Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-some-cheese dept.

cold fjord writes "The Verge reports, "NASA is now working with private companies to take the first steps in exploring the moon for valuable resources like helium 3 and rare earth metals. Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon. Final proposals are due on March 17th, 2014. NASA has not said when it will announce the winner."

33 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by bazmail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey NASA, race ya.

    1. Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by crutchy · · 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

    2. Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Trevin · · 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.

    3. Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Due to the landmark case Finders v Keepers, I'm pretty sure NASA owns the moon.

    4. Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by amicusNYCL · · 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
    5. Re:I need NASA's permission to mine the moon now? by Xest · · 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.

  2. Can we just mine the dark side? by alta · · 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.
    1. Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by SleazyRidr · · 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?
    2. Re:Can we just mine the dark side? by Sperbels · · 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.

  3. NASA? by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't realize NASA owned the moon.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  4. Space 1999, Sorta by tiberus · · 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.

    1. Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Space 1999, Sorta by Minwee · · 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.

    3. Re:Space 1999, Sorta by msauve · · 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
  5. Tritium ? by stooo · · 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
  6. "rare earths" by avandesande · · 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
  7. Don't we need to talk with other countries first? by sts2nihon · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  8. Enough with the euphemisms by Sloppy · · 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.
    1. Re:Enough with the euphemisms by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      They will not harm the whales. Only the petunias.

      --
      -
  9. My team is ready to go by PPH · · Score: 2

    Clones of Sam Rockwell.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Akratist · · 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.

    1. Re:I'm reminded of GURPS Terradyne by Ralph+Wiggam · · 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.

  11. Rare Earths? by argStyopa · · 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
  12. Re:I'm afraid this means war by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · 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
  13. Re:I'm afraid this means war by gnick · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey - TANSTAAFL.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  14. Antarctic and Lunar Treaty obligations? by reve_etrange · · 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 :.
  15. Re:I'm afraid this means war by Mister+Liberty · · 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.

  16. Re:Does it have to be robots? by gurps_npc · · 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
  17. Re:China and India might dispute that by WillAffleckUW · · 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! --
  18. Re:I'm afraid this means war by ernar · · Score: 2

    War is a hard mistress as well

  19. On Moon Banking by Sentrion · · 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.

  20. Re:I'm afraid this means war by JMJimmy · · 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

  21. Re:I'm afraid this means war by tragedy · · 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.