Mining the Moon - Good or Bad?

[Glaucus]

Aside from displacing The Clangers....if we have the ability to mine the moon, then surely we can mine the asteroid belt instead. Ideally we should be looking at how we ethically and sustainably use Earths resources, before demolishing our neighbours. More resources doesn't nessessarily solve some of our most pressing problems which are almost all related to having too many people rather than not enough minerals.

Relocating asteroids takes a huge amount of power. In the long term this is however the better option for many reasons.

And it's far less about using resources for earth, but opening up space, rather than having to launch everything from earth, you mine and keep it in space.

And we are try to recycle and be more efficient on earth as well. It's not like we aren't and just going lets mine everywhere.

There isn't much ethical issue with it, as there's nothing living, no eco systems etc.

 

[Castiel]

Relocating asteroids takes a huge amount of power. In the long term this is however the better option for many reasons.

And it's far less about using resources for earth, but opening up space, rather than having to launch everything from earth, you mine and keep it in space.

And we are try to recycle and be more efficient on earth as well. It's not like we aren't and just going lets mine everywhere.

There isn't much ethical issue with it, as there's nothing living, no eco systems etc.

The ethics are not in whether there is an Eco system it not, but in who should and should not profit from the moon, who owns the rights to it, should it be used as a resource for profit or for the betterment of everyone on earth...should we not be dealing with the fundamental issues here on earth with overpopulation, wealth division, food shortages etc, instead of investing huge sums in off planet mining projects that in the short to medium term will probably only enrich a minority and shift much needed resources and more importantly awareness from those that need them right now...there are some major ethical questions here....to say there isn't is short sighted.

 

[Glaucus]

Off course we shouldn't be focusing on earth, if we did that the human race would never have survive or done any thing interesting. There will always be issues and if you wait till you sorted them out, then you will never do it.


How would it shift resources from people who most need it. Resources in space for the short to medium term will stay in space. It's two totally separate eco systems. It will just make things like resupplying the ISS far cheaper so NASA and other s can spend their budgets on more interesting things.

No one owns it as per international agreement (although it means little as it's unenforceable), and who ever gets there and does it will profit, which will almost certainly be small start up companies to start with.

It's not short sighted at all, I just don't see any big ethical questions. There are legal issues, these are not the same as ethical though.

 

[Castiel]

Off course we shouldn't be focusing on earth, if we did that the human race would never have survive or done any thing interesting. There will always be issues and if you wait till you sorted them out, then you will never do it.

So we should ignore all the issues on Earth...so where do we go? When the population outgrows our ability to supply food/water...when climate change really begins to impact on humanity far beyond how it does today?

Who said anything about waiting?... I specifically said we should not be waiting, but doing something about it.

The human race progresses through adversity and adaptation to change and overcoming obstacles...we have some serious ones right now. So do we invest trillions upon trillions into space mining, which you say will not benefit the Earth directly in the short to medium term (50-200 years) or do we concentrate on funding research into cheap clean energy, food production, wealth distribution, population stability, climate stability, antibiotic replacement, increasing the standard of living for billions in poverty and so on...these are ethical questions that should not be overlooked in the mad scramble to profit from space mining.

Sometimes you just need to tidy your living room before digging the garden.

How would it shift resources from people who most need it. Resources in space for the short to medium term will stay in space. It's two totally separate eco systems. It will just make things like resupplying the ISS far cheaper so NASA and other s can spend their budgets on more interesting things.

Funding, this will not be free...where do you think the money comes from?

No one owns it as per international agreement (although it means little as it's unenforceable), and who ever gets there and does it will profit, which will almost certainly be small start up companies to start with.

Exactly, an ethical question.

I can see the wide eyed appeal of it all, but I think you are being naive in thinking it will be so simple or without serious ethical considerations or impact on people here.

 

[Glaucus]

Where did I say we do nothing here on earth? It isn't one or the other. We are doing stuff on earth.
It's you suggesting one or the other, like when you said we should be focusing on things like recycling nor mining in space.
Well we are focusing on recycling and companies are looking to mine in space.

Legal issue are not big ethical questions. Nearly all big ethical questions are around life, there is no life on the moon.

Nearly all the funding is coming from philanthropists currently.

 

[LordSplodge]

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.

Indeed but it is a beginning. Just like those pioneers who ventured off to explorer western America...

You do realise how simple calculations to maintain an orbit are? you can do them by hand

Newtonian orbits are easy enough, sure. However that doesn't mean somebody doesn't make an error, just like the NASA Mars probe that smashed into the surface because some calculations where metric and some imperial.

However, even so it's still better to mine in-situ because of the delta-v requirements. Why move an entire asteroid?

 

[Glaucus]

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.

Planatery resources are doing more than just lose planning. It's still several decades from mining though.
However they are working on sending a fleet of telescopes to space to find and analyse asteroids.
There first test bed telescope was unfortunately lost on the orbital science failed launch a few months back.

However, even so it's still better to mine in-situ because of the delta-v requirements. Why move an entire asteroid?

Two reasons. The biggest being how long it takes to travel in space. Meaning you would need to send lots of miners out. Where if you brought the asteroid to an earth orbit you have one miner and just supply it with asteroids.

Secondly the delta v to send the miner out and that really depends how big the miner is.

 

[Castiel]

Where did I say we do nothing here on earth? It isn't one or the other. We are doing stuff on earth.

I didn't say that, I said it is an ethical question on whether we should be diverting efforts, funding and resources from these issues into other issues...either potentially or directly. It is an ethical question...which you say there are none. Yet I mentioned at least half a dozen off the top of my head.

It's you suggesting one or the other, like when you said we should be focusing on things like recycling nor mining in space.
Well we are focusing on recycling and companies are looking to mine in space.

I recall you complaining one thread that we do not focus enough effort and funding on clean energy such as Fusion Reactors etc...should we invest the trillions it would potentially cost into clean energy now, or on attempting to set up mining operations on the moon?

It's an ethical position to be addressed...we have limited resources, where best do we use them in the short term for best long term gain...for example Space isn't going anywhere.

Legal issue are not big ethical questions. Nearly all big ethical questions are around life, there is no life on the moon.

Legal issues are ethical issues. There is life here, which could well be significantly impacted by decisions on who owns what, how profits and resources are shared or not, how the resources are used and a whole raft of issues.

Nearly all the funding is coming from philanthropists currently.

Do you plough £100m into a feasibility study on moon mining or research into increasing crop yields?

An ethical question?

This is my point...there are ethical questions to be resolved, not that we shouldn't do it, but that we should look at the broader picture and the returns opposed to investments across the entire spectrum. Even simple things like should we be underfunding one thing to fund another or should we be looking at how we manage our oceans (which we know less about than the moon) as being a better investment....it depends on the level of investment and the returns across a wide range of ethical and or a tidal questions...it isn't simply, wow that cool, let's spend trillions trying to get a mining operation on the moon.

 

[Castiel]

Plantery resources are doing more than just lose planning. It's still several decades from mining.
However they are working on sending a fleet of telescopes to space to find and analyse asteroids.
There first test bed telescope was unfortunately lost on the orbital science failed launch a few months back.

Yeah, so not definitive plans as yet...only feasibility studies.

 

[Glaucus]

Sending stuff to space is more than a study. It is the first step, you have to find and categorise asteroids first. that is far mire than some lose paper design you suggested.

And no it really isn't a new ethical choice. NASA and other space agencies already have a budget, and anyway it's likely to be private, so they wouldn't of put that money into such things like crop studies in the first place. then more money you make, more can be re invested.

There is no large ethical questions for mining on the moon, however you try spinning it. They.ve already been dealt with or are more legal.

 

[Castiel]

Sending stuff to space is more than a study. It is the first step, you have to find and categorise asteroids first. that is far mire than some lose paper design you suggested.

It's not...when an oil company do feasibility studies, they send teams, geologists, drilling teams and so on to assess the project. This is no different, albeit vastly more expensive.

And no it really isn't a new ethical choice. NASA and other space agencies already have a budget, and anyway it's likely to be private, so they wouldn't of put that money into such things like crop studies in the first place. then more money you make, more can be re invested.

You do not know that. People are fickle and like I said, how the earths wealth is distributed is one if those ethical questions we have yet to answer...so should private individuals be able to command huge amounts of the planets resources for their own private foibles is one of those questions...again it is one of ethics.

There is no large ethical questions for mining on the moon, however you try spinning it. They.ve already been dealt with or are more legal.

You are wrong. You haven't answered any of the questions posed, simply ignored them.

Let ask you a question...if you had access to enough money to fund significant research that would reasonably lead to a clean, renewable energy supply that could benefit everyone here on earth or fund a mining operation which might make you vastly more money with little benefit in the short to medium term for most other people, or fund a program to supply the means for millions to pull themselves out of poverty...which or what would you do?

 

[Glaucus]

Because they are stupid questions.
First its public vs private.
Secondly these are already dealt with on a daily basis, nothing new, nothing new to discus or decide.

 

[Castiel]

Because they are stupid questions.
First its public vs private.
Secondly these are already dealt with on a daily basis, nothing new, nothing new to discus or decide.

No they are not stupid. My god...really????

Whether the wealth is privately owned or is public money is immaterial to the ethical questions therein.

No they are not, that's the point...no one has really gotten to grips with it because none has actually made a concerted effort to do it yet....and questions on wealth, resources, poverty, food production, climate impact, biodiversity, health provision are all asked daily, often without resolution, but to dismiss them as stupid?

I realise you are obsessed with future tech, space exploration and so on, so am I...but sometime we need to look at the bigger picture and decide where our resources are best spent to deliver optimal value in the long term...like I said sometimes you need to tidy the house before digging the garden.

 

[Glaucus]

Of course private money makes a huge difference as private can spend it on what they want.

 

[Castiel]

Of course private money makes a huge difference as private can spend it on what they want.

Of course they can...but they don't escape the ethical implications, both of how they obtained that wealth, or whether they should use it in certain ways or a whole raft of ethical questions relating to how we, as a society and race use our resources, distribute the wealth we have and how we address the very important questions and problems we face.