NASA Strikes Gold and Water On the Moon 421
tcd004 writes "The PBS NewsHour reports: there is water on the moon — along with a long list of other compounds, including mercury, gold and silver. That's according to a more detailed analysis of the cold lunar soil near the moon's South Pole. The results were released as six papers by a large team of scientists in the journal, Science Thursday. [Note: Nature's papers are behind a paywall; for a few more details, reader coondoggie points out a a story at Network World.] The data comes from the October 2009 mission, when NASA slammed a booster rocket traveling nearly 6,000 miles per hour into the moon and blasted out a hole. Trailing close behind it was a second spacecraft, rigged with a spectrometer to study the lunar plume released by the blast. The mission is called LCROSS, for Lunar Crater Observer and Sensing Satellite."
elements (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I checked, none of mercury, gold or silver was a compound...
Re:elements (Score:5, Insightful)
Not when they are reduced, but they could be part of compounds. (i.e gold nitrate)
Re:elements (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, gold and silver most often occurs in ores; the ores would be a compound, right?
Re:cheaper mining? (Score:4, Insightful)
realistically if the moon was made of solid gold, it would still not be viable. it costs upwards of $50,000 per kg to get robotic stuff onto the moon. it also costs a metric shitload to mine not to mention run the he3 fusion reactor to power the mining operation. it costs an even more metric shitload to return the material to earth and handle moon launch reentry and terminal guidance. not gonna be economically viable anytime soon. you need something which costs around $1 million per kg for the whole operation to be paid for easily. the only thing that expensive might be computer chips which are best made on earth anyway.
Respurces on the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:elements (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cheaper mining? (Score:2, Insightful)
Spirit and Opportunity were $400,000,000, and they had no purpose besides observation. A project to begin mining gold on the moon? I'm 100% positive it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that if a substantial amount of accessible gold was located, Earthlings would begin moonmining. It would be a symbol of a nation's advancement and status to be mining wealth from the heavens.
Re:Incentive for Private Companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
But we haven't even been back to the moon despite it being easier to do than in the 60s.
You're basically correct but the reason we're not back on the moon has little to do with electronics and lots to do with the fact that physics hasn't changed much in those 38 years. Gravity sucks.
Re:elements (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that we also have water and gold on Earth, and a lot easier and cheaper to get to, using any technologies available now or likely to be available in the intermediate future. You're not getting gold off the moon unless you have heavy industry on the Moon, and putting that sort of investment there would be a monumentally stupefying waste when there are trillions of other things we can invest in down here on the surface and get much better returns much sooner.
So, nice to think about it, but don't expect it to be a really big deal this century.
Re:Respurces on the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
That only happens when they discover oil...
Re:elements (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not getting gold off the moon unless you have heavy industry on the Moon, and putting that sort of investment there would be a monumentally stupefying waste when there are trillions of other things we can invest in down here on the surface and get much better returns much sooner.
True - but long-term, it's quite fascinating. It means there are at least some of the requisite resources on the moon for us to colonize it - for any number of definitions of "colony".
At the very least, there's water - a big cost for short-term missions. If there's water and "soil", you can create a cultivatable environment (if on a small scale). Get a small nuclear reactor up there and autonomous building drones (battery/nuclear powered, of course), and you've got an "unlimited" supply of water and hydrogen which could be used as a longer-term fuel source.
Such developments would almost immediately improve things here on earth, too: if you've got a portable, small ore refinery for moon use, you can use it for terrestrial industry, too (for those small-return, hard-to-reach locations).
Before long, you'd have enough materials and/or infrastructure on the moon that you could consider a permanent human settlement. This could be used for a number of things:
* Increased industrialization. With a little more research, we'd be able to package up the results and space-drop them to Earth.
* Increased research opportunities in low-gravity environments (good for long-term space development)
* A permanent low-gravity base from which spaceships could be more easily and potentially more cheaply built and launched. A 'space elevator' from the moon to a nearby colony vessel, for instance, would have significantly fewer requirements than one from Earth (strength and distance due to gravity well strength and size).
* Deep space telescopes (because building a large 'permanent' telescope in a gravity well would be easier than doing so in space/for space, as would its maintenance).
You minimize it, but "small" monumental jumps have had a very big impact, historically.
* Winged flight? Who needs it when we've got rail!
* Motor cars? What silly contraptions!
* Trains, for passengers? Ridiculous, nobody needs to go that fast!
* Go to the moon? What benefit is that? (Electronics industry revolution)
Also, imagine the opportunity for jump-starting another technological revolution. Due to the nature of space, this one, would, I suspect, be largely focused on 'reduce, reuse, recycle' as a core basis of functionality, not a dogma). Imagine: a small portable device which could take any waste petrol (eg. a processed food wrapper, or a great many of them) and turn it into a new, useful item. We're probably pretty close to being able to do that today, just not at an economy of scale. If there were a marketing push or something similar (say, the novelty brought on by 'astronauts are doing it'), such a thing - or something similar - could catch on.
Additionally, change in venue or requirements has often resulted in some interesting/novel/revolutionary improvements:
* Westerners improved their garments by observing the natives.
* New breeds of cattle were developed for use out West
* Canned goods were essentially 'invented' for Napoleon's large armies
* Larger, faster, more stable ships were invented to deal with the increased requirements of increased trans-Atlantic transit.
Just think how many 'common day' things we use today, on a daily basis, because someone decided the tool they were using did not work well within their specific constraints (but ended up being broadly applicable elsewhere, too):
* carbiner clips
* multitools/swiss army knives
* PDAs (and now, smartphones)
* post-it notes
I'm sure you can think of more. Those are the opportunities that further space exploration present.
I'm sure that, if there is a financial interest in doing so, someone will figure out how to get to the moon and stay there on a semi-permanent basis - if there's a financial case for doing so.
Re:Wouldn't mining the moon be a bad idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like when you stand on the moon and look down at the earth you see the landscape we ruined?
Re:AND CHEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEESE! (Score:3, Insightful)
No wai! Cold ribs are blech, and rewarmed arn't much better
Re:I can see it now... (Score:1, Insightful)
The issue is, the mining of precious metals from the moon will devalue the gold.
Re:cheaper mining? (Score:2, Insightful)
History is filled with stories of lands filled with gold, alchemists and the like and yet none of them have ever turned out to be practical.
On the other hand, history is filled with empires and countries that the debasement of their currencies lead to mass poverty for many citizens.
This idea that a currency based on nothing can survive is laughable, our nation's currency is no better off than a gum wrapper with a logo printed on it.
While, eventually, mankind may advance to the point where gold no longer has enough scarcity to be used as currency, I don't see it happening anytime soon considering its worked quite well for the past 4,000 some odd years with a new "breakthrough" is proclaimed every year.
I wouldn't laugh at the doomsday prophets too much, their history is pretty solid.
Its silly to think that the US is immune to the laws of economics, we owe a shitload of money to China, we're fighting two wars which we can't really pay for, we think we need to 'bail out' any large company in financial trouble, etc. Eventually China is going to want payment on our loan, and when that happens because our debt is expressed in US dollars, the only way to settle that debt is to print a lot more dollars just like what happened in Post-WWI Germany.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation [wikipedia.org] do you really think that the US is immune to these forces?
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course you're right. After all creation is ours for the taking. It says so right in the Bible.
"rare earth" vs. "common moon" (Score:5, Insightful)
Gold and silver are somewhat financially valuable to us now. But from what I understand, they are also relatively common. I suspect the reports highlight gold and silver because that's language that beancounters who pay for the space programs understand. But there are far more valuable resources that we'll desparately need in 25-75 years time.
So, more importantly... because lacking in rare earth minerals could stymie advancements in technology...
What "rare earth" minerals might be "common moon" minerals?
Nice post, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
See, it's all nice to go misty eyed, chest out, with the Federation flag flapping in the wind behind you about space colonisation but think of it this way. We are living at the bottom of a deep and steep (gravitational) cliff, though generally, it is pleasant here and we (still) have what we need. The Moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri, with all its riches, gold and hot green women is on top of this cliff. Why should we have to expend money and energy to climb this cliff, to get stuff that we can easier get down here? Factor in the cost of going to the moon, mining it and transporting it back to Earth, it is probably more economical to extract gold from sea water. I'm not saying space colonisation will never happen. It could happen. But then again, I have a dim view of our chances. Also, there is no soil on the moon. In fact, moon dust is very abrasive and would be very hazardous to humans and our machinery.
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:5, Insightful)
Your nihilistic noise is pathetic. It's ours for the taking because we're here. There isn't any reason needed.
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:1, Insightful)
if they decided to just go ahead and destroy Earth.
That would, of course, be accomplished with deep thoughts alone and involve no 'strip mined' baryonic matter. Otherwise your ugly little self-loathing fantasy would lose all its brilliant moral consequence!
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:5, Insightful)
Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim. Strip mining it hurts nobody since it's a dead rock, and has the potential to help people, so it should be done.
Now, do you or do you not have a reason why Moon shouldn't be strip mined? Or was your appeal to ridicule meant to hide the idiocy of your knee-jerk reaction to the thought of humans doing anything at all? Are you perhaps one of those "greens" who oppose everything?
More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:2, Insightful)
By "ours" do you mean "The United States'"?
By "ours" do you mean "NASA's"?
Or do you mean "Haliburton and Exxon's"?
Who gets the money from the gold?
Re:Well, that sure will change the song (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cheaper mining? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Constant inflation is supposed to make investing your money a better alternative than simply sitting on it. This, in turn, keeps the economy growing, rather than stagnating.
Re:Gold is pretty much worthless outside earth. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is in a crew capsule or space station.