Moon Mining Gets a Closer Look

happylucky writes "There are many obstacles to creating a space colony on the moon, primarily food, water, and oxygen. Since it is so expensive to bring supplies from the earth, some scientists have suggested that we mine the moon. In an article in the Toronto Star, Dale Boucher suggests the best way to do this would be to develop a mining colony. To that end, the Sudbury-based Northern Center for Advanced Technology has linked Canada's mining industry with some of the top minds on space.Mining the moon was considered earlier this month at the Planetary and Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium which attracted some 100 delegates, including experts from the Canadian Space Agency, NASA and the European Space Agency. There are other hurdles of course that need to be figured out. The moon's gravity is one sixth that on Earth. New research, however, may lead to a solution to this problem as well. It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor."

I've thought this for a long time

[Illbay]

The ONLY way that we're going into space permanently is if we forget about government taking the lead, and focus on capitalism. The moment someone figures out how to make a buck out of this, The "Belters" of Larry Niven's future history will become a reality.

MINER 2049'er

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately it will have to be some sort of economic incentive to push towards colonization. M.U.L.E. was a prophecy!

How to ensure the success

[sammyo]

Put management offices in the tunnels.

Anyone been watching the news recently? Congress is
on the verge of outlawing mining just to avoid the
bad press when a few minors endure the result of bad
or under funded engineering.

The solution? Put the bosses in the mines.

Um, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point of having a permenant manned colony on the moon? We'll never terraform it. It will never be self-sufficient. The cost will never justify the science we could get out of it. We could do the same science with unmanned robots. We would learn more about robot design by building 'bots, and that's more likely to help us here and on Mars.

And then there are all the reasons NOT to go. There isn't enough gravity; humans may be harmed by prolonged living in 1/6 g. The lunar dust is as dangerous as the worst lung hazardous mining dust on Earth, and apparently it gets everywhere. There will never be an atmosphere to shield from cosmic rays. The moon is sterile (except for our junk up there) so there's not much exo-biology interest.

Oh wait, now I know why: it's a great opportunity for someone to spend billions of dollars on playing around with fun toys!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47977 [theonion.com]

Oh. My. Gods.

[AriaStar]

It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?

Re:Um, why?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Why travel to the Americas? What could possibly be there that would be of any use? It would take weeks to get there, you'd run out of fresh water, and what sailors didn't die of scurvy would mutiny and you'd be murdered in your sleep. Don't go there, leave it to the Spaniards. We've got a war to pay for.

Re:I've thought this for a long time

[Deliberate_Bastard]

is if we forget about government taking the lead, and focus on capitalism.

You miss the point. Anything which one can make a profit doing, will eventually be done without "us" (whoever that may be) needing to focus on it.

If it's not getting done without government funding, it probably can't be done at a profit (yet).

That's what governments are for; doing that which is worth the expense of doing, but does not directly yield a profit.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[mOdQuArK!]

Even if we were taking perfect care of the planet, it's in the best long-term interests of our species that we become a spacefaring race. We've got some pretty solid historical evidence that Earth has suffered occasional events which wiped out all dominant life forms on the planet. It doesn't make much sense to "keep all our eggs in one basket" so-to-speak if we have the ability to protect ourselves (and whatever other species we want to preserve).

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[Nefarious Wheel]

No problem, you can stay behind, I don't mind. My descendents will live among the stars and yours can have what's left down here.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[thrillseeker]

It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?

Oh give me a fucking break.

If we die out, well, we deserve it.

Tell you what - you stay here and die out, since you believe that you deserve it. The rest of us will go figure out how to reach for the stars.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Aye, and chickens that stay in the eggshell end up as omelettes. Amnniosis is only healthy when it's temporary. Only albumen idiot would think the earth is more than a temporary home for us.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[Jerf]

Destroy what, exactly? The habitats of the incredibly cute native lunar fawns?

What can we possibly do to the Moon to make it worse than it already is?

Worst case scenario is "it doesn't look the same". Thinking that changing the appearance of things is some kind of crime is just arrogance, though; well obscured and wrapped in feel-good holiness, but it just boils down to I don't want it to change, so it shouldn't change.

Re:I've thought this for a long time

[thrillseeker]

That's what governments are for; doing that which is worth the expense of doing, but does not directly yield a profit.

With that attitude, governments become nothing more than a teat for the social program du jour. The role of government is to insure the secure the people against the tyranny of those who do not subscribe to the concept of liberty. The people are free to then do what they want - whether it be profitable or not.

Re:Wait a second...

[plover]

I didn't get the whole "sticky floor" suggestion. I would think less gravity would be a huge boon to getting more work done for the same effort. You sure as hell wouldn't want idler wheels dragging on sticky floors; think of the inefficiencies!

If all they're looking to do is increase traction, there are much saner ways than pouring glue on their boots, (which would also cost you extra effort with every footstep.) Non-skid surfaces, for a start. I suppose they could bring a pot of glue with them and spread locally-mined crystalline silica if they wanted to save ferrying a pound or two of sand from earth.

What would be better is to find ways to use the advantage of the reduced gravity without worrying about the traction. Depending on the problem, solutions like "cable cars" or "conveyor belts" don't have to rely on motor-to-ground friction at all.

Finally, look back to the U.S. moon landings in the 1970s. Dust got everywhere. It was a huge problem. Do you honestly think "sticky" surfaces would last more than an hour before being rendered useless by the layer of dust?

Sticky is a non-starter.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[rhakka]

and? it's a *lifeless rock*. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage, a lifeless rock that no longer has iron in it, or a lifeless rock that's just a lifeless rock?

What, it should be protected because it's there?

Earth at least has some stuff worth preserving. Which we would probably find a bit easier if it weren't the only source of resources and living space we have available to us.

I'm a green kid, and you even lost me.

Re:Environmental Issue

[BigPoppaT]

As a shallow humanist, I believe getting us off this planet is inherently right.

(By the way, what is a 'deep ecologist'? Do you mean 'serious environmentalist', 'Underwater ecology scientist', or what?)

Re:Environmental Issue

[betterunixthanunix]

Environmentalism on the moon? You're kidding, right? I believe in reducing the amount of mining we do here on Earth. It is horrible for our environment, mainly because of the effect it has on living things. There is no life on the moon, and no atmosphere, so mining on the moon would actually be better for our environment (less mining on Earth), but only if better transportation was developed (imagine the impact of releasing all that exhaust, albeit from hydrogen fuel, from so many spaceflights). As an example, consider the current method for mining gold. We have essentially mined most of the gold ore out of the ground, so the new method is to get it right out of the sand. You make a HUGE pile of dirt/granite/sand, pour HUGE amounts of cyanide and other healthy stuff over it, and out comes a bit of gold. The byproducts are depleted...dirt...and lots of whatever you poured over the pile, all of which kinda seeps into rivers and streams and such. Now imagine that instead of doing this on the Earth, we do it on the moon, where rivers don't exist and there is no ecosystem to damage. The challenge would really be getting so much cyanide/other stuff up there, but once there you could apply the same technique to moon dust, since it is basically the same stuff we are mining gold out of now. Sadly, this will not be economically advantageous for a long, long time -- basically, until mining gold out of dirt becomes so expensive here on Earth (you can only mine so much without running out) that the moon becomes a cheaper option. Incidentally, there is not a lot of gold available on the moon, this was just a possible example of what could happen. If other metals could be mined out of the moon, the moon could become a pretty good launching platform for other missions, since the spacecraft could be assembled on the moon and less fuel would be required.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[rhakka]

That's *here*. Yes, I'm with you "here*. You're going out on a limb as to how horrible it would be for us to plunder the moon or other lifeless rocks out there though.

Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake. It's a virtue when you are *saving something*. I don't put much of a value on rock. Frankly I think we can put the materials in asteroids and the moon to better use than they do currently.

And actually, animals do ravage their own ecosystems regularly.. they don't understand convservation or carrying capacities any better than we do. The deer populations up here in maine breed themselves into starvation on a regular basis, even in massively undeveloped woodlands. It takes a growth in predator populations to take them back down, or simple overpopulation.

We have lessons to learn. Doesn't mean we should just sit around either. Obviously you agree, sitting there on your mass fabricated computer filled with toxic substances, using your fossil fuel power and buying at least a few products that support the rape of our planet. So how about dropping the high horse routine?

I suggest looking into practical sustainability instead of radical ideology.

Parent is absolutely correct

[patio11]

I know there's a bunch of space enthusiasts on /. but hear the guy out. He's correct: the moon does not mass enough to hold more than a trivial atmosphere, so for our entire stay there we'll be one meteor impact away from catastrophe. Our current cost of flying stuff just to orbit is over $7k a pound, and even decreasing that by a factor of a thousand you'll never get commercial mining of the moon because its just the same old rock that we can dig up terrestrially for far, far cheaper and at less risk. One shuttle flight, with a payload of 22 metric tonnes, costs in excess of $900 million (operational expenditure + cost of shuttle program divided by number of flights). Thats, somebody check my math, $40,000 a kilogram just in transportation costs. Can anyone name *any* economic activity on the moon which would be viable at $40,000 per kilogram of product transmitted back to earth? Even if the moon were pure, solid gold you can't turn a profit mining at that cost. And even if you improve the efficiency ("Space elevator! Space elevator!" yeah I know, I've heard the sales pitch before) you come back to the original problem -- its just a really big rock after all.

Re:Environmental Issue

[evanbd]

Hmm. The moon has... a really good vacuum, lots of rocks, and lots of sunlight. And not a lot else. If you tell me how we're in danger of completely destroying or even significantly damaging any of those, I'll be right in line with you. But there aren't any spotted owls, cuddly koalas, or majestic eagles to protect. I'm not convinced I should care about a few of the many rocks out there, except to notice which ones are more interesting to strip mine.

The problems will NEVER run out

[GroeFaZ]

The day all our problems end is the same day we go extinct. And in any case, since when were unsolved problems a barrier to a parallel approach? Should kids live at home and not move out until they have settled every major and minor conflict they had with their parents over the course of their about 20 years? Maybe moving out can be the solution?

Problem solving is really just a question of setting priorities. If someone solved global hunger and thirst, poverty, the fossil fuel dilemma, overpopulation, global warming, and whatnot by tomorrow, then the day after the obligatory binge we could (and would) instantly come up with the next dozen problems on the list that supposedly should keep us shackled to Earth. Then another dozen and then some more. Has it ever occurred to you that space exploration and the required technological/economical/political progress might be a big part of the solution to problems on our homeworld? If nothing else, colonizing space should give everyone a fresh perspective (figuratively) on Earth and its problems.

Re:Um, why?

[demachina]

Um...two words....Jobs program.....two more words.....Texas and Florida... ...which happen to be the political power base of George and Jeb and winning votes in Florida was pretty important in 2000 and 2004. You could tack on Utah(SRB's and Orrin Hatch) and Mississippi (External Tank and Trent Lott) etc.

In case you hadn't noticed NASA's manned spaced program stopped being about space a long time ago. Whenever Congress debates NASA funding the #1 issue is what the impact will be on jobs in the districts and states of various politicians. When CRV and the return to the Moon ramp up the only priority for Congress is to insure all the current ISS and Shuttle jobs are preserved. The new NASA administrator would actually like a much cheaper, leaner and meaner manned space program than Shuttle and ISS. But if he cuts any of the pork Congress will slap him silly so he wont. Therefor return to the Moon will be staggeringly expensive, take forever, and fall way short of its goals just like 2 projects we know and love.

Re:Um, why?

[Aerovoid]

What is the point of having a permenant manned colony on the moon? We'll never terraform it. It will never be self-sufficient. The cost will never justify the science we could get out of it.

Seen the future have you? It's hard to say what would happen if Moon bases were built. I'm sure no one fore saw the "New World" becoming what it is today.

The lunar dust is as dangerous as the worst lung hazardous mining dust on Earth, and apparently it gets everywhere. There will never be an atmosphere to shield from cosmic rays.

Well due to the lack of oxygen, it's required that anyone who goes to the Moon wears a helmet. The same would go for the possible future miners. So dust inhalation is not really a concern. And their are materials that can help shield against cosmic rays. Building the base under the surface would probably help too.

Re:Oh. My. Gods.

[rhakka]

No, it wouldn't have tipped in the direction it has. It also wouldn't be sunshine and roses for all the little bunnies out there all the time either. We're not the only force of nature out there that doesn't give a shit about them. We're one of many. We are just the only one that could possibly CHOOSE to give a shit. But how far do you want to take it? If you want a place to live, something else might have to move for you. Is that ok? If you want food, something has to die. That's ok, right? So that stuff is ok, but wanting to get out onto other planets, which ultimately IS necessary for our survival.. why is that NOT ok?

We need to look at this stuff rationally to arrive at a solution to a practical problem. Condemning us all to death because we have not yet reached enlightenment, especially when you yourself are seduced by the things society offers you when you KNOW the price it extolls, is a bit elitist, rude, hypocritical, short sighted and boorish, frankly. And not particularly helpful either.

I stuggle with this every day myself. But the technology and methods we use today are the only tools we have to take it to the next level, and that includes our cognititive and social developement. You're in a hurry.. that's great, push, that's necessary.. but you might want to consider your methods, cause these aren't particular effective. A reasoned response might hold some more weight than rambling about bunny rabbits and claiming we all deserve to die.

Just a thought.. probably sounds worse than I intend it. Hopefully you don't take it that way.

Moon gravity is approx 1/6 earth gravity

[popo]

Your weight on the moon is approximately 1/6th of your weight on earth.
So a 200 lb man weighs roughly 33 lbs on the moon.

So while it may seem necessary to use a sticky material to adhere one's boots
to the floor -- its probably easier to carry 1000 lbs (Earthweight) of weights
which would add an additional 166 lbs of Moonweight, making a 200lb earth person
weigh 200 lbs on the moon.

The sticky stuff isn't requred. Just some evenly distributed body weights would
do the trick. Although... no defense contractor gets rich with the simple
solution.

Re:Before we even think about going back...

[roshi]

This is a very valid point, and well taken. However, the criteria for a lunar mining colony are different. There is no need for a completely sealed, self-sustaining ecosystem. Assuming we can solve the problem of getting O2 et al out of lunar soil, then there's no problem with tweaking the gas levels as needed. One hopes that there will at least be *some* sort of bio-cycle handling much of the C02/O2 turnover, as well as providing food and helping with waste management... but there's no reason you can't add more O2 at some point as needed.

Now, when you start to talk about permanent and more distant settlement colonies (ie Mars) then you really want to close the cycle further. Besides, regardless of space exploration, we should continue to try to understand ecosystems by constructing artificial ones. What better way to learn about complex interactions (which we're affecting in poorly understood ways) then with simplified models? So Biosphere++ in any case....

Re:I've thought this for a long time

[Planesdragon]

...because we have forgotten the true purpose of a government...

Balderdash. The Romans thought the purpose of government was to bring glory to the people. The medieval christians thought the purpose of government was to spread the gospel. The chineese thought the purpose of government was to maintain the celestial order.
Our own founding fathers may have had their own ideas about what they were forming our government for, but today that same structure is seen both as a way to make a profit, a way to protect unintelligent things, an avenue for power, and a thing to be avoided -- depending on who you talk to.

The purpose of a government is to do whatever those that give the government power want it to do. Anything more is just philisophical "should"-ing, and should always be dismissed until the points so made are affirmitvely proven.

Re:Moon gravity is approx 1/6 earth gravity

[bucky0]

Well, there's that and the fact that 1000 pounds of weight means that you'll have to exert yourself that much more to accelerate the mass of your body (inertia depends on mass, not weight). Not to mention, 1000 pounds of weight even made out of something dense like lead will be really bulky.

But yeah, it's probably the defense contractors.

What do you want to mine on the moon?

[Omega Blue]

The problem with this is the Moon is predominantly very light material. Things such as silicates, aluminium, etc. In other words, things we have an abundance here on earth. I can't see how this is worth the enormous energy cost of such an endeavouT

The moon is not consisted of titanium and U-235.

Re:Wait a second...

[Firehed]

Surely this is only a problem if you actually return. You don't need much muscle in space, seeing that there's not a whole lot of heavy lifting going on, and I'd wager that we'd all look like those shiny muscle builders if we retained our human structure on Jupiter. Well, maybe not shiny, but we'd almost certainly build up the muscle. If the gravity of the moon is a sixth of Earth's, and you have no intent to come back, is it a problem if you lose 83% of your muscle mass?

Oh for God's sake.

[StarKruzr]

I am the last person to disagree with (sane) environmentalists on just about anything, but this is absurd.

A) There is no biosphere on the Moon to disturb, silly.
B) Suppose that to learn how to take care of the Earth properly, we first need to explore and understand how processes on other planets work? Suppose that a source of virtually unlimited offplanet resources (like the Moon and asteroid belt) would give us the "buffer" we need to learn how to exist in a state of environmental peace with this planet?

Re:I think the United States should claim the moon

[shutdown -p now]

Great, all the First World nations getting even richer by dividing other planets between themselves. Just what we need to further improve the standard of living of your average U.S. citizen.

Meteoritic influx

[LuckyStarr]

But it happens _all the time_. It is estimated that the earth has an influx of meteorites and extraterrestrial dust in the order of millions of tons per year.

So I doubt it would change anything.

Re:I've thought this for a long time

[Illbay]

Anything which one can make a profit doing, will eventually be done without "us" (whoever that may be) needing to focus on it.

You're right, of course. Bad choice of words on my part.

It's like back during the Clinton years, when he kept talking about "building a bridge to the 21st century," as if our failure to do so would mean we'd stay stuck on December 31, 2000 (yes, I said "2000." Do we have to go over that again?)

I guess I should say "let's stop throwing taxpayer money at this, and get out of the way of those who will truly pioneer the colonization of space."

I do believe that our virtual standstill in space exploration is due to government INTERFERENCE, not a lack of government action.

Re:You've missed the point.

[rhakka]

I guess that depends on "market forces", eh? Of more value to whom?

Should we carry that through and never do anything anywhere because someone might want to look at it someday?