Humans will soon be able to mine on the moon. But should we? 4 questions to consider

[Admin]

By the end of this decade, nations and private companies may well be mining the surface of the Moon.

Humans will soon be able to mine on the moon. But should we? 4 questions to consider : Read more

 

[Jim Franklin]

By the end of this decade, nations and private companies may well be mining the surface of the Moon.

Humans will soon be able to mine on the moon. But should we? 4 questions to consider : Read more

That is one of the worst Op-Eds I have read in a long time. It is anti capitalist dogma that wants to hold human progress back because the little willy massive egos on the left want to control all of humaity, and if we start going off world, they lose that control.

It is clear that nations will put regulations in place, for example, a company employing British workers would still be covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1989, as well as all the legislations that falls under these umbrella acts. International Law ceeds jurisdiction where abuses occur in International waters, and the Moon would certianly not fall under any given nation state, thus, legal action would be, well, legal.

This is not to say that other regulations should not be put in placve, but the problem you have is enforcement. Unless there was a Supranational Governing body in control on the Moon itself, or any other body, then the enforcement of any legislation from anywhere is all but impossible.

 

[Galacsi]

Good reply by Jim Franklin. I will add that there will be probably no "miners" on the moon. The mining industry will be highly automated because of the cost of using human labor on the Moon, and also because robotics progress every day. And if some dust is disturbed upon the surface and some bright patches appear.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This article tends toward over-regulation "for the good of all" to the point where the entities that try to comply may simply be unable to compete with those who will not comply.

It will be hard enough to get moon reserves back to Earth at a price-point that makes them competitive. Adding something like a "for the good of all" tax on top of the actual costs, so that the "profits" are shared by other nations that are not spending their money and citizens to obtain those resources, could easily make for losses instead of profits from lunar mining ventures.

And the other use of lunar resources - to expand space travel further, is more likely and also harder to claim "benefits all".

I think that the opportunities basically belong to those who expend the efforts to obtain them. If some countries want to become involved without developing their own launch systems and other technologies, that seems fair on a "share" basis for the profits if they contribute to covering the costs. But, a top-off tax, payable to everybody regardless of contribution, seems likely to kill the opportunities for whoever can be forced to pay it, while expanding the opportunities for others who can avoid that tax.

 

[orsobubu]

That is one of the worst Op-Eds I have read in a long time. It is anti capitalist dogma that wants to hold human progress back because the little willy massive egos on the left want to control all of humaity, and if we start going off world, they lose that control.

It is clear that nations will put regulations in place, for example, a company employing British workers would still be covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1989, as well as all the legislations that falls under these umbrella acts. International Law ceeds jurisdiction where abuses occur in International waters, and the Moon would certianly not fall under any given nation state, thus, legal action would be, well, legal.

This is not to say that other regulations should not be put in placve, but the problem you have is enforcement. Unless there was a Supranational Governing body in control on the Moon itself, or any other body, then the enforcement of any legislation from anywhere is all but impossible.

where did you learn that anti capitalists wants hold back the progress? exactly the opposite, capitalism can manage no more the huge productivity allowed by new technologies, requiring a resource-based new structural system of production, and, consequently, a new set of superstructural ideologies. Capitalism is limited between the scilla and cariddi of inflation and deflation, and suffers of the fatal bugs of overproduction and fall of profit rate, and in order to survive, it evolved in imperialism, which is its political envelope since the beginning of xx century: you know which were the horrendous consequencies. And the proof is exactly what is said by Galacsi, probably robots are going to work on planets instead of humans, and it is well known that machines, per se, on average, cannot produce any profit at all. Capitalism cannot produce enough capitals to reach for the stars.

 

[Papaspud]

where did you learn that anti capitalists wants hold back the progress? exactly the opposite, capitalism can manage no more the huge productivity allowed by new technologies, requiring a resource-based new structural system of production, and, consequently, a new set of superstructural ideologies. Capitalism is limited between the scilla and cariddi of inflation and deflation, and suffers of the fatal bugs of overproduction and fall of profit rate, and in order to survive, it evolved in imperialism, which is its political envelope since the beginning of xx century: you know which were the horrendous consequencies. And the proof is exactly what is said by Galacsi, probably robots are going to work on planets instead of humans, and it is well known that machines, per se, on average, cannot produce any profit at all. Capitalism cannot produce enough capitals to reach for the stars.

Did your teacher tell you all that? Sounds like you have the talking points down pat= she will be proud.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Good reply by Jim Franklin. I will add that there will be probably no "miners" on the moon. The mining industry will be highly automated because of the cost of using human labor on the Moon, and also because robotics progress every day. And if some dust is disturbed upon the surface and some bright patches appear.

Thanks, however, we will still need humans on the Moon to both manufacture and maintain the equipment, our technology does not yet afford us the ability to have a single machine lofted to the Moon that then runs off and makes a load of autonomous machines of all types, including for maintenance, from local materials.

The Moon has all the materials we need to make everything we have here on Earth, but it lacks the complex infrastructure that has take well over 100 years to create to be able to mine, process and manufacture raw materials that can then be used to make useable products.

1 metric ton of Iron requires an estimated 153MJ of energy for it to be mined, transported and smelted, even with efficiency savings, that figure will not change markedy as the laws of physics and chemistry are the same on the Moon as they are on Earth.

Basalt samples from the Moon show the average mare basalt sample is only about 8% ilmenite by volume, and ilmenite is only 36.81% iron by weight, thus, to produce 1 metric ton of Iron would would need to process around 1600 metric tons of lunar regolith.

Thus, we would need heavy machinery, controlled by humans. Yes, these ore processes would not need to mine in the conventional sense here on Earth, the surface of the Moon is covered in regolith, but the ilmenite content and the Iron content of the ilmenite will vary across the Moon just as ore concentration varies with location on Earth.

 

[Jim Franklin]

where did you learn that anti capitalists wants hold back the progress? exactly the opposite, capitalism can manage no more the huge productivity allowed by new technologies, requiring a resource-based new structural system of production, and, consequently, a new set of superstructural ideologies. Capitalism is limited between the scilla and cariddi of inflation and deflation, and suffers of the fatal bugs of overproduction and fall of profit rate, and in order to survive, it evolved in imperialism, which is its political envelope since the beginning of xx century: you know which were the horrendous consequencies. And the proof is exactly what is said by Galacsi, probably robots are going to work on planets instead of humans, and it is well known that machines, per se, on average, cannot produce any profit at all. Capitalism cannot produce enough capitals to reach for the stars.

Do you actually understand what you have written or have you cut and pasted that from "Communism R Us"?

You clearly do not understand business, politics and economics. I woould strongly suggest you have an open mind and educate yourself on all three.

 

[George²]

It is clear that nations will put regulations in place, for example, a company employing British workers would still be covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1989, as well as all the legislations that falls under these umbrella acts. International Law ceeds jurisdiction where abuses occur in International waters, and the Moon would certianly not fall under any given nation state, thus, legal action would be, well, legal.

A vessel (while in high seas) is considered to be territory of the country it's registered with. I wouldn't be surprised if a loophole were found in the law of the "high seas" and when the resources from the moon are extracted and loaded onto cargo ships, they would be considered national property of the country in which the private mining company is registered. Thus, countries would commit to their presence on the moon to protect their "national" interests. It is natural for the property to be fenced off in order to be protected, and the fence is... a border that can be expanded as the activity grows.

 

[Jim Franklin]

A vessel (while in high seas) is considered to be territory of the country it's registered with. I wouldn't be surprised if a loophole were found in the law of the "high seas" and when the resources from the moon are extracted and loaded onto cargo ships, they would be considered national property of the country in which the private mining company is registered. Thus, countries would commit to their presence on the moon to protect their "national" interests. It is natural for the property to be fenced off in order to be protected, and the fence is... a border that can be expanded as the activity grows.

I think you are likely right there, nation that builds a space vehicle will be its legal owner, and it may get to the point where they may be registered on a given body - the flag carrier if you like, such as Earth, the Moon, Mars, Ceres, etc etc as we expand outward.

However, I would imagine that in the same way you have Economic zones around countries, you may have similar jurisdiction zones around bodies, probably anywhere within their Geostationary orbit limit, which for Earth would be about 36,000km, The Moon has no stable geostationary orbits which does make things interesting, and Mars it will be about 17,000km from the centre of the planet.