Mining the Moon

[robotical]

Yes I know about space tourism. However, a business running a hotel for other people is not there just to be there; it is attempting to make money and the customers themselves are not commercial enterprises. <br /><br />It also remains to be seen whether lunar tourism can pay for itself or whether companies will actually shoulder the costs. This all factors into my point that we need to find some way to make space travel give some sort of return. If it does not, then there will be no commercial development of space. Hence why we should concentrate on finding a way to make the moon profitable before we try jumping to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think research facilities that are economically reached would be as lucrative as tourists. They could jump start the establishment of individual corporate research facilities that could expand into manufacturing or other businesses. The point being the more flights can be done and the less intraflight maintenance needed the more economical it can be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mhcecire]

Costs wouldnt be so prohibitive with the proper infrastructure. I've always said that it's kind of daft to build a galleon in the rocky mountains and expect a huge sail to take it to the ocean. That's the current state of the space program today. We need to build on the coast (orbit), which would dramatically reduce costs. You need far less inertia to escape orbit than escape velocity. <br />Build that kind of infrastructure and moon colonization seems quite reasonable. To transport the stuff to earth it could make sense to have mass drivers launch crates into near lunar orbit to be collected and shuttled back to stations in earth orbit. <br />

 

[scottb50]

I would use vehicles based on the Moon that use their engines to reach orbit then dock to transfer vehicles sent from LEO. They could also be used to explore different areas and, with more power and re-entry protection, they could be used at Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Hi kadetken: You have considered many of the details, but you need to explain most of the abreviations you used: VenusEquilateral station? cis-jovian? starwachers? MSR proposal?<br /> I think we can get oxygen as a gas by electrolsis of molten minerals, or by heating to plasma temperatures. What are some of the other 18 ways to get oxygen suitable for humans to breath? Neil

 

[quasar2]

i`m wondering what the eventual goal was for Shuttle or ISS? was it assumed that something else would eventually be built? & aren`t both unfinished? & really what will we have when they are? could Soyuz get to L1? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

yeh that`s why i`m mentioning the mtns @ So Pole. i meant that one could have a breeches bouy going up the side of one of them. & just go slowly up the side of the mountain, then a launch from the top would be almost as efficient as Space Elevator due to lunar Orbit being lower there. while thinkin about these mtns, i`m wondering if they would have lava tubes? also i`m wondering if meteors would be less intense in that region. isn`t it true that meteor activity is due to the effects of gravity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tgharris]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was surprised to be referenced in Dennis Wingo's book "Moonrush" as a guy who would be willing to clean toilets for a chance to go to the Moon. Dennis thought I was showing genuine enthusiasm for going to the Moon, whereas I had $ signs in my eyes at the thought of access to all of that bio-goo and what it could do in combination with regolith and some Earthworms.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why not use waterless composting toilets on the Moonbase?

 

[tgharris]

May I suggest reading <i>Mining The Sky</i> by John Lewis.<br /><br /> Basically, hydrogen is light, and oxygen is heavy. <b>Very heavy.</b> Eight times as heavy as hydrogen in fact. In the long term, it may be more economical to lifft your hydrogen up from Earth (where it is more abundant) and burn it with lunar-made LOX (where 1/6 gravity cuts launch costs.)

 

[talkativejd]

Although what every one has said so far has truth to it, we still need to consider that the mineral weath on planet earth is fast depleting due to economic growth in this world's two most populated countries, India & Mainland China. Each of these countries are consuming between one-third to one-half of the earth's raw material production. Also, we need to consider that together these two countries are over seven times as populated as the United States. Below I have listed the populations of the three counties.Source www.infopease.com<br /><br />Mainland China />1,298,847,624<br /> India />1,065,070,607<br /> United States /> 293,027,571

 

[scottb50]

I can't find a link yet, I'm still looking, but I remember, not too long ago, hearing that other than oil we have barely scraped the surface in resources on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Right now with what we've got? Demonstration perhaps? A solar array in low Earth orbit 10 meters by 10 meters produces 40 kilowatts when not shaded by the Earth. A micro wave transmitting antenna with 4 times the area of of the solar array illuminates a spot on Earth with 1000 times the area of the antenna = 400,000 square meters = 1/10 th watt per square meter in the hot spots/ about 1/10th that much typically over the 400,000 square meters = 4000 watts delivered as microwaves = 10%. We could have done better with the same steerable solar panel array on a favorable location on Earth's surface.<br /> No one has a heavy lift rocket that can get the stuff to orbit in one instalmement, so it is like building another international space station at a cost of perhaps 100 billion dollars, to deliver enough power to light a string of one million LEDs circling the equator of Earth in a 1% duty cycle. Neil

 

[nexium]

We can illuminate a rectenna for about 1/2 hour several times per day by panning the transmitting antenna. We can illuminate spots 8000 kilometers from the equator by making the transmitting antenna larger and capapable of producing a varriable spot shape. We can get perhaps 20% effeciency by using a larger transmitting antenna. We can operate from GEO synchronous orbit by increasing the area of the transmitting antenna by several thousand times, except we have not demonstrated assembling anything in GEO in instalments. Neil

 

[danielink]

I see the technological and economical problems but couldn't it be possible that due to new technologies we can upgrade the effectivnes of the solar array and the power up the beam back to earth? Not to mention builing cheaper ways of launching rockets or spaceshuttles. You only look at the present technology, we have to look to the future. When the need is there to build orbital power or lunar power plants. Technological structures and engines will evolve more rapidly and more economical ways of building it cheap will be developed. Don't forget, in a few decades, we have no other choice then to overcome these obstacles.<br />Daniel

 

[nexium]

Hi danielink: New technology may make solar power satelites practical, if not to beam power to Earth, then to serve as a utility for facilities at perhaps L1.<br /> For Earth, I like very large balloons free flying at altitudes up to twenty miles with large stearable mirors which send a beam of sunlight though a hole in the clouds to a conventional solar site below. Neil

 

[talkativejd]

Steve I agree with you 100% on this issue. Having said that, back around 1995 I ask a gentleman to do a study about asteroid mining & he said it would take 100 hr's of research at a cost's of $7500. So, as you can see Ihad to decline because I didn't have the $7500. Where do we go from here?

 

[nexium]

As you can see from the kadetken list most of these require high temperature and a reagent plus the ore. All or most of the plasma processes require 10,000 degrees k plus which means magnetic contaiment is needed as all matter containers vaporize. The vacuum of the moon may be helpful for the plasma processes which are rarely cost effective on Earth's surface. Neil

 

[danielink]

Its very interesting what you're saying about the need to have the right energy source going and all. <br />But what also interests me is, although it is so logical to increase these researches of clean energy systems dont you think it could be that some of the biggest nations will react very strange if they don't have for the example the oil anymore(read violently?).<br /><br /> Because i'm afraid that it could take a lot of lives and decades before we come to the right conclusion of using other energy systems like solar or hydrogen power.<br /><br />Whats your opinion?

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">yeh that`s why i`m mentioning the mtns @ So Pole. i meant that one could have a breeches bouy going up the side of one of them. & just go slowly up the side of the mountain, then a launch from the top would be almost as efficient as Space Elevator due to lunar Orbit being lower there. while thinkin about these mtns, i`m wondering if they would have lava tubes? also i`m wondering if meteors would be less intense in that region. isn`t it true that meteor activity is due to the effects of gravity?</font><br /><br />That is an interesting concept!<br /><br />Shuttles could utilize a electromagnetic monorail system, or harpoon system to fling themselves into orbit, and the Malapert Mountain would serve as loft. Some kind of rail system might be beneficial on the Earth's Moon. Maybe something like tubes that propel vehicles by either overpressure, electromagnetism, or tether. <br /><br />NASA is offering cash rewards to individuals now, so maybe the private sector will start to get really involved now ;o)<br /><br />Tubes are likely the practicle shape of most everything that is transported to the Moon, would you agree?<br /><br />--- Jatslo

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">As you can see from the kadetken list most of these require high temperature and a reagent plus the ore. All or most of the plama processes require 10,000 degrees k plus which means magnetic contaiment is needed as all matter containers vaporize. The vacuum of the moon may be helpful for the plazma processes which are rarely cost effective on Earth's surface. Neil</font><br /><br />The Earth's Moon would make a great test bed for a great many projects, including and not limited to, artificial habitats, transportation, and dangerous experiments that are best conducted in places other than the Earth.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">10,000 degrees k plus which means magnetic contaiment is needed as all matter containers vaporize.</font><br /><br />Containment manufactured from metal hydrogen should be able to stand up to a focused plasma burst. Metal hydrogen is super conductive, virtually indestructible, super light weight, and very difficult to make.<br /><br />Google Search " Metal Hydrogen " ;o)<br /><br />--- Jatslo

 

[quasar2]

well, one of the advantages of a tube would be meteoritic protection. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Might be better to build a biosphere base underground to protect the workers from radiation, and falling space-junk. Many structures can be on the surface too.<br /><br />I have talked about Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM)'s frequently in other threads.<br /><br />Try searching "TBM" or "Tunnel" in ALL threads, if you are interested.

 

[nexium]

I think space elevators are possible only close to the equator and practical for the moon as they would be about 80,000 miles long due to the Moon's slow rotation,which is tidelocked to Earth. A moon space elevator would pass though L1.<br />Mars is practical with it's 25 hour day. He3, science and souveners may be the only practical things to ship to Earth, but off Earth habitats have potential for repopulating Earth, in event of a massive die off of Earth humans. Some would reguard repopulating as worth trillions of dollars. Let's think of the cost of off Earth humans as insurance premiums.<br />Off planet humans may type on forums such as www.space.com Some of the ideas they inspire may be very valuable. Neil

 

[nexium]

A billion hot air balloons, each with a large mirror to beam sunlight through holes in the clouds to existing and future solar sites in the Northern Hemispere, could easily average one killowatt put on the grid times a billion = 1000 gigawatts. The ballons (with reflective tops) would each reflect 0.001 square kilometers of solar energy (average) back into space times a billion = one million square kilometers of sunlight that does not reach the surface of Earth, except possibly in the polar down draft energy. This would likely reverse the global warming in progress, assuming it is desirable to reverse global warming.<br />In any case 1000 gigawatts would cut fosil fuel consumption sharply considering the surface solar sites would likely produce another 1000 gigawatts directly. See the free flying wind apparatus thread in missions and launches page 4 for (sort of) applicable comments. Neil

 

[dan_casale]

I have always thought that a space elevator on the moon is perfect. The lunar gravity is much lower so the elevator could be built with existing materials. It would "hang" through the Earth-Moon L1 point. This would make the delivery of materials into LEO or GEO very cheap. A solar power station on the end of the elevator could supply power to a lunar outpost for a much longer time than a Lunar based solar power system. Playloads on there way to Mars could use the Earth gravity well for a slingshot effect.<br />