Mining the Moon

[mpaineau]

Mining the Moon? Nice idea but the Moon's surface is relatively barren compared with Near Earth asteroids, many of which are easier to reach than the Moon. How about a 2km (OK 1 mile) lump of stainless steel?<br />See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/asteroid_paine_august.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Before the SDC crash there was a thread entitled Mining the Moon. That thread had some good contributions. I will try to recall a couple of the best examples of the special problem of mining the moon as memory serves me.<br /><br /><br />1) The cost of transporting materials for export will be prohibitive. So an economy of mining will be difficult to sustain unless a magic material like He-3 is of economic value.<br /><br />2) The mechanisms that form veins of materials on the earth are absent on the moon. This will make lunar mining more akin to a bulk extraction process.<br /><br />I think these two were the most telling.

 

[nexium]

The 1/6 Earth gravity of the moon will make some mining proceedures easier on the moon than on an asteroid with almost no gravity. The health problems of humans may not be a bit better at 1/6 th g than zero. The vaccuum at the moon's surface will make some smeltering operation easier and heat loss will be reduced. Neil

 

[tap_sa]

Here's a site with lots of information about space mining.<br /><br />Some NEOs look pretty interesting but the Moon aint that bad either.<br /><br />How to fund first moon mining experiments? After you manage to make first blobs of crude lunar aluminium, return them, mint into coins and hold an auction. Everything 'space first' is a priceless thing and all the better if it can be turned into tangible commodity.

 

[summoner]

I don't think it will ever be profitable to mine the Moon for use on Earth. But, if and when we do have some type of space infrastructure in place, then it will be much cheaper to mine and launch materials from the moon to build and maintain these structures. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[riflemannl]

destroy the earth by destroying the moon... just don't mine it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[8774]

? what would happen if we took suffciant mass of the moon?

 

[riflemannl]

it would float away from the earth, over a few millenia.. after that climates would change that big that it will be very difficulty to survive on earth (Discovery Channel broadcasted a programme about 'a no moon earth' and how the earth possibly was 'made')

 

[nacnud]

Just out of interest the moon is moving away from the Earth at the rate of 1-2cm a year. It will continue to do so untill the Earths rotation rate is locked in some ration to the moon orbit.

 

[nexium]

Hi rifleman: If we send huge amounts of mass from the moon, It will receed from the Earth 2 or 3 centimeters per year instead of the present 1 to two centimeters per year.<br /> Millions of years in the future, when and if, this causes trouble for sentient beings (if any) on Earth, they will likely have the technology to reverse the trend by increasing the mass of the moon or by other technology. Depending on the direction of lift off from the moon and the technology of lift off, we could reduce the rate at which the moon is moving away from Earth. If so, the tides of Earth would be a bit smaller due to the reduced mass of the moon. My guess is the moon has rather puny effects on Earth and it's loss would be only a minor inconvenience. Neil

 

[scottb50]

It is not a given there is water on the Moon let alone there is enough to exploit, or that we can even develop the technology to exploit it, since nearly everything would have to come from Earth to get it in operation.<br /><br />In the mean time why are we sitting on our hands? We don't need Lunar Oxygen, Hydrogen or whatever to go to Mars. The Moon is a diversion, other than continued exploration and tourists it will be a long time before the Moon offers exploitable major resources. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i`ve often said the same thing about Mars being more of a diversion than The Moon. oh sure there are resources but how long would it be before infrastructure is actually built from Mars? the best place we have to assemble this infrastructure is L1. & no doubt this will be where a Mars Mission will be launched from ultimately. & L1 is also the best way to interact w/ The Moon. i think it`s erroneous to believe we can build some giant operation w/ resources we now have. that`s putting cart before the horse as it were. proper recycling will help any efforts in space. & since this isn`t currently practiced it`s assumed we`ll continue this way. i`m speaking of using diapers, letting materials burn in atmosphere, etc.. urine can be recycled, feces can be used as fertilizer, space junk can be melted down, clothes can be washed, resources can hard-landed on The Moon, sustaining Crews. there may well be "mutinous" crews wishing to change plans. & i`d almost welcome a logical mutiny in outer space. the simple fact Earth can be seen is an overlooked resource The Moon has in spades. & the reverse is true as well. consider if there ever were a visible presence on The Moon, what would that do for enthusiasm to go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I didn't say it was indisputable Hydrogen had been found, the form is in is the big question. It's not cold enough to be liquid or solid so it pretty much has to be hydrocarbon or water. I'm bettting hydrocarbons. Where's the Oxygen?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

I agree: removing a millionth part of the mass from the moon is very unlikely in this century. If we come close by 2099, we will likely be moving operations from the moon to elsewhere such as asteroids, comets and free floating colonies something like deep space nine. Neil

 

[grooble]

How the heck is a moon colony or mining base going to survive all these projectiles, there is no atmoshphere to burn them up. Look at the state of the moon, all those craters and pot marks.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[quasar2]

i`m wondering how Apollo crews survived it. just lucky i guess. & a big problem w/ this is The Moon has no geosyncronous orbit. therefore making it difficult to setup "weather" sats. suits will certainly need to be tougher. & many things there will be buried. i`m excited about the mountains @ the So. Pole. these would make a great location for meteor radar. & then proposed farside observatory would be a help in this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow"> The Moon has no geosyncronous orbit.</font><br /><br />How about EML1, 2,4,5?

 

[scottb50]

I can't dispute that there is Oxygen on the Moon, what I dispute is our needing it, when we have oceans of water on Earth. I would think a Mars mission would leave LOE just like a Lunar mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i had forgotten about the plants growing in regolith, thanks for reminding me of this. another way of studying lunar meteors would be the old surface equipment. in addition to haha proving we went. & seeing if any of it is usable. on here before we`ve discussed sites for MoonReturn. So Pole or NearSide. both have merit. So Pole is more mountainous, therefore dangerous. however the`s possible ice. & from what i`ve learned on here, the mtns are relatively close proximity to what passes for a lunar orbit. so if something was ever gotten to the top of one or more of these, launching @ least would be a snap, that`s the theory anyway. wouldn`t it be cool if one of these were hollow? that would almost have some of the advantages of a space elevator though @ a pole. of course landing on it would be a bit tricky as has been pointed out. then moonreturn on nearside would be safer & i`d assume radio reception would be better too, though i wouldn`t know by how much. & of course would be closer to the old equipment. my take on that would be to land between 2 or more of the old sites. consider that MoonReturn itself would most likely be leaving equipment as well. the way things have gone we never know if we may have another 30 yr hiatus. so please let`s bury whatever MoonReturnJunk there may be. <br /> we had thread "Standards for Space". in which all Space equipment should be interchangable. & i think this should be included in a new OuterSpace Treaty. & certainly Salvage Laws & Property Rights should be reviewed. there`s a great deal of political work to be done as well as technical. <br /> <br /> no doubt certain actions will be taken in Space without consent, especially in emergency survival stuations. this in relation to above post about mutinies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robotical]

Quick question: What on Mars is going to provide a return for our resource expenditures? If the moon doesn't have anything of value then what does Mars? Oh, and any answer to this has to be viable under current and near future political and economic realities (this means NO colonies UNLESS they provide a significant economic return on the investment within a relatively short period of time). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I don't see anything that we can go to either place and immediately return with for as profit. No matter what, it is going to take huge infrastructures to exploit any resource available and so far little has shown up that can't be found here on Earth for far less. Helium3 being a good case in point. It would take considerable equipment to remove it, concentrate it and contain it and it's use is only theoretical at this point anyway.<br /><br />Water would be another possible resource, if it's even available on the Moon, still very much a question. Whether it is economical to stop at the Moon or an orbiting facility to refuel is another thing, and there again is the infrastructure thing. A refueling facility would have to be put into place and while it is more economical to leave the surface of the Moon than Earth it is still not that much diferent when you include the cost of getting all the hardware there and having to start fro Earth anyway.<br /><br />That's why I have said our initial forays back to the Moon and to Mars should be exploration and research, it will be a long time before we can consider colonization. What return on investment are the MER's giving? Apollo wasn't designed to be profitable but to prove it could be done. Antartica has been used for research since the fifties. People still climb Mt. Everest and there isn't a return on investment from there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robotical]

The problem is, if we are going to create a sustained human presence in space we have to find some way to support it economically. The ultimate goal is not Mars; it is the human utilization of and expansion into space. The moon is a good stepping stone towards this goal, if we can find ways to make it profitable then we can probably find ways to make Mars profitable. We’d also gain an infrastructure in the process.<br /><br /><i>What return on investment are the MER's giving?</i><br /><br />Fortunately or unfortunately small investments without any economic return tend to be far more acceptable than those on a much larger scale. I think we can agree that any moon or Mars mission well be somewhat more costly than the MER’s.<br /><br /><i>Apollo wasn't designed to be profitable but to prove it could be done.</i><br /><br />Indeed, and that is the primary reason that the Apollo missions were stopped and we have not repeated them. A mission to Mars at this point would end the same way.<br /><br /><i>People still climb Mt. Everest and there isn't a return on investment from there. </i><br /><br />This is generally done using personal fortunes. Governments usually don’t fund this sort of thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

If you want to go to the moon and you think you need to exploit the resources there to afford it, shouldn't you account for all the resources? Why focus on the marginal resources and ignore the primary one?<br /><br />What is the primary resource offered by the lunar surface?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">BEING THERE</font><br /><br />How else can you explain the willingness of people to spend fortunes climbing Mt Everest? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robotical]

Governments do not have that option; they must be able to justify it. Being there is not a long term justification for a government (or a commercial enterprise for that matter). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" Being there is not a long term justification for a government (<b>or a commercial enterprise</b> for that matter)."</font><br /><br />The trillion dollar per year terrestial business based on people's desire to visit someplace else than home begs to differ with you.