backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by Skywalker123.. on Jan 26 at 3:51 AM


Water found on the moon may spur more space exploration, lunar settlement and lunar mining  (Source: jyi.org)
Space entrepreneurs look to extract resources from the moon, but others are arguing that international laws need to be made first

Lunar geologists and space entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly intrigued by the concept of lunar mining now that researchers have discovered an abundance of water on the moon. But others are suggesting that many obstacles need to be overcome before such a project can be executed. 

The discovery of lunar water has raised questions as to whether other resources such as helium 2 and rare Earth elements could be found on the moon as well. Now, certain countries are looking to race to the moon.

Paul Spudis, Ph.D., a lunar geologist and Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, has expressed interest in lunar mining and has even devised a plan for returning to the moon despite the fact that the Obama administration has no plans to return to the moon at all due to its cancellation of the Constellation program. Spudis' plan involves "robotic resource extraction and the deployment of space-based fuel depots" using water from the moon before any humans return to its surface.

On the other hand, Mike Wall, editor of SPACE.com, believes lunar mining should not be attempted before ironing out a few technical and legal issues. For instance, an international agreement consisting of property rights, a salvage law and a mining law would be needed in order to decide who owns the resources once they are extracted. The Outer Space Treaty does not allow nation states to claim territories on the moon, but it does not mention anything regarding resource mining, and laws need to be set before any mining on the moon begins. 

To set these laws, several proposals have been submitted with viable ideas to set lunar mining in motion. One proposal, which was published in the SMU Journal of Air Law and Commerce, recommended that "space faring countries" should claim and defend a large portion of land around an established lunar settlement and sell the land to investors on Earth, which could fund the commercial venture. 

A second proposal suggested an international agreement to sell lunar land to investors in an effort to fund space exploration programs.  

China, Russia and India have expressed interest in resource development on the moon. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

First come, first serve
By therealnickdanger on 1/18/2011 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 5
The moon isn't like a state park or something, nothing lives there, there's no ecosystem, it's a giant rock. Any organization or country that has the will and the means to make moon mining a profitable venture should do so and the "land rights" should simply fall to whomever wins the race. That should be reward and motivation in itself to spur innovation and exploration.




RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By ClownPuncher on 1/18/2011 7:56:03 PM , Rating: 5
Science fiction becomes reality when people stop neutering their dreams. YOU stay here, just don't complain when I corner the market on green cheese.


RE: First come, first serve
By Alexvrb on 1/18/2011 8:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Unobtainium is good, but I'd even settle for Adminium deposits.


RE: First come, first serve
By wired00 on 1/18/2011 9:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
I can't bring myself to install that O.O


RE: First come, first serve
By FishTankX on 1/19/2011 3:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
I could see one way for the moon to pay itself back is with satellite servicing/refueling operations based on the moon, with robotic mining of the regolith/ice caps to produce fuel for satellites orbiting the earth. Since it's insanely expensive to refuel a satellite due to the earth's gravity well, I imagine it might be somewhat more efficient to have a space fueling depot on the moon, where launch costs are bound to be a lot lower. You might be able to just use a large canon / rail launching system to shoot fuel packages back to earth.

I imagine if you sent a robotic expedition party to the moon and found a way to produce robots from the moon, and had a self replicating band of them, you could get enough to get a sizable enough workforce to create a fuel refinery.


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: First come, first serve
By JKflipflop98 on 1/19/2011 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 5
Well if everyone were like you and immediately took the "nope! the whole thing is stupid blah blah blah" route, nothing would ever change.

Someday, you'll have to admit to yourself that you don't really know everything, and no one person could possibly predict the advancements that such an endeavor would bring.


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/2011 12:09:48 PM , Rating: 1
Did you not read the entire comment thread? We went to the moon for a purpose in the 1960's. When we got there we found that that it is in fact not made out of cheese. My charge was that mining on the moon is not worth the dangers that it presents; better yet, allowing people to blast away as they please invites disaster. Furthermore, there is not one single thing that would make mining operations ECONOMICAL. Do you realize how much it costs just to send an unmanned craft into space? IF it doesn't explode on launch, and IF it isn't delayed X amount of time.

quote:
Someday, you'll have to admit to yourself that you don't really know everything, and no one person could possibly predict the advancements that such an endeavor would bring.


Are you serious? Go back and re-read everything that I have posted. You act like mining on the moon will prevent poverty, starvation, AIDS, and greed. No. I suspect they are looking for a huge source of (insert rare earth mineral/element). NASA has been responsible for many innovations, but they have done what the private sector could have done in less time, and with less money; so lets get real here.
quote:
It's time that we start saying: "Hey, we humans will never be all powerful or all knowing. Some things are better left alone."

I had to quote that again because it seems a few of you don't understand that money IS indeed an object. There are more important issues going on than the distractions of space exploration. You are taking the approach of "well, this planet is crap, so we might as well start looking for ways to leave. The next home we find, I promise we will treat better :) /sarcasm"

Scientific exploration is a wonderful thing, but don't let your schooling get in the way of your education. It is not currently feasible to undertake a project like this, and to contradict that is foolish and naive.


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 12:56:53 PM , Rating: 4
better yet, allowing people to blast away as they please invites disaster."

You do realize that the impact basins on the moon were created by asteroid impacts that at times blasted out 1,500,000 sq miles of area right? (Oceanus Procellarum). The kinetic energy involved is bigger then anything we can muster by whole magnitudes.

"Furthermore, there is not one single thing that would make mining operations ECONOMICAL."

This is based on a massive number of assumptions. Assumptions that the cost of operations will never drop, (along with the risk), that the value of whatever you mine doesn't increase (how do you know?), the list of your assumptions is vast!

"NASA has been responsible for many innovations, but they have done what the private sector could have done in less time, and with less money; so lets get real here."

What the hell are you talking about? First of all who do you think builds the hardware for NASA? Could they be... I don't know, private contractors? Boeing ring a bell? Or how about Lockheed? I suppose NASA uses NASA chips too right? Or could they be radiation hardened Intel chips? (hint, they are).
Not only that, but you obviously slept through the recent space X launch, which was significantly cheaper then what NASA could do. Now of course, Space X is building off of the work that's been done by others, including NASA, but we're talking about today, not the 60s.

"There are more important issues going on than the distractions of space exploration."

How is it a distraction?! In the US the budget of NASA is what, 1/2 of 1%? In other countries it's even less then that!


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/2011 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do realize that the impact basins on the moon were created by asteroid impacts that at times blasted out 1,500,000 sq miles of area right?

And you do realize that those are SURFACE impacts? Totally different world with subterranean demos.

18 Billion dollars is not quite the "drop in the bucket" that you seem to think it is. The problem here is that the government has overstepped their powers as endowed by our founding documents. Tax money collected so a few men can play on the moon? I bed the founders of this nation would throw up at that thought. That kind of venture belongs in private industry with government oversight. And the ONLY oversight needs to be that no-one is putting anyone in danger.


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 6:05:44 PM , Rating: 4
"And you do realize that those are SURFACE impacts? Totally different world with subterranean demos."

Do you have any idea how deep some of those "surface" impacts are? For many of them, the depth is 20% of their diameter. Do the math! And you still don't seem to appreciate the amount of energy involved, which created massive faults and brought material from deep within up to the top. So guess what, that means you don't even have to dig very far.

"18 Billion dollars is not quite the "drop in the bucket" that you seem to think it is."

That's the budget for EVERYTHING that NASA does. Which guess what is not 100% manned spaceflight. It also includes R&D, and basic research, even Aeronautics, remember what the other A stands for? But here's the best part... NASA produces a solid return on the money put into it. Can you say that for say the NSA?! And besides, why in the world would you complain about 18+ billion spent on space when Trillions have been spent on fighting wars with questionable benefit. Why aren't you up in arms about that?


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 1:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
"If someone invents a machine that can economically supply oxygen to a base station on the moon, then I will be a little less weary."

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090810/full/news.2...


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/2011 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ferrying huge amounts of it to the Moon would be extremely expensive — perhaps costing as much as US$100 million per tonne


quote:
The process uses the oxides — also found in Moon rocks — as a cathode, together with an anode made of carbon. To get the current flowing through the system, the electrodes sit in an electrolyte solution of molten calcium chloride (CaCl2), a common salt with a melting point of almost 800 °C.


Uh... you call that a sensible solution? Come on now...


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 6:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Ferrying huge amounts of it to the Moon would be extremely expensive — perhaps costing as much as US$100 million per tonne"

That sentence was talking about how much it would cost if you shipped the oxygen from the earth to the moon instead of creating it there. You obviously suffer from reading comprehension.


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/20/2011 12:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't suffer from reading comprehension. My assumption was that anyone following our thread would have also read the article that you posted. In the article, it plainly points out how expensive current viable methods are.

What I was trying to point out is that there is no sensible solution to the fundamental problems yet. Keyword here is "yet".

quote:
the electrodes sit in an electrolyte solution of molten calcium chloride (CaCl2), a common salt with a melting point of almost 800 °C

I still stand firm in my opinion that this kind of "breakthrough" invention is little more than pre-postulate design. It is not at all practical. Your opinion may differ than mine, but so be it. It's safe to say that neither one of us are actually qualified to make definitive statements; Although I could be wrong if you are an electro-chemical engineer or something lol.


RE: First come, first serve
By JKflipflop98 on 1/19/2011 8:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
Way to cherry pick your quotes in order to make the material fit your ideal. Schmoe.


RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/20/2011 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously Quad, your killing me.

- No government funding, but not government restrictions either.
I bet we agree on this. So speculation as to ROI is unfounded at this time. Let more creative individuals persuade private venture capital. But don't complain if new billionaire are created.

- Human actions on the moon WILL NOT adversely affect earth.
The most likely reason to fund a private venture to the moon would be to harvest energy in some concentrated form to transport in some way to earth. Of all the foreseeable possibilities contained within the realm of physics, none can possibly produce anything that can interfere with the relationship between the moon and earth.


RE: First come, first serve
By Siki on 1/24/2011 8:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Human actions on the moon WILL NOT adversely affect earth.


Harvesting a large enough portion of the moon could destabilize its orbit. :P


RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/2011 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, here is a starting point for some research:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/

Just a quick google search, but it's a start.


RE: First come, first serve
By dgingeri on 1/18/2011 4:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
We're destroying our planet simply because there are so many people. What needs to happen is global birth control. We need to limit the population of the planet to about 2.5 billion people.


RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/2011 4:17:29 PM , Rating: 5
Please feel free to do your part.


RE: First come, first serve
By Belard on 1/18/2011 9:33:41 PM , Rating: 1
Need to limit?

Well... we've exceeded your limit by 4.5 billion already?

At this point, yes - there's more people than there are resources... and in 50 years, its going to be pretty sick... but its estimated that the human population may hold about there. Birth control laws will be kicking in, resources will be stretched to the very limits.


RE: First come, first serve
By wired00 on 1/18/2011 9:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
don't worry when we pass peak oil people will drop like flies once there isn't any petrol for large scale machinery farming, petro chemicals for fertaliser/pesticides etc...


RE: First come, first serve
By Belard on 1/18/2011 11:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
And food.


RE: First come, first serve
By wired00 on 1/19/2011 12:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
well, "thus food." :)

i was trying to make the point that population massively increased due to petro based fertilisers, changes in growing techniques etc thus resulting in an influx of "cheap" food. If we can't feed the world with current surplus we have no hope when petrol (and the food) is expensive and back at <1950 levels


RE: First come, first serve
By nvalhalla on 1/19/2011 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
You could fit the world's population into Texas if you needed to (about 1000 square feet per person). We have plenty of resources, we just need to use them better.


RE: First come, first serve
By Skywalker123 on 1/26/2011 3:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
totally wrong


RE: First come, first serve
By AstroGuardian on 1/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: First come, first serve
By GaryJohnson on 1/18/2011 4:15:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Please lay out your argument as to why we should spend billions of dollars to go back to the moon.


The Earth is doomed one way or another. Though we can help or hinder its eventual doom, it won't last forever no matter what we do.

If we are to survive as a species we must eventually explore, exploit, and expand our civilization into space and other worlds.

Going back to the moon yields a return of experience and knowledge that are necessary for us to go beyond.


RE: First come, first serve
By tastyratz on 1/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: First come, first serve
By GaryJohnson on 1/18/2011 4:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any substantial mining removal from the moon

How much is substantial? The moon is large. To alter its mass by 1% would probably take us 10 billion years.


RE: First come, first serve
By deputc26 on 1/18/2011 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 5
This is utter lunacy, to appreciably alter the gravitational relationship between earth and moon you would have to have more than ten times as much mining on the moon as there currently is on the earth, a lot of useful mining can be done millennia before we get anywhere near that. If you doubt me here are the numbers.

Mass of Earth 5.97*10^24
Mass of Moon 7.36*10^22
Mass of Terrestrial Mining products ~2*10^12

So we haven't even got to one billionth the mass of the moon on our own much larger much more accessible planet.


RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/2011 5:05:33 PM , Rating: 5
Wow!

Scale

For example:
The moon is 73,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moo...
The total of everything ever launched into space is 5,500 tonnes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
Mining 10 tonnes for each person on earth is 4,225,000,000 tonnes
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/DanielTouger.s...

To mine 10 tonnes for every person on earth would require approximately 128,000 times as much effort as all the mass launched into space in human history. Even then, that would only change the gravitational effect of the moon by 0.0000000000002%.

Regarding effects on tide, that's on the order of a whale fart.


RE: First come, first serve
By borismkv on 1/18/2011 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 4
Math is your friend, hippies!


RE: First come, first serve
By mkrech on 1/18/2011 5:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nice troll BTW. ;)


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
There will always be problems here on earth. It doesn't exactly take much for them to develop. All you need is for someone to want something that someone else has. Or for someone to think they are better then someone else. Or even plain selfishness and greed. These are emotions. What exactly do you plan to do about it?
At least those of us interested in space have solutions... like obtaining new sources of energy,new resources, heck it has even improved international cooperation. And practically speaking we should always have a presence in space so that if there is a major catastrophe here our species will be guaranteed to survive. You offer nothing but FUD.


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/2011 12:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
You act like we have finally found out how to construct a hyper drive or something. This isn't Coruscant bud; we are still here on earth.

So are you saying that your interest in space will help with those aforementioned problems? If you think that space exploration will make everyone join hands and sing "cumbaya" then you have another thing coming lol.

quote:
we should always have a presence in space so that if there is a major catastrophe here our species will be guaranteed to survive. You offer nothing but FUD.

You have been watching too much Sci-fi man. Even IF there was another planet that we could inhabit how can we reach it? It's a matter of necessity. Btw, do you know just how rare the perfection of Earth is? So rare, in fact that there is not a single planet that could sustain us. Good luck.

I'll stick to working on tangible solutions to problems that we have right here in our own neighborhoods. You can do all the space research that you want to, but stop spending billions in tax money to do so. I'm not saying space research is a waste either; I'm just pointing out that it's getting out of hand. We have spent trillions of dollars and not really getting as much as we would hope out of it. Lets dump the same amount of investing into medical and infrastructure areas and see what we could do.


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 1:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
"You act like we have finally found out how to construct a hyper drive or something. This isn't Coruscant bud"

How would you build a hyperdrive if you're not even working on interim tech? That's like someone showing you a transistor in 1947, and you saying "yeah that's nice, but until we can make 45nm chips with these things, it's not that useful" We'd never have chips if we hadn't developed transistors first, get it? Or do you think someone will just hit their head on the toilet seat one day and create a sketch for the hyperdrive?

"So are you saying that your interest in space will help with those aforementioned problems? If you think that space exploration will make everyone join hands and sing "cumbaya" then you have another thing coming lol."

No, if you paid attention you'd see that what I'm saying is we don't need to wait to solve problems here, because we never will. We need to press ahead regardless. And in the process we'll probably come up with something that might actually help, instead of just complaining about it. You haven't listed a single solution yourself, except redirecting money spent on space elsewhere. Which is silly. Like I said above, it's 1/2 of 1% of our budget. What's that going to do?!

"Even IF there was another planet that we could inhabit how can we reach it?"

Who said that we have to reach it? As long as there are humans off of this planet, that's what matters.

"Btw, do you know just how rare the perfection of Earth is? So rare, in fact that there is not a single planet that could sustain us."

That we know of today. One could be discovered tomorrow for all you know, because we have only developed the technology to look for earth size planets in the past what 10 years? We didn't even discover ANY planets until 1995. Now we know of 458 according to wiki.


RE: First come, first serve
By Quadrillity on 1/19/2011 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we don't need to wait to solve problems here, because we never will.

With that kind of attitude, no we won't.

If you don't think that 1% is significant, then you have absolutely no idea what "macro-economics" is. On an international and GDP level, 1% is huge. 18 BILLION dollars could go a long way if used correctly. A lot farther than a stupid idea of strip mining the moon for God's sake.


RE: First come, first serve
By maven81 on 1/19/2011 6:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
"With that kind of attitude, no we won't."

If everyone had your attitude the computer you're typing this on never even would have been built. So you've got no leg to stand on. I could see it now... why spend money on semiconductor research! There are starving children out there!

"18 BILLION dollars could go a long way if used correctly. A lot farther than a stupid idea of strip mining the moon for God's sake."

I don't even know how you got to this idea. Notice that it's not even NASA that's talking about mining, but private companies. This is not a government effort. What's the problem?!


RE: First come, first serve
By jeff834 on 1/20/2011 4:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah! That 18 billion dollars could buy like 4 fighter bombers which can be used to fight terrorism! Maybe we should spend a little of the 663 billion dollars we spend on defense to do something useful too, but we don't. I'm not saying 18 billion isn't a significant amount of money or that we shouldn't have a reasonable defense budget, but you really need to look at things in perspective. At least NASA gets some kind of returns.


RE: First come, first serve
By cjohnson2136 on 1/21/2011 3:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now we know of 458 according to wiki.


According to my Astronomy professor who works with the Hubble Telescope its now at about 502. Also coming from this teacher we will find intelligent life within 30 years lol. This guy does work for NASA btw.


RE: First come, first serve
By Just Tom on 1/24/2011 11:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
And how exactly does your professor KNOW we will find intelligent life within the next 30 years?


RE: First come, first serve
By jarman on 1/18/2011 3:04:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think about what kind of mess we would have if mining lead the moon to break in half ...


Well, fortunately we solved that particular problem about the same time we learned how to calculate how many people we could put on an island before it would just flip over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-YUIFCLbh4


RE: First come, first serve
By bupkus on 1/18/2011 3:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Quite funny!


RE: First come, first serve
By DougF on 1/18/2011 4:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of when the space werewolves were upset about the NASA probe impacting "Mother Moon" and how "she" would wreak vengence upon the Earth for such indiscretions. Had a good laugh about that one, too.


RE: First come, first serve
By delphinus100 on 1/18/2011 7:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would rather we just leave it alone and look at it though telescopes so we don't destroy it too.


Let's see...dead. Vacuum. Naked to solar ultraviolet, solar flares, cosmic rays, meteoroids of any size (Earth's atmosphere destroys the small stuff), and all its surface clearly and visibly already having the crap beaten out of it by nature throughout its existence, surface always cycling between extremely hot and extremely cold...

Um, what exactly would a 'destroyed' Moon look like?

quote:
Do you think China or any other country capable of getting there would think twice about strip mining the entire moon?


The irony here, is that played-out strip mines on Earth have often been described as 'looking like the surface of the Moon...'

I would indeed rather use the surface of the Moon, once it becomes practical, rather than further damage the only world we currently know has life.

quote:
Think about what kind of mess we would have if mining lead the moon to break in half ...


You seriously misunderstand how massive it is...oh, and did I mention that Nature has already battered it with billions of years of meteors and asteroids? Are you suggesting we could somehow surpass that which created craters like Copernicus or Tycho?

(If those names are unfamiliar to you, check out some good Lunar imagery or maps...those ain't pimples.)


RE: First come, first serve
By ARoyalF on 1/18/2011 8:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um, what exactly would a 'destroyed' Moon look like?


It would have a Starbucks on it for one. And two it would have a bunch of people that hang out or rent there that frown on other people who are openly visiting. Lastly, the aforementioned bunch a sacks of crap would speak like surfers and wear colorful knitted head gear not native to their ethnicity ......That's how the moon is gonna get ruined :P


RE: First come, first serve
By tech4tac on 1/18/2011 3:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm putting the cart before the horse but... From a military standpoint, the moon is a valuable staging point for any attacks on the Earth (or an Earth nation) and a launching point for interplanetary exploration. It could be a planetary/national security risk handing out to anyone without rules or regulations. That being said and until someone comes up with a better idea, I agree with the first-come-first-serve approach with limited regulation. Anybody who builds on a site should own it and a set area around it. For instance, you build a base and you own the area in the 2km radius around it. You build a home and own the 30m radius around it.

It will all begin with the first remotely controlled, solar station recharged, SCVs building structures to pave the way for colonization.


RE: First come, first serve
By DougF on 1/18/2011 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the Moon is a very undesirable place to launch a military attack. It's 240k miles away...at best speed, it will take some weapon x hours/days to arrive, threading its way through a sea of space junk and satellites, through an atmosphere, and finally into a target. You'll either have to stealth the weapon or protect it somehow from observation/interdiction. And the faster your weapon the more energy it has to absorb on entry into the atmosphere. Then, you have to launch x hours/days ahead of where your target is going to be. For fixed targets, it might work, but for mobile targets you'd better have awesome intel as to where someone/something will be in exactly x hours/days from launch.

Naw, the best place for military weapons is in low orbit, but then it's kind of obvious and defeats the whole purpose (unless the purpose is to have a Sword of Damocles type thing going on).


RE: First come, first serve
By tech4tac on 1/19/2011 2:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
In terms of today's weaponry and near-future technology, I definitely agree with you. However, in the future when interplanetary space travel becomes more common, I speculate it will be. Much in the same way Hawaii is of importance to USA security and Naval deployment, so too will the Moon be to Earth's.


RE: First come, first serve
By Jaazu on 1/19/2011 3:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Could always build an ultra high power beam weapon... :-P


RE: First come, first serve
By delphinus100 on 1/18/2011 8:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm putting the cart before the horse but... From a military standpoint, the moon is a valuable staging point for any attacks on the Earth (or an Earth nation)...


Hmm..it's 2-3 days before anything launched from there could get here. Strategic bombers? Hours.ICBMs? about 30 minutes to target. SLBMs? Less.

About the only military value I can remotely see here, are communication relays that could be very hard. That's about all.

quote:
...and a launching point for interplanetary exploration.


Why? That's what Low Earth Orbit is for. What's the value of leaving Earth, descending into yet another gravity well, to launch a ship* that's going to a whole other location?

(* Please don't tell me the ship was built there...you aren't going to set up not only a mining but a manufacturing infrastructure on the Moon, just to produce a handful of spacecraft. Oh, and your crew must still come from Earth.)


RE: First come, first serve
By tech4tac on 1/19/2011 2:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
The Moon has a big enough surface area to house refueling stations, restocking supply stations, living quarters, etc. with room to expand. A LEO space station big enough to do the same would be obliterated by a constant bombarded of space debris (the Moon would at least afford some protection and stability). Being able to refuel on the Moon also means that interplanetary travel from Earth doesn't require that you carry everything at once (or the extra fuel to transport all that stuff). For travelers returning to Earth, it could also act as a gateway.

If you have to building/maintaining a space craft manufacturing/repairing station on the Moon for cargo transport anyways, why not also use it to construct interplanetary spacecraft. Long-term, your gonna want to do more than just mine on the Moon. A station on the Moon will provide a large, stable platform for construction and materials can be harvested and/or manufactured locally. The moons gravity is only 1/6 that of the Earth. With the same thrust technology, you could launch larger interplanetary craft from the Moon. An orbiting Moon dock might be even better but not a LEO station. Moon to Earth transport would still use smaller craft designed and optimized for that purpose.

Yes, obviously your crew would still come from Earth but transporting a few thousand pounds of personnel isn't gonna cost much relative to the thousands of tons of minerals. Personnel can ride with the transport ships on the round trips. Space agencies such as NASA may even want to spend personnel to run scientific experiment and train on the station. Thus, when you needed to start a mission, you'd already have your crew.


RE: First come, first serve
By delphinus100 on 1/19/2011 9:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Moon has a big enough surface area to house refueling stations, restocking supply stations, living quarters, etc. with room to expand.


Which doesn't change what I said. It takes propellant to land on the Moon from elsewhere, more just to get back into space. You're going to do that, just to get fuel? Keep in mind that about the only thing the Moon offers for fuel resources is water, which can be broken into hydrogen and oxygen, and oxygen in the regolith, which can be separated. (an energy-intensive activity, but potentially solar-driven)

That's nice, if that's the fuel/oxidizer combination you need....and if there's enough to spare.

We know water-ice exists on the Moon, but there's issues with quantity and concentrations. I submit that there will be little enough of it there that it'll be far more valuable for life support and some industrial purposes (and even then, recycled carefully), than to turn into unrecoverable rocket exhaust.

On the other hand, as a space-based picture will show, Earth has ample water resources for hydrogen/oxygen, and other (hydrocarbon-based) fuel resources that the Moon doesn't have. Yes, it takes more energy to get from Earth surface to LEO, than from Lunar surface to Low Lunar Orbit...but again, fuel here is plentiful and cheap. The cost of fuel has never been what made spaceflight from Earth expensive.

Launch the stuff from Earth. We already have a pretty good idea of how to do long-term storage of cryofluids on orbit...

http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Afford...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot

Construct your spacecraft elements here (where all the manufacturing infrastructure already exists), launch to LEO and assemble...just as ISS was (orbiting stations obviously can expand too), assemble at leisure, checkout and test, fuel and send into deep space when ready.

Now, sending oxidizer alone from the Moon to LEO (water may be rare, but O2 is virtually unlimited in the Lunar crust) for ships assembled there may be worthwhile, but that's about all. You go to the Moon, to go to the Moon, not in order to go somewhere else. Refueling makes the most sense in LEO and/or from local resources at your destination...

http://marsjournal.org/contents/2006/0005/files/Sa...

...Not in a side trip to the Moon, unless that happens to be your destination.

(And understand, you might instead be using a nuclear thermal rocket, which would need only hydrogen as reaction mass...the Moon has even less to offer such a ship)

quote:
A LEO space station big enough to do the same would be obliterated by a constant bombarded of space debris


Is there record of even one debris impact on ISS? It may not be as big as you visualize, but it's been in operation long enough to know if that's remotely true...

quote:
If you have to building/maintaining a space craft manufacturing/repairing station on the Moon for cargo transport anyways, why not also use it to construct interplanetary spacecraft.


You miss the point. The Moon has potential as a source of some raw materials, but I don't believe anyone will create the entire chain of processing and manufacturing everything that a spaceship requires. Consider the electronics alone...do you know what an integrated circuit fabrication plant costs to build? And here on Earth where it's relatively easy? And it's built on the assumption that it will be producing many hundreds of thousands of units. Aluminum smelting on Earth doesn't exist just to make Shuttle external tanks, they sell finished aluminum to many other users...

And then there's plastics. Largely hydrocarbon-based. Crude oil, the source. Can't produce that, there.

Imagine tearing down a car or plane for recycling, and you'll see how much different stuff is in these, not just steel and aluminum and glass. Then imagine the reverse. Making all that different stuff. From scratch.

quote:
The moons gravity is only 1/6 that of the Earth. With the same thrust technology, you could launch larger interplanetary craft from the Moon.


Or build/launch it from (Earth) orbit, where weight's not an issue at all. Again, between Mir and ISS, we know something of orbital assembly. (Indeed, you have the option of low-thrust ion and similar rockets to get up to escape velocity [to the Moon or elsewhere] from LEO, for which even Lunar gravity is too much...though spiraling out slowly through the VanAllen belts is not good. Humans won't be on those, unless they can do a high-thrust departure first.)

http://www.dailytech.com/PostComment.aspx?newsid=2...


RE: First come, first serve
By cyclosarin on 1/19/2011 2:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why? That's what Low Earth Orbit is for. What's the value of leaving Earth, descending into yet another gravity well, to launch a ship* that's going to a whole other location?


It requires much less energy to escape Earth's gravity by going to the Moon first.

The Moon has gravity, hence tidal action. This gravity pulls on space craft as well. There is a tipping point where the Moon's pull is greater than the Earth's pull. From that point onward the space craft gains kinetic energy as it approaches the Moon. It requires much less energy to leave the Moon.

It may appear as though energy is being generated out of nothing, but ultimately this process is stealing energy from the Moon.


RE: First come, first serve
By bupkus on 1/18/2011 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps I lack imagination, but the cost to bring the first moon rock back to Earth cost how much? Was that in the billions?
I'm afraid we are being baited to spend more money which we would of course borrow from the Chinese for this Fulton's folly.
"But we're America, we just need the political will", which could become America's last will and testiment.
Also, if this insanity were perceived as possible we would then as done in a truly free market environment try to sabotage each other's efforts.
I say send in coach Sal Alosi. "Hey, Alosi! When that Russian/Chinese rocket goes to land here on the moon, just stick out your knee."


RE: First come, first serve
By judasmachine on 1/18/2011 4:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Even I who normally opposes many of the drilling sites here on Earth, is all for mining the DEAD rocks <dramatic>Spaaaccee.</dramatic>


RE: First come, first serve
By omnicronx on 1/18/2011 4:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
If Doom taught us anything, privitazation of space = bad ;)


RE: First come, first serve
By ARoyalF on 1/18/2011 8:59:41 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, them morons can even duct tape a flashlight to a shotgun........


RE: First come, first serve
By kdogg4536 on 1/18/2011 5:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Daffy Duck and Marvin the martian have already claimed that rock.


RE: First come, first serve
By petrosy on 1/18/2011 5:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
With the 1st come 1st serve approach that will basically put the US, China and EU in control of everything from here on. Developing nations wont stand a chance to move onward, they will then have to resort to terrorism.... pretty much the way things are now.

Obviously those that put in the effort need to be rewarded.

Another issue is... provided they use water only found on the moon and don't start exporting H2O from earth then I am all for it.


RE: First come, first serve
By JKflipflop98 on 1/19/11, Rating: 0
"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki