Mining the Moon - Good or Bad?

touch · 5 Mar 2015 at 14:52

Glaucus said:
A change isn't going to do anything, the moon and earth are constantly bombarded by material and grow.

The weight of the Earth is not growing, Hydrogen and Helium escaping the atmosphere more than cancels out any gain from space particles hitting it.

I'm not sure about the moon. There's no atmosphere for it to lose, so I guess it is growing with space dust?

Freakbro · 5 Mar 2015 at 14:55

And also the gravitational forces are changing all the time anyway. The moon is receding by 4cms a year, this will have an effect on mavity, which will alter the rate of spin deceleration the earth experiences. But we are talking in geological time. Nature will adapt...like it has from when it was a 23hr day during the dinosaurs

As Glaucus says, both the earth and moon change mass anyway and to think the amount we would mine, over a long period of time would make any significant difference is worrying far too much.

Hell, worry that in a few billion years the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth and moon anyway

Judgeneo · 5 Mar 2015 at 14:56

I haven't collected any formal evidence no, just applying some basic maths and physics to see how it could have any effect. The moon does have an effect on the earth, but IRC it isn't a primary dirver of any effect apart from tides, and in that case a 0.01% effect would mean 0.01% less water mass drawn up in tidal globes, which would constitute a tidal height drop of 0.001001%. As I said this is less than prediceted by AGW temperature increases, and in the opposite direction.

I would point out though that the 0.01% figure is based on a staggaring amount of mining activity over 1.7million years. The actual mining rate would be many orders of magnitude lower.
We would be able to monitor any such changes and make changes to the rate as necessary, or rather IF necessary.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2015 at 14:58

Judgeneo said:
I haven't collected any formal evidence no, just applying some basic maths and physics to see how it could have any effect. The moon does have an effect on the earth, but IRC it isn't a primary dirver of any effect apart from tides, and in that case a 0.01% effect would mean 0.01% less water mass drawn up in tidal globes, which would constitute a tidal height drop of 0.001001%. As I said this is less than prediceted by AGW temperature increases, and in the opposite direction.

I suspect that there are any scientists out there that would disagree with that.

However, the point is that without the requisite study we shouldn't be doing anything permanent. A little less presumption and a bit more evidence supported decision making would be the prudent course.

In any case, given the enormous costs and infrastructure necessary to make any mining of the moon viable, I doubt we shall be worrying about it in our lifetimes.

Judgeneo · 5 Mar 2015 at 15:11

Castiel said:
I suspect that there are any scientists out there that would disagree with that.

However, the point is that without the requisite study we shouldn't be doing anything permanent. A little less presumption and a bit more evidence supported decision making would be the prudent course.

In any case, given the enormous costs and infrastructure necessary to make any mining of the moon viable, I doubt we shall be worrying about it in our lifetimes.

I think that lunar bases and limited lunar mining is an option in medium term, for the same reasons that Glaucus has mentioned.

What is necessary though is an international body to oversea the whole thing, and commercial space ventures in general. This body would be give the scientific oversight that you seek, but I do not think that a full understanding of the risks is necessary given the limited scale of all viable proposals. When, eventually, the scale of the activity increases, then there will be both the need, and the available data, for a proper study.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2015 at 15:13

Judgeneo said:
I think that lunar bases and limited lunar mining is an option in medium term, for the same reasons that Glaucus has mentioned.

Do you have even speculative figures or supporting evidence for this?

Why are there no commercial or international driven projects?

Judgeneo said:
What is necessary though is an international body to oversea the whole thing, and commercial space ventures in general. This body would be give the scientific oversight that you seek, but I do not think that a full understanding of the risks is necessary given the limited scale of all viable proposals. When, eventually, the scale of the activity increases, then there will be both the need, and the available data, for a proper study.

What viable proposals?

LordSplodge · 5 Mar 2015 at 15:25

Castiel said:
D
Why are there no commercial or international driven projects?

Cold hard cash. However once private asteroid mining takes off, and there are already companies planning this, there may well be a move towards having a moon base & lunar mining.

thep02 · 5 Mar 2015 at 15:44

sanaxe1 said:
Well obviously one of the cons against it is that you can only mine at night when the moon is out!

Surely it would be safer during the day when the moon is off, it must be amazingly hot there when it's on, my main worry if they did start to mine it would be debris and dust falling onto the earth.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2015 at 15:58

LordSplodge said:
Cold hard cash. However once private asteroid mining takes off, and there are already companies planning this, there may well be a move towards having a moon base & lunar mining.

From what I understand some companies have a couple of undefined and loose projects looking at asteroid mining, but as yet there are no definitive intentions to do so...largely due to costs, technology and logistics.

Grimley · 5 Mar 2015 at 16:13

Diddums said:
Hence tractor beams!

Funny you should post star trek - this is what happens in star trek when you dig too much out of a moon...

The Dread Pirate · 5 Mar 2015 at 16:18

Grimley said:
Funny you should post star trek - this is what happens in star trek when you dig too much out of a moon...

I was always of the opinion that the Klingons did the wrong form of mining!

Tefal · 5 Mar 2015 at 16:27

Freefaller said:
Stripping resources from other planets?

Besides people are greedy and will start to exploit the mining opportunities.

I see the future as having very little mining at all, and most minerals/materials are able to be created. Of course a long way down the future.

I understand the interest in mining in terms of understand the make up of planets and other astral bodies, that's a bit different.

How exactly do you plan to create titanium or iron or uranium or thorium?

Tefal · 5 Mar 2015 at 16:30

Castiel said:
I suspect that there are any scientists out there that would disagree with that.

However, the point is that without the requisite study we shouldn't be doing anything permanent. A little less presumption and a bit more evidence supported decision making would be the prudent course.

In any case, given the enormous costs and infrastructure necessary to make any mining of the moon viable, I doubt we shall be worrying about it in our lifetimes.

How can you have evidence proven decision making on something entirely untested, theoretical and so complex as to be basically unsimulateable

Freefaller · 5 Mar 2015 at 16:37

Tefal said:
How exactly do you plan to create titanium or iron or uranium or thorium?

Who knows - we don't currently have the tech - but we may be able to create synthetic versions which are just as equal? It's no less extraordinary than colonising other planets.

Replicators!!

Tefal · 6 Mar 2015 at 15:56

Freefaller said:
Who knows - we don't currently have the tech - but we may be able to create synthetic versions which are just as equal? It's no less extraordinary than colonising other planets.

Replicators!!

your talking about changing atoms, it is possible (its how nuclear reactors work) but I'm not sure you could do it with stable isotopes and of course it would be a hugely dangerous process given the energy involved for mass production of elements.

Also you'd still need to mine the elements you'd use to manipulate into the ones you wanted

mrbazmondo · 6 Mar 2015 at 16:20

Or you could just recycle the ones we've already dug up. It might use little bit less energy to do so....

Castiel · 6 Mar 2015 at 16:26

Tefal said:
How can you have evidence proven decision making on something entirely untested, theoretical and so complex as to be basically unsimulateable

if it is so untested, theoretical and unsimulatable, then why are people advocating that it would be so easy?

Aside from the fact that it isn't untestable as you can simulate the conditions using deep sea mining, and extrapaloate that with the experiences of maintaining the ISS and previous moon landings...anything can be simulated given enough data and that produces evidence...costs and logistics and a myriad of other factors can all be assessed...if it was like you said then we would have never gone to the moon because that was entirely untested, theoretical and basically unsimulatable. (which of course it wasn't)

SPG · 6 Mar 2015 at 16:40

Step 1

Go to the Moon again

Step 2

Survery the Moon

Step 3

Build space elevator

Step 4

Global war on who had rights to mine the moon

Step 5

Leave time capsules in secure locations for the clever insects that will be rulers of the earth after we have killed ourselves.

Edward78 · 6 Mar 2015 at 16:43

sanaxe1 said:
Well obviously one of the cons against it is that you can only mine at night when the moon is out!

Freefaller · 6 Mar 2015 at 16:59

Tefal said:
your talking about changing atoms, it is possible (its how nuclear reactors work) but I'm not sure you could do it with stable isotopes and of course it would be a hugely dangerous process given the energy involved for mass production of elements.

Also you'd still need to mine the elements you'd use to manipulate into the ones you wanted

Based on our current knowledge and abilities. Be more future looking