Mining the Moon - Good or Bad?

Glaucus said:
Whos are they then? Of course they are ours. There's no other live in the solar system that we know off. If we find life, even basic life, then yes I would agree massive ethical issues, but moon/mars etc, there is no issue. They are no less ours than the rest of the world where, when we were confined to Africa.
Click to expand...

"Of course they are ours"? What an arrogant and ignorant statement. I've told you before to post more calmly about things.

Anyway, it is a pretty bold statement claiming the universe is ours. Once we colonise the planet, then sure, we've staked our claim on that land, like we did in our exploratory days. However until then, they are not ours.

And it's more than just a colony on the surface. Mining can open up entire space resources for use in space.
As said refuelling satellites, space stations, building solar power plants that beam energy down.
Click to expand...

Of course - that should be the vision for the next few centuries. Start to understand what resources can help us explore other planets more easily and get a better understanding of our own planet. You say it as though it is just as simple as getting on with it. How about we learn how to walk before we try to run?

Build massive craft capable of going to closest stars within a human lifespan (robotic)
Click to expand...

That would be exciting - but we just don't have the tech for this yet. :(
 
That is calmly.
I didn't say the universe.
But the solar system is lifeless. Therefore no one else or anything else can possible own them. So yes fir all intents and purposes they are ours. There is only one single life form in this solar system that can make use if them and as far as we now they are all lifeless.

If an Alien came in and started populating other planets in our solar system, do you think anyone would say these planets aren't ours? Think if it like territorial water/airspace.

Actually we do have the tech to go to other stars in a single life span. However it's hugely expensive, massive and huge resources aka it's not going to happen. Nuclear pulpusion through pusher plate is one example. However you need thousands of small nuclear bombs, and such a craft would never be allowed to launch from earth.
 
Last edited:
Freefaller said:
What if there is life that we just don't know about or are not able to see?
Click to expand...

That's a very very small what if, for moon and mars.
And you could applies what if in any aspect of life and in which case, no one would ever do anything. All you can do is say it's hugely unlikely and get on with it.

Need to be a bit more careful with a few plants/moons, like Europa, venus etc, which would need more studying or studying to start with. But they also aren't what we are looking to expand to next.
 
I just think they need to be measured decisions. I think it is exciting and definitely something worth pursuing ,but we need to do it the right way, not with a "yeeehaawwww" care free attitude.
 
Freefaller said:
I understand things will become more viable in time form an economic point of view, but what does mining the moon actually provide? I agree if we have a colony there then the resources can be used for that colony.

Agreed about being used for the right reasons I have no issues with that. But humans aren't all decent, and people get greedy.

E) none of the worlds are ours. Earth is shared by everyone, but we're so bad at sharing we've created "countries" to make the sharing official. The other planets around the solar system or the universe aren't ours. Sure we've identified them and they are "ours" from our perception, but they aren't really ours are they?
Click to expand...

Mining the moon is only good for Helium-3 (but that can be used as a clean power source in fusion reactors) however once we have bases on the moon it makes getting to the rest of the solar system easier. So whilst I'm not a fan of just using the moons resources to further Earth's greed for power it does form a stepping stone off-world, and that is a good thing.

There's probably life on Europa and Titan so we should tred very carefully, but as for who owns the planets. I guess that is a very difficult question to answer.

I'm guessing whoever gets there first claims sovereignty? I for one welcome our China Martian overlords. :D

I was actually quoting a famous line from 2001 when I said all these worlds are ours (as in ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE)

EDIT: So many typos. Posting in a rush...
 
Last edited:
LordSplodge said:
However the Helium 3 on the moon could power earth for millions of years..
Click to expand...

Theres only one flaw in that argument... we don't have any helium 3 fusion reactors. "Its 25 years away..." they've been saying that for as long as I can remember and we're still no nearer achieving it.

Freefaller said:
I just think they need to be measured decisions. I think it is exciting and definitely something worth pursuing ,but we need to do it the right way, not with a "yeeehaawwww" care free attitude.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what it will be unless we have something like the Antarctic Treaty... and that was signed before the mineral wealth was realised.
 
Last edited:
It's not so much care free, we are just pretty certain there's no life on mars/moon. We know how mavity works and that we aren't going to remove enough weight to disturb the equilibrium of moon/earth. the weight of both planets change by thousands of tons daily anyway from space bombardments, most of it dust sizes..

It's not really possible to pollute something which isn't suitable to sustain any life.

Not that I don't disagree with you that it needs to be thought of, just that a lot of these are already known. The real unknowns is more ownerspersip, and all the other legal framework required. Which is non existent. Even current space treaties have no enforcement route. It's these that need to be happening now. Before companies like plantar resources and others get of the ground. Space is quickly emerging from under the control of governs to private. So although NASA does it's best to decontaminate it's probes there's no laws requiring others to do it. So we really need these laws in place now. Again for moon it's doesn't relay matter as it's a dead moon.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Theres only one flaw in that argument... we don't have any helium 3 fusion reactors. "Its 25 years away..." they've been saying that for as long as I can remember and we're still no nearer achieving it.
Click to expand...

Given the current progress towards fusion I'm betting we can make a Helium-3 reactor before we setup moon mining. When the former works, there will probably be a space race back to the moon.

I'm also betting the reactor takes less than 25 years.
 
LordSplodge said:
Mining the moon is only good for Helium-3 (but that can be used as a clean power source in fusion reactors) however once we have bases on the moon it makes getting to the rest of the solar system easier. So whilst I'm not a fan of just using the moons resources to further Earth's greed for power it does form a stepping stone off-world, and that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't disagree with that :)

There's probably life on Europa and Titan so we should tred very carefully, but as for who owns the planets. I guess that is a very difficult question to answer.
Click to expand...

Indeed - it's a good question to have to start thinking about, and an exciting moment in the human domain that we are starting to discuss it.

I'm guessing whoever gets their first claims sovereignty? I for one welcome our China Martian overlords. :D
Click to expand...

:D

I was actually quoting a famous line from 2001 when I said all these worlds are ours (as in ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOUR EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMT NO LANDINGS THERE)
Click to expand...

Completely missed that :o
 
The mavity/tides argument is ridiculous. The stuff that is looking to be mined - He3 - is only a fraction of the mass of the moon. You would dig up a lot, process in on the moon to get the useful bits, and leave the rest there. The change in mass would be negliable by any standard.

Lets assume that this is not the case. We extract 4.3 billion (4.3 x 10^9) tonnes of oil every year, lets assume that the moon is all oil, and we extract as much of it every year as we do on currently on earth.

The moon has a mass of 7.34767309 × 10^19 tonnes

To get rid of 0.01% of this would take 1,708,761 years, and the effect of the tides would still only be a 0.01% from the current, i.e. negliable.
So we're safe.


The only science argument I can think of, is that if you were to cover a large percentage of the moons surface in man made structures that absorb light, then there would be a slight drop in lunar luminesence, which may effect the glabal pattern of cloud formation. I'm sure we can cope with that.


As for ownership, it is difficult to decide who on earth owns the moon, or which sections of it. But as a whole, humanity owns it completely, there is no contest.
Ownership is a human/animalistic construct. You own you house because we all agree in a set of rules about individual property, and the peice of paper you paid for that says you own your house is not a forgery.

Humanity owns anything and everything where there is no contest to our claim of ownership. On earth there is an argument for a contest against the rights of other species, in space - there is no other life, there is no contest. We own all.
 
What sort of impact may even a 0.01% change have on the Earth however? Is there any research into this at all?

Sometimes even the smallest, seemingly imperceptible change can have significant implications, particularly in nature.
 
Castiel said:
What sort of impact may even a 0.01% change have on the Earth however? Is there any research into this at all?

Sometimes even the smallest, seemingly imperceptible change can have significant implications, particularly in nature.
Click to expand...

Probably less than is being caused by temperature increases, and in the other direction. 0.01% isn't a lot at all really, especially considering you have 0.7% aparent mavity varience across the surface of the earth naturally.
 
Judgeneo said:
Probably less than is being caused by temperature increases, and in the other direction. 0.01% isn't a lot at all really, especially considering you have 0.7% aparent mavity varience across the surface of the earth naturally.
Click to expand...

Is that 'probably' based on your opinion or on any actual study?

A 0.01% change in the mass of the moon may have a significant impact that is not comparable with global warming or assumed variances in surface mavity on Earth. It's not only tides, but the shift of the moon either closer or increasing its drift away, the affect it would have on the Earths rotation and all the myriad things that are impacted by any change in the relative masses of the moon and Earth. We simu do not know what effects cumulatively these might have, if any.

It's a little presumptive to assume anything unless there is evidence to support it.
 
Last edited:
A change isn't going to do anything, the moon and earth are constantly bombarded by material and grow.

It won't even change the mavity calculation, it is going to have squat all affect on tides, rotation or anything else.

As said the earth and moon constantly change mass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom