NIMBY at 1.3 lightseconds: Plundering the Moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

j05h

Guest
Just read this article by Andrew Smith, provided by Slashdot. <br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2200256,00.html<br /><br />In it he asserts that we are about to provide tax breaks to mining companies to go stripmine the moon after Earth is exhausted. He completely discounts He3 extraction and any other lunar development. He conveniently forgets to provide any kind of backing data.<br /><br />As someone in the Slashdot thread says "it's a big, dead rock".<br /><br />http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/02/2110238<br /><br />Also, a rebuttal by Mark Wittington:<br /><br />http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/434721/the_economic_development_of_the_moon.html<br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
W

webtaz99

Guest
The true value of Lunar materials is not <b>what</b>, but <b>where</b>. This will be more and more apparent over time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Yeah - and there is free wine in paradise. The only problem is GETTING THERE!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Yeah - and there is free wine in paradise. The only problem is GETTING THERE!!!</i><br /><br />The funny thing is the comments in the article. People claiming to know something is impossible when it hasn't been attempted. Getting there is an issue, but it's only a money issue.<br /><br />I like your .sig. Are you really up in Portland? I grew up in York County, mostly at Hills Beach (but live in Rhode Island now).<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> The true value of Lunar materials is not what, but where. This will be more and more apparent over time.</i><br /><br />Location, location, location. We literally have mountains of gold and platinum in the Solar System, but they do no good because they are not accessible. Luna could have 1 billion tons of He3 but it's useless if it's locked up in the regolith. It's the difference between a "rock" and "ore". <br /><br />What do you think of the article itself? Merely emotional, or can you find any good points in it?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
JO5H<br />No, I do not live in Portland. I am referring to the school there that recently received authorization from the school board to provide confidential health counseling, condoms, birth control pills and patches to children as young as 11.<br /><br />Their rationale is that some children are going to have sex anyway, and this assures that no pregnancies result.<br /><br />I equate this to provision of chauffeurs to bank robbers such that innocent pedestrians will not be killed during the chase. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">. . . or can you find any good points in it? </font><br /><br />That's a skill I've tried to develop. I know you don't put much value in the lunar surface, JO5H, so I appreciate your interest in the topic. I found this in the article:<br /><br /><font color="orange">These new views of our fragile, heartbreakingly isolated planet are often credited with having helped to kickstart the environmental movement - even with having changed the way we see ourselves as a species.<br /><br />. . . <br /><br />Earth's sister has played a role in teaching us to value our environment: how extraordinary to think that the next giant leap for the environmental movement might be a campaign to stop state-sponsored mining companies chomping her up in glorious privacy, a quarter of a million miles from our ravaged home.</font><br /><br />The first section is a good observation which to me not only rings true but is not given enough worth by today's space advocates. IMO this was but the first step in a process, and we can marry environmental recovery with space progress if we go about it correctly. Indeed, IMO it is perhaps the only path to creating a vision that the tax-paying public will buy.<br /><br />So that part was good. But the second part is basically his summation and I find it rather absurd.<br /><br />The whole idea of "Plundering the Moon" is flawed from the start. 'Plunder' implies wealth. You cannot plunder something of no value: the definition does not apply if the thing taken is value-less.<br /><br />Lunar Regolith does not become an economic commodity until we show up and exploit it. Yes, the Lunar surface has intrinsic value, as an abstract entity possessing the qualities of pristine ancient conditions. In this sense, the lunar surface is a precious and limited resource and any logical extension of the common ecological ethic in our society would demand that the exploitation of this resource be carefully managed.<br /><br />Having said that, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

revdoc

Guest
"Turning the moon into a playground and a place where economic growth is a good thing can be the best thing that ever happened to the environmental movement, by striking the right balance between two concepts which are too much at odds with each other these days: sustainability and growth. "<br /><br />Dennis Wingos book "Moonrush" point out this idea and offers some thinking beyond just H3. He examines the prospects for PGMs and their connection to fuel-cell production.<br /><br />A good read on the topic.<br />http://tinyurl.com/ytb7xp
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
The total weight of The Moon is in the neighborhood of 73 sextillion tons.<br />That's 73 followed by 21 zeros.<br />I imagine you'd have to remove at least 1% of the total to have some effect. That would be around 73 quintillion tons. That's 73 followed by 19 zeros. A rather substantial weight all in it's own <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> I know you don't put much value in the lunar surface, JO5H, so I appreciate your interest in the topic. </i><br /><br />Touche', spacester. I love the Moon. It's nice to watch on a spring evening. Some of us will walk on it again. I look forward to it being developed and explored. In the scope of things, I think it's development is really "step #3", though, not "step #2" - a volatile-rich asteroidal or Martian site is needed first. Not before further exploration necessarily, but definitely before any sustained Lunar development. It is simply to dry and has almost no nitrogen. That is a technical argument for a mutliple-destination/multiple-partner approach, not an emotional screed against Lunar development.<br /><br />Space technology (both remote sensing and human-planetary tech) has the potential to "save teh Earth" in a way that no other approach can accomplish. Almost every other approach involves increased suffering and decreased freedom for all people. Space development, material, energy, biological or information creation, is the next stage of the industrial revolution, the Third Industrial Revolution. <br /><br />The point of the guy's essay (if you can call it such) is to define space activity as "plunder". He fails to call it exploitation, or harnessing or other words, instead choosing plunder for effect. <br /><br />Joshs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
H

Huntster

Guest
Unless my maths are wrong, the moon has a mass of 73 sextillion (21 zeros) kilograms, or 73 quintillion (18 zeros) metric tons and 81 quintillion short tons. Consider that the mass of all living things on Earth adds up to 360 trillion kilograms (360 billion metric tons, ~400 billion short tons). I can't imagine that all man-made objects together would weigh more than 10 quadrillion kilos, likely far less.<br /><br />That number, if even remotely correct, is something on the order of 0.00001% of the moon's total mass. Mining 1% of the moon would 'produce' enough mass to build all the cities, towns and villages on Earth 100,000 times over (can that possibly be right??).<br /><br />Of course, mathematics aren't my strong point, but I think this gets the point across. We quite simply won't use *that* much of the moon's mass. Quite definitely not enough to alter its gross perceptible gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Although the mass of the moon is mindbogglingly huge compared to any human endevor to date I'd still like someone to do that calculation.<br /><br />The thing is, the process would become exponential if the rate you are smelting and throwing new space solar power satellites into luna orbit is proportional to the power you are gathering from the SSP satellites you already have there. ie a self sufficient luna industry<br /><br />My maths is pretty rusty (<b>check!</b>) but I think if it takes C joules to smelt and launch enough SSP panel to collect 1 watt of power then the watts produced at time t is<br /><br />W(t) = W_initial*e^(t/C)<br /><br />Now C=(S+L)K where<li> S = joules to smelt moon materials into 1 kg of SSP satellite<li> L = joules to launch 1 kg of SSP satellite with mass driver<li> K = kilograms of SSP satellite per watt of power output<br /><br />And finally the mass of SSP in orbit around the moon at time t is<br /> M(t) = K*W(t) or<br /> M(t) = K*W_initial*e^(t/((S+L)K))<br /><br />Can anyone guess rough ballpark figures for S, L and K? Note I've ignored mass of smelting machinery and several other things. Its just to give the idea.</li></li></li>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
a volatile-rich asteroidal or Martian site is needed first....<br /><br />I think they could all be explored and surveyed before we jump headlong into any of them. Mars, obviously, offers the most probability of commercial materials just because of it's size and mass. The moon and asteroids are less inviting, both for atmosphere and gravity. <br /><br />The idea we have to bring something valuable back, besides knowledge is also an issue. It's like diving into the caves in Mexico, who knows what you will find, it might all be a waste of time and money or it might produce unknown riches. It's all a gamble, but if you can hedge your bet by using what you know about the situation....?<br /><br />The only reason we are focusing on the moon is Bush's vision. Perhaps that is not enough to divert ourselves from the real goals. We have been to the moon and it does have reasons to return, but we need to get to Mars and to asteroids to further define what we need to do. <br /><br />I agree the moon should be step #3. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
The moon is also a playing ground to train for Mars-and-beyond missions (including robotic sample return mission)<br /><br />Regards.
 
N

nexium

Guest
The volume of the Moon is roughly the same as a cube 4000 kilometers on each edge = 64 billion cubic kilometers. Each cubic kilometer has a billion cubic meters. On the average a cubic kilometer of the Moon has a mass of 3 metric tons, so the total mass is about 192 billion times a billion tons. The decimal point does not move if you remove 1% so the new total is a bit more than 190 billion times a billion tons. Removing 1% of the surface puts you closer to the center, so the gravity only decreases a few parts per million.<br />1% is far more than the total mass humans have moved so far, and we have removed essentually none of the mass as it is still on Earth's surface. It is hard to imagine shipping 1% of the moon's mass to Earth or elsewhere in the Solar system, but it is possible with great advances in technology. Neil
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>>> a volatile-rich asteroidal or Martian site is needed first.... <br /><br /> /> I think they could all be explored and surveyed before we jump headlong into any of them</i><br /><br />Better general exploration makes sense - DAWN might make Ceres the obvious target for volatiles, etc. For the price of one human trip to the Moon or Mars, we could thoroughly explore the Solar System with robots. The obvious emphasis should be the Inner planets and Main Belt. A general survey makes sense, regardless of who flies what. <br /><br />What I mean is that a "town" on the Moon will require water, prop, fertilizer and hydrocarbons, from an outside source. Lunar polar water is not a sure thing and there will be a huge market for orbital propellant services to develop multiple space settlements and projects.<br /><br /><i>> The idea we have to bring something valuable back, besides knowledge is also an issue. ...or it might produce unknown riches. </i><br /><br />NASA is only tasked with science return - largely data but samples are nice, too. Projects like building towns, water mining, volatile processing and all sorts of other activity can only be sustained by commercial means. NASA is not going to mine kilotons of water from Ceres or Phobos and give it away in LEO. What "Plundering the Moon" was talking about was as much against commerce as govt. exploration - and had plenty of vitriol for both.<br /><br />Exploration and settlement will discover unknown riches, but business is built on known resources. <br /><br /><i>> The only reason we are focusing on the moon is Bush's vision. Perhaps that is not enough to divert ourselves from the real goals.</i><br /><br />That depends on the we. As a species, we are simply outgrowing Home - space development is criticial for human and biosphere survival. NASA has been told to send people back to the Moon. Other organizations have different goals. There are commercial niches that can be exploited starting now, like suborbital touris <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
The moon is also a playing ground to train for Mars-and-beyond missions>>>><br /><br />It could be that and it could also be the site for huge telescopes and sensor arrays. Beyond that who knows. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts