China Wants To Establish Moon Mining 945
China has released more information about that country's plans for moon exploration: Mortimer.CA writes "There's an article over at New Scientist (and elsewhere, Google.News it) about one of the objectives being to mine it: 'The prospect for the development and utilisation of the lunar potential mineral and energy resources...'. China being having a space program is only one (profound) question. Another one is whether we should be mining the moon: I'm sure the more 'vocal' conservationalists have one opinion. What about mining asteroids?"
Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Funny)
Proud American citizen, and part moon owner.
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)
We'd be affected by the moon's lack of mass long before transferring the mass to earth would affect us.
Re:Curious (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Curious (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Funny)
-Bill
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, no, but as part of the Homestead Act of 1826, a substantial part of the moon was set aside for use as an Indian Reservation.
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true, actually. They died pretty quick, though. The whole buffalo jump thing really didn't work up there. They'd chase the buffalo over a cliff, and they would float softly to the ground, then they'd have to chase them all over again. So, they ended up starving to death. Very sad story...
Obligatory Eddie Izzard Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Funny)
About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City where the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the Lunar surface. Along with all the trucks and large vehicles, there were two large figures dressed in full Lunar spacesuits.
Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked for him what the strange creatures were and the NASA people told them that they are just men that are getting ready to go to the moon.
The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts. The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not.
Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate.
Finally, with cash in hand, someone translated the message, "Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Informative)
You can find a status here [unvienna.org].
Anyway, Article I [unvienna.org] states that: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies."
Furthermore, Article II: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
But the real kicker is Article IX: "If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment."
That basically says that you can't do anything that would harm other nations' rights to explore the moon. The question is whether stripping the natural resources counts as hindering/harming others.
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:5, Interesting)
NOPENOPENOPE no harm (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're not going to get off our ass and into space (for 'real') I'm sure glad someone's willing to.
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:4, Funny)
Its a good thing all countries abide by ... (Score:4, Funny)
Otherwise we may find ourselves needing to go to war over terriorialy and resource-related disputes. I am glad all it takes is a document to keep everyone in line. Maybe we should try some of these declarations here on Earth...
Scott
As viewed by the United States (Score:4, Insightful)
50$ million
-----------
|Add To Cart|
-----------
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the real world. Anything written on paper is a recommendation to the man who is sitting up there with the pick ready to carve open the rocks. Possession is 9/10ths, remember North Korea? They had to cut through UN barriers to restart their nuclear plants. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is you think that China will have to defend its actions against other states.
In fact (for a little paranoia) putting a mining colony/facility on the Moon means China will be the only country that could survive a nuclear holocaust. Not only will the colony be out of range of current, in-place nukes but the facility will also be able to lob multi-megaton clean (read: leave safe for invasion) rocks at any point in the world without notice.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists like to remind us that the U.S. and Soviet military, in secret agreement, have kept us off the Moon for this very reason. Its hard to justify $50 billion in troops and bombers when all you gotta do is push a button on the ol' lunar ore launcher.
Space treaty only requires 1 year to withdrawal (Score:4, Informative)
I know you did not do this, but, just in case anyone wants to raise the moon treaty, "please note that the United States is a signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but did not sign the 1979 Moon Treaty." [asi.org]. I do not know if China is a signatory to either of these treaties.
Re:Hey, we own the moon! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you break the treaty, the nations of the world will rise up and, um, look at you in a disappointed manner.
Sorry, the UN has lost all credibility with me. The only reason the treaty has any force is because the nations that signed it believes it does them more good than harm.
All you need is one nation to decide that it does more harm than good and the treaty will be broken.
Dubbya already set the stage to abrogate this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
B-)
I don't know if anyone noticed. But the recent appeals by the US for UN to join it in the coming war in Iraq were phrased in a way that sets the stage for the US ignoring the UN in the future if it doesn't join up.
Basically Bush is saying that if the UN won't back up its resolutions with force when the crunch comes, it's just a joke, a debating and posturing society with no teeth, a sideshow.
If they won't enforce their own edicts by going after a dictator who makes, and has a record of using, banned weapons of mass destruction, why should any country or multinational corporation pay any attention to their documents and edicts?
(Especially if the mine's transport terminal is, as a side-effect, a weapon suitable for leveling anything of interest on Earth.)
Re:Um... no. (Score:5, Informative)
> The United States of America is a sovereign nation and is
> not bound by the terms of any international body.
The USA acted as a sovereign nation when it wrote much of the UN Charter and when Congress approved it. Now it is the law of the land, and we are bound by the Constitution to abide by it:
"... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2
> All contracts are negotiable & the USA reserves the right
> to change its mind anytime it pleases.
This is not a contract, this is the "supreme Law of the Land", and we are obliged to abide by it. To break a treaty for the US is to break a law and violate the Constitution. Any president which breaks a treaty has therefore broken his oath to uphold the Constitution, the oath that makes him president. I know presidents past and present who have broken treaties, that does not make it right or legal for them to have broken them.
> Now, the US may lose credibility with other nations in the
> future if it regularly breaks treaties and reverses
> decisions,
Credibility? More like loose our honor as a nation, assuming we have any left.
> but I think reversing a decision made nearly 40 years
> ago wouldn't be out of the ordinary for any nation.
The United States of America is not some tin plated dictatorship! Whatever happened to the nation "with liberty and justice for all"? If we cannot even try to uphold our ideals, if we dishonorably break faith with other nations, then our "liberty" and "justice" are just empty hypocrisy and our word as a sovereign nation means nothing.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the US decided in the next 100
> years to divide the moon up among the nations, giving
> itself the largest chunk & putting a McDonalds and a
> Disneyland on it.
Assuming, of course, that in the next 100 years the US succeeds in Bush's dreams of world domination, and wins another world war or three, putting it in the position to dole out the moon. As it is now, the US only has 50 states and a few islands to dole out, and they are all taken.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
Re:Um... no. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution is now being used for toilet paper in the White House.
Our Glorious, Illustrious leaders will do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.
Wagers, please.... (Score:4, Insightful)
How much does anybody want to bet that they'll still do this, even if they use the laser reflectors we left behind there as navigation aids? After all international status is at stake and not every doofus with a rocket can get to the moon to verify somebody's claims--and like China wouldn't have something to gain by making such a claim.
Re:Wagers, please.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wagers, please.... (Score:3, Funny)
= 4,000,000,000 ft
= 757,575 miles
= 3 Moon Lengths
Yeah, I think they could reach.
Re:Wagers, please.... (Score:3, Funny)
Nice, you even accounted for the Chinese people's short stature.
Re:Wagers, please.... (Score:4, Funny)
Man, I'd hate to be the poor dirt farmer on the bottom of that pile...
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Incorrect Premise (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more pragmatic note some industry MUST be located off planet for safety reasons. Research into nano-scale assemblers is an excellent idea -- as long as a mistake can't turn the planet into grey goo. Orbital facilities seem ideally suited for this.
Also, much of the industry on Earth can benefit from more careful management of waste at all stages. Many "wastes" can actually be resold at a profit. Unfortunately, due to tradition, status-quo thinking, and so forth, industrial producers aren't used to thinking in these terms. In space, or even on Luna, the surrounding environment tends to force people into thinking along the lines of efficiency, reuse, etc. This can't help but bleed over into terrestrial industry.
Finally, there aren't many other games in town. Terrestrial industry is already facing large problems of overcrowding, pollution, and energy shortage. If we limit ourselves to terrestrial industry it is literally impossible to build a car for every person in China due to a lack of energy and raw materials. Space allows us to generate huge amounts of power, has raw materials that are accessable without harming any environment, etc.
We simply don't have the room here on Earth for enough industry to provide first-world luxury for all humans, from a long term socio-political standpoint that leads to several nasty scenarios. Using the vastly larger resources of space gives us an out.
As an environmentalist I cannot help but think that space based industry is probably our best bet.
Re: Incorrect Premise (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's hard to argue that building a car for every person in China would be desireable. Aside from raw material considerations, there's pollution output, but aside from that, there's the school of thought that widespread automobile use has had a particularly negative impact on U.S. communities/culture.
Finally, can you imagine the uholy mess of traffic?
Re: Incorrect Premise (Score:3, Interesting)
Life has had billions of years to spend working on improvements to self-replicators, and has not yet produced "grey goo". I am not convinced that it's possible to produce self-replicators much more efficient than the ones that already exist (if it was possible, why haven't they formed and outstripped the existing ones?).
Even if you assume a drastically improved self-replicator is possible, it still has to get its energy from somewhere. Even sucking up all available solar and checmical energy from a local area gives a strongly limited growth rate. You'd get something closer to grey mould than the all-devouring goo scenario. Not only do you have to put in the initial energy to convert material from stably-bound checmical forms to something you can use, but you have to keep putting in energy to maintain your highly-ordered, higher-energy constructs against natural decay (you can smelt rust into iron, but it doesn't take long to start turning into rust again).
In summary, I don't think grey goo is a risk we have to worry much about.
Finally, there aren't many other games in town. Terrestrial industry is already facing large problems of overcrowding, pollution, and energy shortage. If we limit ourselves to terrestrial industry it is literally impossible to build a car for every person in China due to a lack of energy and raw materials.
We appear to be operating in different universes. Given enough time, China can produce any amount of cars. Given sufficient industry, it can build those cars quickly enough to finish building them before the first cars stop running them. Whether it currently has the required industry is immaterial - it can build it.
We have vast deposits of fossil fuels in the ground and under the ocean. We have enough easily accessible uranium in the world to power a first-world civilization for centuries. We have enough thorium and other materials to breed new nuclear fuel for thousands of years.
We have a giant fusion plant in the sky that won't burn out for several _billion_ years. Large-scale solar production via heat plant is practical; it's just more expensive than current production methods, so it isn't done. We already tap it indirectly in the form of the climate engine; hydroelectric power stems from this source and is widely used (let the oceans be our solar panels and the rains our cabling). Energy won't be a problem - and this is just using existing, well-proven technology.
In summary, I see no shortage of either power or industrial capacity on Earth.
Space allows us to generate huge amounts of power, has raw materials that are accessable without harming any environment, etc.
We simply don't have the room here on Earth for enough industry to provide first-world luxury for all humans
Now I know we're operating in different realities.
What makes you think a space-based solar generator will be more economical to build than a ground- or ocean-based one? What makes you think bombarding the earth with material from the moon won't have an environmental impact? (Remember the last couple of big volcanic eruptions? Dust matters.) What makes you think that giant microwave beams dumping heat comparable to the entire power production of earth cause less environmental harm than hydroelectric dams or fission plants? What makes you think it's economical to mine material on the moon or from asteroids at all, if the target market is terrestrial?
Materials and power from space are only easily accessible to other things in space. Planets are *huge* treasure-troves of material and power - the only reason we wouldn't *export* to space is that our gravity well makes material transport expensive.
As for room... Take a look at an atlas some time. Most of the space used by humans is farmland. You're not moving that to space. If you were at the point where you were considering it, you'd instead just build in-building farms on Earth - it would be similarly expensive, and shipping would be easier. In practice, we'll just move our consumption down the food chain and find a way to make algae and bacteria cultures taste good.
Space taken up by industry and population are negligeable by comparison.
The exception is the lumber industry. When natural forests are used up, or are preserved by law, forestry will finally shift to being a conventional farming industry, and the price of lumber will change appropriately. Materials use will shift a bit towards metal and concrete in response.
As for the fundamental resources available... We're sitting on a big ball of aluminosilicates. We have enough material for *anything*.
In summary, there is no shortage of power or materials on earth, and per-capita industrial production can be adapted at will by building up industry. In most cases, moving production of anything to space will cost _more_ and have worse environmental effects.
Preservation of the environment is a political issue. I agree that it's important, but I don't think space is an answer, for reasons mentioned above. It'll happen when the standard of living of all people is high enough that they devote thought to things like empathy with animals and appreciation of nature, and have enough personal comfort that they don't mind making some sacrifices to keep the cute animals and pretty wilderness intact.
People lower down the comfort chain will only care about food, shelter, and making their lot in life less unpleasant.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because the alternative is death.
i'd much rather (Score:4, Insightful)
Mine the asteroids.
Re:i'd much rather (Score:5, Funny)
Re:i'd much rather (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but it will piss it off! Then it will fly to Earth and kill us all.
Re:i'd much rather (Score:4, Funny)
That's why we should just mine the creamy filling.
Re:i'd much rather (Score:5, Insightful)
Mine the damned Moon already.
YES we should mine the moon, the asteroids et al (Score:2, Interesting)
The moon - the asteroids... what about the other planets? Surely there are minerals out there that aren't native to Earth that we can make use of? Surely that's better than strip mining our own world?
Spreading the disease of humanity (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously hope you were being sarcastic. The earth is a finite resource which means we should treat it carefully and ration it and not overuse it... NOT that we should look elsewhere so we can continue to be wasteful. The only reason there are food and water and oil and etc shortages is because people ARE shortsighted. When people stop building swimming pools in their backyards and start riding their bike or taking public transit to work and and and .... we will not have shortages. We have enough to support us here, we just are lazy, greedy, short-sighted creatures.
Re:Spreading the disease of humanity (Score:5, Interesting)
And what oil shortage are you talking about? The only oil shortages I know came of during the 1970s. And again, that was due to politics (OPEC), not a real shortage. Which is not to say that there's an infinite amount of oil, but that so far the (relatively) free market has done a good job of distributing resources so that they don't run out.
I don't know anything about water shortages, so I won't comment there.
I don't own a car. I don't have a driver's license. I take public transportation everywhere. So I don't take offense personally at you blaming rich car drivers for the world's problems. But it's an incorrect view at this juncture in history. The reason South Korea is rich while millions are starving in North Korea is not because the North Koreans overfarmed or overmined or because the South Koreans are wastefully using up all the resources on the Korean peninsula. It's because the political/economic system of North Korean is screwed up.
One day, at a certain population level and a certain standard of living, it might be accurate to claim that some are poor because others are using too many resources. But I don't think we're there yet. Hopefully we will never be. Right now, there are about 6 billion people. That is projected to peak at 8.9 billion in 2050, and then decline. If increases in resource usage are gradual enough, technology substitutes for resources great enough (like figuring out a make fusion power work), and the decline in population steep enough, we might dodge that particular bullet. But we'll have to wait and see.
Re:Spreading the disease of humanity (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason why we're so concerned about the Persian Gulf is the fact the oil there is technologically cheap to pump out of the ground.
You're forgetting that the former Soviet Union contains a lot of petroleum, only now being extensively tapped due to the access to American oil exploration expertise. We've only scratched the surface of the oil available on the Alaska North Slope. There are huge potential oil reserves off the coasts of the USA, not yet tapped due to environmental laws and technological costs. There are potential petroleum deposits in Xinjiang Province in western China that might be quite large indeed. The Spratley Islands west of the Philippines has potentially huge undersea oil reserves. And the tar sands in Canada contain potentially enough oil to equal all the oil in the Middle East combined.
With the right application of technology, we could increase known petroleum reserves many times what is currently found.
Re:Spreading the disease of humanity (Score:5, Interesting)
However, people who drive to the corner store (and don't have some special reason other than laziness) are polluting my world with their car fumes. (air pollution has been shown to be more caused by vehicles than by industry).And people in say, Arizona, who put in swimming pools even though the US has water shortages are indeed being greedy (better property values).
Not everything is wrong with our lifestyles but people seem to expect to improve our world without making any sort of changes. If someone is healthy I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to walk, cycle, or take public transit at least some of the time. If everyone did that (ie. became less self-centred and lazy) then it would make a huge difference. If everyone goes around expecting someone else to change, it's not going to happen. It's not pseudo-religious to make the connection to treating our world better to behavioural traits.
Ok, so maybe the food and oil shortages are artificial, but I must say that is probably caused by greed in the political system. However, fresh water shortages ARE real. besides, the parent post was claiming that we needed the resources from the moon ... if we have no shortages then why do we need to look elsewhere for stuff unless it's better stuff than Earth has. (But I have to wonder if we really know the effect of importing these things from space will overall be beneficial)
Re:Spreading the disease of humanity (Score:4, Interesting)
If everyone did that (ie. became less self-centred and lazy) then it would make a huge difference
Maybe. The problem is, it's not going to happen. You can try to convince people to work for the common good, or you can channel their self-interest so that the public good is advanced as a side effect. One of these strategies basically works albeit with some imperfections, the other resulted in 100 million citizens murdered by their own governments in the last century.
If it's the case that people are driving too much and causing quantifiable harm to the environment, that just means there are externalities that the price of gas doesn't cover. So rather than messing with car fuel-economy standards (which created the SUV fiasco) or trying to browbeat people into public transit, just raise the gas tax to a level sufficient to compensate for the harm done, and the market will take care of it.
environmentalist's slogan (Score:5, Funny)
. . .
Earth First!
We can stripmine the other planets later.
you know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, it may even have more useful minerals than the moon.
Might not have the super-nationalistic "We made it to the moon and now I've got moonrocks for gravel because of our people's democratic moon station of power" ring to it, but it's more available. Right?
Re:you know... (Score:4, Informative)
Not by much. The closest anyone has gotten to ocean mining is DeBeers and their diamond trawler off Namibia which scrapes the bottom of the ocean floor.
Ocean based mining is still a hideously expensive way to mine, but there's one big problem standing in the way of mining the Ocean floor: Law of the Seas [un.org]
More Details:
Long Term Effects (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:2)
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:3, Informative)
I dearly hope you're joking. If you aren't, that has to rate as the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The moon weighs several hundred quintillion tons That's hundreds of billions of billions of tons. I'm sorry, but if you think mining the moon will offset our tides and somehow bring destruction to the earth because the tides don't vary as much, you are fucking stupid.
The ecosystem on Earth has spent untold eons adapting to a lunar cycle that if we were to somehow cause that affect to lessen, it could be disastrous.
Hmm. Would a deer suddenly die because the tide is lessened? Even if the moon was gone (which it will be. The moon will leave earth orbit in the distant future) how would not having tides affect anything other than beach life? Would a deer suddenly die because the tide only varies by 5 feet instead of 7? No.
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:3, Funny)
There is absolutely no way we could ever in ten thousand years move enough of the moon around to make a difference in tides.
It's like worrying about if ants will build an anthill large enough to cause the tectonic plates the United States sits on to tilt, making rivers flow backwards.
Asteroids (Score:2)
One step at a time, guys...
hrm (Score:3, Funny)
well, aim high, i guess. i supposed they do have the population to spare though. =)
Re:hrm (Score:3, Funny)
The Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
That a government run by sociopaths who have turned China into one of the most polluted countries on earth might not be the best people in charge of drilling holes into the moon?
Re:uhh (Score:5, Funny)
Economics (Score:2, Funny)
Profound question? (Score:4, Funny)
This is neither profound nor a question...
The downside to China mining the moon (Score:2)
This makes no sense at all. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seriously, I hope this lits a fire under the USA's collective ass to develop economically viable space travel.
US Flag hoisted by American (Score:2, Interesting)
In the olden days that was how you claimed a new colony. What is the leal status of the moon, if any.
Re:US Flag hoisted by American (Score:5, Insightful)
Owned by no nation per international treaty [nasa.gov]
Of course the US could decide to abrogate this treaty like so many others of late. However it does not seem likely that even 'The Family' want to start a war with China at this point, they probably don't even rate a mention in the top ten.The point about manned spaceflight is irrelevant, it is like saying that the New Yorkers can't build the tallest skyscraper until they have duplicated the great pyramid. The justification for manned exploration is pretty tenuous at this point, we now have robots that do the job better. The Appolo missions were about winning the cold war, science was a byproduct.
China is persuing this project for political reasons too. It is a Jim Collins style Big Hairy Audacious Goal, the whole point is that it is hard. But China wants to do it to prove it is a major power and that the US and others should not underestimate them.
Re:US Flag hoisted by American (Score:3, Insightful)
Not feasible (Score:3, Interesting)
The disparity grows even more when you start talking about mining asteroids.
Right now the only viable economic model in space is in satellites.
Re:Not feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
You could begin to mine so you have resourse to launch vehicals into deep sapce.
Re:Not feasible (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not feasible (Score:4, Interesting)
Read "Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring..." [amazon.com] by Robert Zubrin.
In it he makes the case for He-3 fusion. Basically 1kg of He-3 can produce $6 MILLION worth of enegry. That's a little more valuable than gold.
There is a lot more He-3 on the moon than Earth because the Earth's magnetic field repells the charged particle.
He makes a strong case for mining, assuming heavy automation and a order-of-magnitude drop in the cost of space travel. Both of which, he argues, are possible.
Re:Not feasible (Score:3, Informative)
Also, if you're launching something every week, the price is going to go down from our current build-on-demand pricing.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone says it doesn't mean they are going to do it. Hell, it doesn't even mean they mean to to it in the first place.
asteroids or the moon? (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, I think Asteroids is far easier than Lunar Lander, so I vote for Asteroids
Boom! (Score:2)
Not my piece (Score:3, Funny)
Helium 3 (Score:5, Informative)
Changing the Mass (Score:2)
I'm all for mining, but we only have one "real" moon. The other planets will make fun of us if we lose it!
China, Fusion, and the Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:China, Fusion, and the Moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at one small example, Saudi Arabia. It spends a gigantic amount of money every year on purifying salt water at a massive plant near Riyadh. This supplies something like 75% of the entire country's freshwater needs. Without oil money to run it, they wouldn't be able to support a population nearly as large as they do now. Of course, if they managed to turn themselves into a high-technology mecca (har, har) or find some other source of revenue, they could survive... but that's not going to happen.
I dont understand (Score:5, Funny)
Mass + Energy (Score:3, Interesting)
So we need a power supply. What do we have on the moon to supply energy? not much.
Solar energy needs lots of equipment just to give a kilowatt. The results should be better on the moon, hey, no atmosphere to filter out precious wavelengths.
You don't want to use oil because you don't want to carry it and also because it needs OXYGEN. Okay, there is some buried in the rocks, but then you still need energy first to get it. Carry both oxygen and oil? you're kidding.
How much energy here on earth can be extracted from rock? Not much.
If the moon can't supply itself with enough energy to mine, what's the point?
Re:Mass + Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]
If the moon can't supply itself with enough energy to mine, what's the point?
Not much? On the contrary, we have 1 kW/m^2 of delicious solar energy shining down. Solar panels can be (and are now, for a price) manufactured using thin films of silicon. The moon's crust is largely silicates, and with thin films even a relatively small smelter/purification plant will get you an impressive acreage in solar collectors.
Or just extract aluminum from the crust (which is also plentiful), and build reflectors for a heat engine. With no air, scattering isn't much of a problem. With low gravity, no wind, and no seismic disturbances, large structures aren't much of a problem either. Build as big a heat plant as you want and tap the heat gradient to run your smelter and all the machinery you need for mining.
The moon can most definitely supply itself with enough energy to mine. The only catch is that you either have to stop at night or have enough power storage to run through the 20 or so days of darkness and twilight. Power storage in batteries is a joke (for industrial-scale storage). Power storage in fuel cells would work, but would require vast amounts of hydrogen, which is not abundant on the moon. Power storage using a heat resovoir might work, as you have almost no conduction through materials if you hang the resovoir off cables (no air, remember), but radiative heat transfer will limit the amount of power you can store.
So, unless you want to haul far too much hydrogen or build power cables and thermoelectric plants around a latitude circle, you're stuck shutting down mining for two thirds of the month.
It's still quite useful, though. If you want to build anything in space, the Earth is the last place you'd want to haul material from. Launching from the moon's shallow gravity well is very easy (and with no air, you can use any of a variety of mass driver designs to accelerate cargo electrially for energy cost close to the theoretical minimum).
Lunar mining also lets you build just about anything else you want on the moon itself.
In summary, if you assume you want to build anything substantial orbiting Earth or the moon or on the surface of the moon, the moon is the place to get materials.
Some people never learn (Score:5, Informative)
Extraterrestrial mining will not be economical under foreseeable conditions. Mineral resources require extensive treatment to recover anything of value. First, you have to extract the ore. For a pricy end-product, this means extracting large volumes of ore. For instance, we mine gold that goes 0.04 onces per ton. Second, you have to crush it, requiring energy and large mechanical equipment. Ever seen a rod mill? Oh yeah, the rods rely upon weight -- gravity -- to have the force to crush rock. Third, you have to concentrate the valuable minerals. For any kind of high value/weight product, this almost certainly requires a large volume of liquid water. Or you could set up a shaker table and hope gravity seperation is effective. You also need a large plant for the equipment. Fourth, and finally, you have to extract the product. This typically requires more water and plenty of energy. Oh yes, and more equipment. All of this takes a staff of people who do little things that people like to do; you know, eat, drink, breathe...
Mining is, for the most part, a barely profitable industry right here on earth. The moon's exposed rocks are primarily mafic, so you are not going to find a high-grade gold. You might find some nickel, copper, chromium or platinum as traces, but not what we know as ore on earth. The moon also lacks active geology, which is responsible for most of the concentration processes that for economic ore on earth.
However, maybe the Chinese want to start another space race so we waste lots of money keeping "technologically ahead" of a perceived threat. From reading some of these extraterrestrial mining posts, we may be audacious (read arrogant and stupid) enough to try.
Re:Some people never learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some people never learn (Score:3)
Check out this page [howstuffworks.com] and read some of the value of asteroids.
There are around one million asteroids with diameters of 1km. On average, it'll contain (among other metals), 30 million tons of nickel (for example, picked randomly).
According to metalprices.com [metalprices.com], the market price for nickel per metric tonne is $8950 USD on the London Metal Exchange as of 2/28/2003. A little math suggests that the value of one of our average asteroids purely for the nickel would be $268 billion. According to the first page, the platinum contained would be worth more than $150 billion. Not to mention the cobalt, iron, etc in an asteroid.
So what will it cost to mine? $100 billion? $200 billion? $300 billion can go far, and you're still far less than the current market value of just ONE ASTEROID. Of course, there's dangers of flooding the market, but you can manipulate the market (DeBeers diamonds, anyone?).
As for the moon, you have helium-3, which is damned good for fusion.
It's definately worth mining in space. The asteroids are worth an incredible fortune, and the moon is a great place to put a base.
I hope we do try. If we try, we'll do it. Only time will tell if it was worth it, but we must make the first step. We'll never get there or get the tech to get there if we don't try.
Re:Some people never learn (Score:3, Interesting)
Better call in the Space Marines (Score:3, Funny)
leapfrog (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course anything printed about this subject is going to be a lightning rod, and everyone here should accept that as the only valid reason this article was submitted in the first place.
Hopefully the Chinese will send automated mining equipment which creates other robotic units that use the materials available on the moon to create a series of long-range "pushers" that survey, mark, and redirect valuable asteroids (not just clumps of aggregate junk rock, but high-yield heavy mineral content bodies) into an orbit which will allow them to be captured by earth over a period of years. That's serious technology which would pay off big-time, and give them a chance at long-range sustainability. It could be done today if it was a priority for NASA (rather than the hollow science of trying to get ugly-bags-of-mostly-water into space). Provided they can create the robot-factory and manage all the other programming, any country which could play that kind of golf shouldn't have any problem creating a free-form smelter which would use solar power to perform an on-the-fly smelting operation and extract the minerals from their efforts later. Maybe my children's children can look forward to such things. I have given up on the United States space program their mission is a sham (ISS), and a rat-hole--Joe Public isn't going to see _anything_ from the efforts of NASA and the ISS. If the chinese can make something, anything happen, then good for them. Maybe my children's children will be dreaming of being Taikonauts. I wouldn't hold it against them.
Read A Step Farther Out (Score:3, Interesting)
He also calculated that a one mile diameter asteroid would, on average, consist of enough useful minerals to be worth on the order of one trillion dollars in 1970 money. A mission to capture such an asteroid and put it in Earth orbit would cost on the order of the Apollo project and take 20 years, plus development time. That's a hell of a return on investment, methinks. (And, no, a one mile asteroid would not screw up the tides.)
Even with lunar mining, any such venture presupposes Cheap Access To Space. We really are at the point where we should be able to develop cheap realiable vehicles within the next 10 years or so. As some pundits have put it, the big question is, what language will those developers speak? Unfortunately for some of us, there's a strong possibility they won't be Americans.
Mine the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to Celestial Shanghai! (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean no disrespect to our astronauts, who do the best they can with the beauracracy they've got -- but I have no respect for out visonless politicians, and I'm ashamed of the American people.
We were there. We made it, atop a column of fire. We had our chance. And then we turned out back on our destiny, and turned on MTv.
God Bless America. Maybe the Chinese can wake us up.
Or maybe any of you with dreams to be explorers of space should start learning Madndarin.
Ping-Lee (to the tune of Clementine) (Score:4, Funny)
In a crater, on the dark side
Excavating for H3
Dwelt a Chinese Lunar miner
And his daughter, dear Ping-Lee.
Oh my darling, oh my darling
Oh my darling, dear Ping-Lee
Thou art lost and gone forever
Dreadful sorry, sweet Ping-Lee
Fat she was just like a dump truck
And her waist size 43
Oil drums with airtight helmets
Were the spacesuits for Ping-Lee
Oh my darling, oh my darling
Oh my darling, dear Ping-Lee
Thou art lost and gone forever
Dreadful sorry, sweet Ping-Lee
Drove she rover to the module
Every day at half past three
When she crashed and pierced the spacesuit
Which decompressed quite horribly
Oh my darling, oh my darling
Oh my darling, dear Ping-Lee
Thou art lost and gnome forever
Dreadful sorry, sweet Ping-Lee
He3 mining for fusion is why (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, the given the conditions on the moon, Helium 3 gas has settled as shallow as 15 feet into the regolith making it easily available for mining. So one needs only to get there, establish a mining operation, then bring some He3 back, and set up a fusion facility to convert it. Easy. The main obstacle: In 1998, if the funding $215 billion was available, there would be no profits (or maybe it was returns, even) until the year 2015. That is long time. Plus, the adapting regulations to space (specifically, the moon) would make investors even less interested. But China has their government behind it, and that's how come they're actually taking steps to do this. Here's some statistics (or "propoganda", if you prefer):
-Mining 40 tonnes of He3 would provide the entire U.S. electricity consumption in 2000.
-There is 10 times more energy available in Helium-3 on the moon than in all the economically recoverable coal, oil, and antuarl gases on earth.
That's it for me. Read more about it at the links provided. Good night.
NOTE: Gene Cernan, the other recon astronaut on Apollo 17, would never admit this, claiming he was the last one on the moon. This is due to him and all the other Apollo astronauts being former military pilots and would never admit to a SCIENTIST being the last man on the moon!
Re:What happens when (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not holding my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that this is probably an excuse to go poke around the moon for national pride reasons, with 'moon mining' as a cover. Can anyone come up with a way that allows profitable transport of moon rocks in bulk quantities back to Earth?
Re:Not holding my breath (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually yes, as long as no one is using the country the bits land in...
Seriously though, have you thought that they might not want it for use on Earth? They've said they want to go to Mars, right? That's going to take a fairly large space ship. It's going to be a lot cheaper to build it if they could get the raw materials from the moon than if they had to come from Earth. The two most valuable material they could find on the moon would be carbon and water. With these two, and a few plants taken from Earth you can create a sustainable biosphere. So, you have titanium to build the ship hull from, power it with an ion drive, using lunar water as a propellant. Hydroponics using seeds / spores from Earth powered by sunlight with Lunar carbon and water provides you crew with food and recycles the oxygen. That cuts down the things you need to bring from Earth to people, seeds, a little Uranium and a load of air (although you could probably electrolyse this from the water, if you had enough). All this rather hinges on there being water on the moon, however, which is still not certain. Either way, it could reduce the cost of further exploration significantly.
Re:Not holding my breath (Score:3, Interesting)
MM
--
Re:Not holding my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, China just completed their base on Mars, leveraged by materials and technology developed during their "Mining The Moon" project, begun in 2004. Construction of the Starship "Wu" reached an important milestone with the installation of the fusion drive, fuelled by matter mined on the moon.
Re:Uses of the moon (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Seriously, you're joking, right? The moon is several hundred quintillion tons. In other words, the moon weighs a few hundred billion billion tons.
If we take a billion tons a year (A gigantic quantity, we'd never be able to use that much stuff.), virtually all of the stars of the universe will be dead by the time you mine it all.
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Let me ask you something: Do you even know what a tide is? I don't think you have the foggiest. A tide is the rising and falling of the ocean due to the effects of gravity from Luna and the Sun. It usually varies by 6 feet or something, depending on the area, from low tide to high tide. How exactly, then would the ocean rise up and swallow everything? It seems to me that it would just stay the same all of the time, if there were no tides. BTW, the moon is slowly getting farther out. It will eventually leave earth orbit anyway.
Wow. Leave it to slashdotters to take an incorrect assumption and reach a bizarre conclusion, therefore condemning something.