the UN gonna do? Send some blue helmets to guard lunar regolith?
Re:Good luck with the UN by Karmashock · 2014-02-10 14:50 · Score: 1

impose sanctions on US exports...
don't be silly... its not the UN I'm worried about but censure from its member states... which screwing with the moon could easily bring about.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

China and India might dispute that by WillAffleckUW · 2014-02-10 08:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Let me get this straight ...

A country with zero shuttles, zero missions to the moon this century, and zero space stations wants to mine the moon?

Right ... I'll tell Norway they own North America, ok?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:China and India might dispute that by ahem · 2014-02-10 09:04 · Score: 1

> Right ... I'll tell Norway they own North America, ok?

Don't you mean Netherlands?

--
Not A Sig
Re:China and India might dispute that by Amtrak · 2014-02-10 09:06 · Score: 1

You know while I'll be the first guy to admit that NASA is a shell of its former self with no clear mission, I feel as if the "zero space stations" part is inaccurate as they own a part of the largest space station ever constructed which as of this morning was still in orbit.
As for Norway owning North America, I for one welcome our blond haired socialist overlords. Maybe they will put some of our defense budget back into NASA though it will probably go to Medicare instead. Tusen Takk.
Re:China and India might dispute that by WillAffleckUW · 2014-02-10 09:53 · Score: 1

Agreed.
That said, one of my ex-relatives works for NASA. Great place! Wish it got funding ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:China and India might dispute that by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 09:58 · Score: 1

The US paid for 75% of the space station.
Re:China and India might dispute that by WillAffleckUW · 2014-02-10 10:14 · Score: 2

The US paid for 75% of the space station.
Amazing. So?
Greece paid for Germany's banks, but Germany never paid back the assets they looted from Greece during WW II ...
"What have you done for the Moon lately?"

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:China and India might dispute that by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-10 10:40 · Score: 1

You state that the US has "zero space stations". That's not true. We have a majority stake in the space station.
Re:China and India might dispute that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 10:58 · Score: 0

Let me get this straight ...
A country with zero shuttles, zero missions to the moon this century, and zero space stations wants to mine the moon?
Wrong: NASA has not only sent several missions into orbit over the Moon, they've also launched an impactor (LCROSS). They've not had a reason to send a proper lander in a few decades (because they've already been there, done that, Mars is far more interesting). Plus, you know, running the ISS and maintaining the ISS. Also, since the Shuttle retired, exactly zero countries in the world have working shuttles, because shuttles turned out to be not as great an idea as expected.
AC because I've already modded.
Re:China and India might dispute that by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:28 · Score: 1

They got a rover on the moon now.
The cost of a rover mission to the moon is not that much, it could
probably be paid for just off the interest of the debt that the US owes china, lol.
No one country can claim the space station at this point, thou
it could be said that a small number of nations could claim most of
the credit.
We could have a star trek like society if we could just get half of what
the Kleptocrats parked offshore.
http://www.democraticundergrou...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:China and India might dispute that by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:32 · Score: 1

Revisionist History is the most popular history because it can be altered to
please all the different perspectives.
We honestly have a bunch of ppl lying to themselves about what is really going on.
It would also explain how the greatest bank robbery took place in broad daylight
and the truly guilty will never see jail time over it.
http://www.democraticundergrou...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Mod Parent Up Please. by rueger · 2014-02-10 09:02 · Score: 0

Damn - used all my mod points to promote soylentnews.org!

Anyhow - I've been burning through the entire Heinlein library on audiobook this month, so appreciated the reference. It's amazing how fresh most of his stuff feels after 50+ years, and how many times he's managed to spot a trend that is only happening now.

--
Three Squirrels

Re:Mod Parent Up Please. by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:08 · Score: 1

I think all the devices with Rakshasa firmware such as cell phones are computers
are a honeytrap to get info to the NSA.
http://www.extremetech.com/com...
Forget the blame china routine, its obvious they were paid to put it in there...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

I think there's a word for this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:03 · Score: 0

Government, contracting private business, for for-profit endeavors, has a name among economic models.

That name is: "Fascism." Literally.

I think we should be very cautious in transitioning NASA's activities from a primarily knowledge-seeking, "for the betterment of society" mandate, to one explicitly intended to exploit the moon for financial gain. That direction is fraught will all sorts of moral hazard.

Mass? by AcesDnied · 2014-02-10 09:08 · Score: 0

I don't really have the background for this, just speculation, but how much mass are we talking about removing from the moon?

How much would it take to affect the tides? Could the difference cause the moon to be pulled to the earth because of Earth's increased mass (whatever is brought back)?

Just curious...

"if we can put a man on the moon..." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:15 · Score: 0

The retired NASA shuttles couldn't make it to the moon when they were operational, pointdexter!

You guys had a 50-year lead on everybody else and then threw it away. Losers.

Re:"if we can put a man on the moon..." by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:30 · Score: 1

It wasn't thrown away, it was stolen....
http://www.democraticundergrou...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

What a joke!!!! by msmonroe · 2014-02-10 09:18 · Score: 1

WOW!!! NASA is living in a dream world. I love the fact that the USA thinks we own the universe at this point! Shouldn't we encourage a gold rush to the moon? If we allow this model I predict that other countries, companies, will mine the moon and we'll have like one company that will be doing exploration of some barren piece of non mine-able area. The USA really needs to get rid of this elitist attitude that we are the best and control everything, because we are falling behind other countries on everything; I think the love of our country is clouding reality. We don't have a monopoly on ideas and other countries have exploited some of our finest values and leveraged them to their benefit. We need to do the same and look at what other countries are doing and take advantage of their experiences.

Re:What a joke!!!! by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 10:52 · Score: 1

Please go back to reddit, junior. Adults are trying to have a discussion here.
Re:What a joke!!!! by msmonroe · 2014-02-10 10:57 · Score: 1

Please go back to reddit, junior. Adults are trying to have a discussion here.
huh? What part am I wrong about? Be specific please!
Re:What a joke!!!! by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 11:43 · Score: 1

I love the fact that the USA thinks we own the universe
What about this article implies this?

Shouldn't we encourage a gold rush to the moon? I have no idea what you're getting at here. If we allow this model I predict that other countries, companies, will mine the moon and we'll have like one company that will be doing exploration of some barren piece of non mine-able area.
Who cares if other countries mine the moon? What "model" are you referring to here, and why do "we" have any authority over it?

The USA really needs to get rid of this elitist attitude that we are the best and control everything
What about this article implies an elitist attitude? NASA is taking applications for ideas to work with NASA. Not selling permission to go to the moon.

because we are falling behind other countries on everything... I think the love of our country is clouding reality.
Certainly not on space exploration. NASAs accomplishments have not been reproduced by anyone else. Besides it's a scientific endeavor, not an international dick waving contest. It's worth doing for the science, not national pride. If we don't do it, there's nobody else to fill NASAs shoes completely. There are smaller successful space programs in other countries, but they're not as well funded as NASA.

We don't have a monopoly on ideas and other countries have exploited some of our finest values and leveraged them to their benefit. We need to do the same and look at what other countries are doing and take advantage of their experiences.
What monopoly on ideas are we assuming? Certainly nothing was implied in the article. What are other countries doing in space that we should be doing?

Your post just sounded like a childish troll, and I was treating you like one. If you want to participate in the discussion then write something coherent.
Re:What a joke!!!! by msmonroe · 2014-02-10 13:33 · Score: 1

Thank you for pointing this out sir, that I am a childish incoherent troll.

I truly appreciate your wise and kind insight into how I have misinterpreted the article and how my view point is inherently wrong and "troll-ish".
Re:What a joke!!!! by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 14:01 · Score: 1

Is this your viewpoint?

I predict that other countries, companies, will mine the moon and we'll have like one company that will be doing exploration of some barren piece of non mine-able area
Okay, fine. Did it really need to be buried in all that insult? Well, here's what I think about that. There's nothing to find on the moon except resources that may one day be useful for colonizing space. Maybe we can find a use for the Helium-3...maybe not. What do you think we'll find when we explore? Certainly not life or alien artifacts.

I'm okay with mining the moon. by thevirtualcat · 2014-02-10 09:26 · Score: 1

I'm not too worried about having chunks go missing. The moon has enough gravity to hold itself in in a sphere-ish shape. The mines will collapse in on themselves long before a huge chunk goes missing. (Plus, if we have things that can do that kind of damage to the moon, damage to the moon will be the least of our worries.)

As for knocking it out of orbit, the moon weighs 7.35*10^22 kg. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 2.1*10^17 J. So, uh, not too worried about it. We're a few orders of magnitude off on that.

There's some legitimate concern about scarring the face of the moon for future generations. Yes, the moon is really big and really far away such that you probably wouldn't notice even a very large mine with the naked eye, but telescopes are cheap and plentiful. Possibly something you could deal with by treaties limiting the size of mines to less than utterly huge? At least there are no indigenous people to worry about. (Or, as history has demonstrated, not worry about.)

From reading the article, it looks less like "getting a permission slip from NASA" and more like "agreeing to cooperate with NASA." This seems reasonable to me, for US companies. Obviously, if commercial space exploration takes off, we're going to need some international agreements in place.

Re:I'm okay with mining the moon. by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 14:14 · Score: 1

Still, it's not like we'll look up and there will be bulldozers and power lines and fields of garbage. It's a pale white disk with a few darkish spots. Nothing man can do for hundreds of years will change the way it looks from Earth. If we can one day alter the shape of a few of shadows through industry, would anyone even notice?

Antarctic and Lunar Treaty obligations? by reve_etrange · 2014-02-10 09:26 · Score: 2

I was under the impression that the moon and Antarctica were covered by the same international treaty, which we are party to. Can the US offer private mining contracts in Antarctica? What is the legal basis for doing so on the moon?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

Re:Antarctic and Lunar Treaty obligations? by kwbauer · 2014-02-10 10:23 · Score: 1

If it gets to that point, any country that objects is free to have the UN send up a few "peacekeepers" to stop it.

Reality check by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 09:43 · Score: 1

Given the immense cost of taking anything or bringing anything back to the moon, even with economies of scale, what could possibly be worth taking back from the moon for commercial purposes ?
Take iron, according to this page :
http://www.chemicool.com/elements/iron.html
The cost, pure is $72/Kg , bulk $0.2 Kg. How much would it cost to process 1 ton of pure iron on the moon, launch it and safely return it to Earth ?
I bet a hell of a lot more than $72K.
Helium 3 is a complete fantasy given that is MUCH harder to fuse than deterium-tritium and we can't even do that in a controlled way.
The only thing could be kickstarting an economy in space for space use which is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Something similar to what has been proposed for asteroid mining : not for earth, but for building structures in space. Not sure how such an economy, so separated from Earth's would even start.

Re:Reality check by NapalmV · 2014-02-10 10:11 · Score: 1

Unobtainium. Like "moon diamonds". The perfect gift for your future honey moon partner. At x100 price premiums compared to regular versions that are found in earth dirt. Rare! Only 3 available! With laser engraved serial number!
Re:Reality check by ubergeek2009 · 2014-02-10 10:48 · Score: 1

You could build and launch communication satellites for Earth from the Moon's surface. You could potentially gain enough money from that activity to buy essentials and potentially luxuries to be shipped from Earth. The Moon could potentially become the spaceport for the entire solar system.It is perfect. You have low launch costs if materials are sourced from the Moon It could get even lower if you use a lunar space elevator or a railgun. A lunar space elevator could be built with kevlar, unlike one from Earth. It's close enough to the rest of humanity so that you don't have the problem with communication lag, and plenty of raw materials are tied up in the regolith. Also there's plenty of radiation shielding available, as long as you don't mind living underground.
Re:Reality check by Sentrion · 2014-02-10 12:09 · Score: 1

Pretty soon, instead of complaining about the 1%, we'll be complaining about the Moonites who possess the majority of the universe's wealth.
Re:Reality check by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 14:16 · Score: 1

Not sure how such an economy, so separated from Earth's would even start.
We start by mining the moon with robots. Refining on the moon with robots. Then finally building human habitats with robots.
Re:Reality check by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:45 · Score: 1

HE3 for fusion, a prototype reactor is running at University of Wisconsin.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/galle...
The equivalent of one shuttle load would power the entire planet for about 1 year.
The solar wind puts more HE3 back in the regolith over time.
If the mining is done by robots similar to pathfinder, a mag coil mass driver
can fling it back to earth.
The mag coil mass driver flinging material back to earth is an old NASA plan.
it could make ocean parachute landing like the Apollo missions did.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Reality check by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:47 · Score: 1

Correct, and then move onto Ceres for a huge stock of fresh water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Then onto the 100+ moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and the Asteroids.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Does it have to be robots? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 10:02 · Score: 1

Wouldn't short lived clones with memories implant work better?
We could give them 3 year stints mining Helium-3.
I figure we could have it up and running by say 2035.

- Lunar Industries Incorporated.

Re:Does it have to be robots? by gurps_npc · 2014-02-10 10:07 · Score: 2

They would still need robots. A very intelligent "GERTY" with the ability to be re-booted would practically be a necessity.
I bet we could get Kevin Spacey as the basis for GERTY's voice. :D

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:Does it have to be robots? by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:52 · Score: 1

Robots don't need sleep, medical care, food, water, air.
In the end the robot is the cheapest way to do it, and with
3d printers able to self replicate now, the robot and the 3d printer
will merge and they will just make more of themselves up there.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Does it have to be robots? by gurps_npc · 2014-02-11 10:05 · Score: 1

You clearly are not a fan of the science fiction movies of Duncan Jones. When Warcraft the movie comes out in 2016, I strongly suggest you go back and see Duncan's earlier works, starting with "Moon"

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Well, I'm gonna mine for... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-02-10 10:08 · Score: 1

Bitcoin! That's it! The bitcoin potential on the moon is simply enormous!

Re:Well, I'm gonna mine for... by biodata · 2014-02-11 02:09 · Score: 1

Only one coin is going to the moon, and I think you know which one! much mine, so moon.

--
Korma: Good

Iron Sky already answered this question by Brainman+Khan · 2014-02-10 10:23 · Score: 1

Check the movie out on netflix

Re:Iron Sky already answered this question by Brainman+Khan · 2014-02-10 10:25 · Score: 1

Monsato or "other Slashdot Hated Company" will be playing the part of the Nazi's

from the book "Moon Rush" by k6mfw · 2014-02-10 11:01 · Score: 1

On the subject of large scale ventures, author Dennis Wingo wrote, " think what having access to rights over a billion kilos of platinum would do for your corporate portfolio." http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Creepy by anddna · 2014-02-10 11:01 · Score: 1

Not the best movie...

Who gave NASA the authority? by Holi · 2014-02-10 11:01 · Score: 1

I mean really, where does NASA get off parceling out the moon?

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.

You have to be joking getting rare earths from the by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 11:07 · Score: 0

Check MolyCorp's earnings. If they can't make money mining it on earth, there's no point in burning megatons of rocket fuel extracting it from the moon... unless it's so pure that it's magically cost effective, there.... I'm no expert on lunar geology, but that's my take on it from an investor's standpoint.

Nope. by jeff4747 · 2014-02-10 11:07 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that the moon and Antarctica were covered by the same international treaty

Nope, that would be the Moon Treaty

which we are party to.

Nope. No country capable of reaching orbit has ratified the moon treaty.

There is the Outer Space Treaty, but that one doesn't bar NASA from regulating moon mining.

Re:Nope. by sir-gold · 2014-02-10 15:21 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the outer space treaty DOES bar NASA from regulating moon mining.
According to the treaty, nations are expressly forbidden from claiming natural resources on the moon, and if you forbidden from claiming it, then you are also forbidden from regulating it (you can't regulate something that isn't yours)
US government agencies have no authority outside US territory, and the moon is definitely NOT US territory. While NASA would be within it's rights to regulate space travel that leaves from, or arrives in, the US, it has no authority over space itself.
Re:Nope. by mbone · 2014-02-10 15:30 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the outer space treaty DOES bar NASA from regulating moon mining.
According to the treaty, nations are expressly forbidden from claiming natural resources on the moon, and if you forbidden from claiming it, then you are also forbidden from regulating it (you can't regulate something that isn't yours)
US government agencies have no authority outside US territory, and the moon is definitely NOT US territory. While NASA would be within it's rights to regulate space travel that leaves from, or arrives in, the US, it has no authority over space itself.
No, it does not. Read Article 8 of the Outer Space Treaty.
Re:Nope. by sir-gold · 2014-02-10 15:58 · Score: 1

I just read that section, and from what I understand, ANY ship leaving from the US would be under US control for eternity, even if it came back to earth and landed/took off from a different country.
Sounds like a convenient loophole giving the US permanent ownership of every man made object on the moon (including the habitats), as long as it originally left from the US.
Re:Nope. by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:40 · Score: 1

As an native American I can tell you what treaties are worth.
You can find their equivalent in the bathroom on a spool.
When the plutocrats want something and think its worth
trillions such as helium-3, its moving day....

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:Nope. by jeff4747 · 2014-02-11 04:52 · Score: 1

if you forbidden from claiming it, then you are also forbidden from regulating it
You don't regulate it based on the claim. You regulate it based on the ship.
Let's say there's a giant gold deposit on the moon, and a ship launches from the US in order to build a mining operation. The US can't say "That's our gold, you have to do this to mine it". However, the US can say "That's our ship. You have to do this while you're on the moon....and happen to be mining gold".

If you believe... by sv_libertarian · 2014-02-10 11:11 · Score: 1

They put a mine on the moon, mine on the moon...

Re:Beta...Beta raped me last night. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 11:21 · Score: 0

You liked it and you know it. Just lay back and enjoy it next time - it'll be just like Kinja; it takes a little to get past the initial shock, but the blood will form a nice lubricant.

Wait... by sycodon · 2014-02-10 11:22 · Score: 1

...no Beta comments?

Are we done with that now?

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 11:37 · Score: 0

boycott. Looks like the number of comments are down too. Although not on this one in particular.

In related news... by tomhath · 2014-02-10 11:35 · Score: 1

...attempts to fly a helium filled Zeppelin on the Moon failed miserably. Oh the lack of humanity.

Not quite by mbone · 2014-02-10 12:16 · Score: 1

One or more private companies will win a contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon.

Look, IANAL and TINLA and all that, but no, that is not what is on offer here.

NASA "seeks to facilitate the development of one or more robotic lunar lander capabilities."

It will do that by "entering into one or more no-funds-exchanged Space Act Agreements (SAAs) with U.S. private-sector partners as a result of this Announcement."

Space Act agreements are not procurement contracts and "no-funds-exchanged" means, well, no funds will be exchanged.

So, no-one is going to (as a result of this) "win a contract" to build anything, and NASA is interested (in this announcement) in cargo transport, not prospecting.

Screw the Moon, Let's Mine Mars by locopuyo · 2014-02-10 12:37 · Score: 1

Let's just skip the moon and go straight to Mars.

--
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage

Re:Screw the Moon, Let's Mine Mars by Sperbels · 2014-02-10 14:22 · Score: 1

Nice try, Mr Zubrin.
Re:Screw the Moon, Let's Mine Mars by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:58 · Score: 1

That is in the works as well.
One way ticket though.
http://www.mars-one.com/

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Re:You have to be joking getting rare earths from by Sentrion · 2014-02-10 12:48 · Score: 1

Rare earth elements are old news. Youngsters these days want rare moon elements.

On Moon Banking by Sentrion · 2014-02-10 12:55 · Score: 2

While mining may sound exciting, the first business on the moon will probably be off-planet banking. Just incorporate your business in the Sea of Tranquility, set up a Dark Side irrevocable trust, and manage your on-moon account remotely from anywhere in the universe. With no court system, no law enforcement, and no way to serve process, what better place to store your electronic currency? And by electronic currency, I'm talking US dollars, British Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc. Bitcoins have the potential to be held and transacted anonymously, but all currency these days is electronic. And the moon can't be any worse than Cyprus.

The Moon is not the NASA property by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 13:23 · Score: 0

Since when the moon has been the NASA's property?

NO NO NO NO NO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 16:20 · Score: 0

what happens when we move enough mass from the moon to the earth? well, the moon loses gravitational influence on the oceans, changing tides possibly even eliminating them completely. without the tides and the pull of the moon as it is now the entire system of weather could collapse and, well, life on earth with it. all for some resources.

go mine an asteroid, there's one coming within the next few decades, just wait for it and leave the moon alone.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 05:02 · Score: 1

95% of the material of the moon is not something they want to ship back to earth.
Its a very small percentage, and based on research its likely mostly HE3 to make
it worthwhile, and it is replenished by the solar wind.
They might mine some mundane materials there to make a few starships or
a La Grange point 5 space station, but I think greed is usually the motivating factor
as the military industrial complex has shown all too well.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

No way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 17:41 · Score: 1

I completely object to this. NASA, nor the USA, nor anyone on earth OWNS THE MOON. If anything, it should be a UN governed thing, and completely left alone! All our ancestors for millenia have gazed upward and marvelled at it. No body should be able to exploit it, it should be bloody well left alone.

Re:No way by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 05:04 · Score: 1

You realize the primary funder of the UN is the US right ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Moon-Balrog! by Number42 · 2014-02-10 18:51 · Score: 1

What'll happen when we dig too deep?

What will be the Impact! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 19:04 · Score: 0

What will be impact of mass reduction from Moon after 100's of years of mining?

Re:What will be the Impact! by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 05:06 · Score: 1

As HE3 is the primary target and the solar wind replaces it, we'd have
to first exceed the replacement rate.
Not much else would be worth mining up there except to make a space station
at La Grange point 5, or a few star ships, etc etc...
Ounce for ounce power wise in a fusion reactor Helium-3 is worth more then platinum.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Why NASA? by SuperDre · 2014-02-10 20:45 · Score: 1

NASA doesn't have a claim on the moon, nobody does, so the first who goes to the moon and starts mining is the one who get's the claim...

Hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-10 21:23 · Score: 0

Get away from my sister, You band of hooligans!

Re:Don't we need to talk with other countries firs by rastos1 · 2014-02-10 23:30 · Score: 1

I can just imagine a space-age gold rush erupting and the face of the moon forever altered...

Yeah, and suddenly there is a crater everywhere ...

Re:Don't we need to talk with other countries firs by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 03:21 · Score: 1

Well based on the fact that the total gold discovered on earth would fit in a few Olympic size swimming pools
we don't have much to worry about. I think they are mostly going for the HE3 as we got a working HE3 fusion
reactor sitting at the University of Wisconsin that is much cheaper to build then NIF OR ITER, etc etc...

http://www.technologyreview.co...

At some point hopefully it will be robots capable of repairing the other robots, and just mag coil
launch heat shielded canisters of HE3 back toward earth for ocean pickup much like Apollo did.

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Re:You have to be joking getting rare earths from by Ex-MislTech · 2014-02-11 04:56 · Score: 1

Again, only one up there is worth going up there for.

HE3.

And here is why...

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/galle...

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Space: 1999 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 05:40 · Score: 0

Or blows it out of orbit.

Herpes? by CmdrTamale · 2014-02-11 11:00 · Score: 1

Zits on the face of the man in the moon? Oh Noes! -- The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it. What is this "finished" of which you speak?

Losing the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 19:48 · Score: 0

Can someone with a degree in Astrophysics please calculate how much mass/weight can be removed from the moon, before it loses its orbit around the Earth?

I for one really hope they re-think this idea of mining our moon!

I'm all for mining other planets (as long as they are un-inhabited), just not our own moon!

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Now Accepting Applications From Companies That Want To Mine the Moon

251 comments