Comments
peadith t1_ja4uwxq wrote
Okay Im a moron and haven't done any homework. What's the chance of screwing this up and wrecking tidal lock or the whole orbit so we don't get to play anymore?
GodsSwampBalls t1_ja507si wrote
0%
The moon and earth are really big, there is absolutely no way humans will be able to move enough stuff between the earth and moon to noticeably change the gravity of either body.
peadith t1_ja5cjpr wrote
The moon only seems really big compared to 0%. But I guess in 10,000 years we'll have other problems anyway.
PlauntieM t1_ja83ubn wrote
- fossil fuel companies in the 1930s
nameTotallyUnique t1_jaa0n29 wrote
Not contradicting you but an Interesting fact:
there is a dam in china that actually slowed down the earth rotation a tiny fraction. Can't remeber whats is called saw a youtube movie about it.
Sry kinda lazy message.
AnDraoi t1_ja7zymc wrote
not in the short term at least, that’s an ethical question for humanity in 2423
ConfirmedCynic t1_ja5p8wi wrote
With current technologies? None.
Horses4HandJobs t1_ja6355r wrote
Unless we decided to tunnel deep into the Moon and set off some nukes
DingoFrisky t1_ja7vher wrote
Well, I saw an excellent documentary where there were actually Nazis living on the moon, so maybe we should nuke it to be safe (Iron Sky)
sheriffhd t1_ja4xz4m wrote
Tbh knowing how business work it wouldn't matter so long as it makes profit
ca_kingmaker t1_ja5bjy2 wrote
It’s impossible.
TheEverHumbled t1_ja6za4n wrote
The business model of extractive industries helps explain why this is a no for the forseeable future, and very very likely forever.
Mining and Oil drilling operate based on constraints of physical reality which drives costs(e.g. cost of equipment, workers, etc). Reserves of resources exist in a bunch of places which are simply impractical to extract based on present prices and technology.
The key point is that extractive businesses don't go everywhere and extract everything- they add projects which have the best potential for profits. As more material is extracted, market demand would fall, and make costlier extraction less profitable.
The moon is pretty massive for any forseeable timescale- by the time lunar mining is of any noticeable scale, humanity would likely have spread out a lot more mining activities to the asteroid belt (assuming of course human civilization can reach such a point), and most resources would have cheaper sources(sitting even closer to 0 g environment).
yesterxday t1_ja5idhx wrote
Building a mine on the moon might be less cumbersome than in Canada.
Kaz_55 t1_ja77uby wrote
>You don’t even need a rocket. You can use a mass driver to fling the material from the moon to earth’s orbit.
That's not how orbital machanics work. You will need some sort of independant propulsion system to actually slow it down and circularize the orbit. You can't just "shoot stuff into orbit".
Oversimplifications like this are exactely why this is basically "a loony idea" and not going to happen in the forseeable future. And neither is there a "$100-billion-plus lunar economy looming" as the article claims, because there is no basis for such an economy.
Flat_Floyd t1_ja909il wrote
Wouldn’t the moon be a harsh mistress?
stewartm0205 t1_jab7vpe wrote
She can be. Must have read that novel fifty years ago. Was into hard sci-fi as a teen.
Gari_305 OP t1_ja4pfqh wrote
From the Article
>The splashdown of NASA’s Orion spacecraft last month in the Pacific Ocean may have ended the successful Artemis I mission, but humankind’s return to the moon is just getting started, and with it a fantastic opportunity for Canada.
>
>There is enthusiasm – and funding – for more space exploration. A $100-billion-plus lunar economy beckons, and one of the most anticipated components of that economy is space mining.
>
>Is this some pie-in-the-sky fantasy? No more so than establishing a base camp on the moon, which is what NASA, the Canadian Space Agency and other partners are preparing for as part of the Artemis program by the 2030s. China and Russia announced jointly in 2021 that they are planning the same.
DIWhy-not t1_ja5rlku wrote
I hope whoever wrote that headline gave themselves a giant pat on the back.
TheEverHumbled t1_ja6zsbq wrote
That said though, with inflation it's probably a toonie idea now.
SpaceAngel2001 t1_ja51pir wrote
Mining off Earth only makes sense if you are smelting, manufacturing, and constructing assets off Earth. So the leap into a space economy is going to be dependent on a wide and complex multi pronged push by at least several nations working together. A lot of things will need to happen in a fairly short time line.
Igottamake t1_ja656mp wrote
Whoever smelts it will get accused of dealing it.
Fishtank-Brain t1_ja5284j wrote
or we just build the space elevator
Carbidereaper t1_ja5nw9f wrote
You can’t build a space elevator without an zero-g manufacturing complex in space because earths gravity wreaks havoc on producing the thousands of miles long uninterrupted molecular graphene nanotubes for the elevator cables and you can’t have a zero-g manufacturing complex without a facility on the moon to lower costs
Fishtank-Brain t1_ja5xe73 wrote
obviously we’re talking the next steps. going to the moon was never a waste of money and we can use the resources on the earth
creggieb t1_ja62n3h wrote
After we catch materials sciences up to the point where that works, then yes
Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9dkfv wrote
its going to be magnitudes cheaper with moon industry
Fishtank-Brain t1_ja9m8i7 wrote
that’s the only way to do it since it will be anchored in space
Rondaru t1_ja5b7sl wrote
I see two major problems for heavy machinery on the Moon surface: extreme temperature differences between day and night and lots of fine and coarse moon sand that wants to get into every joint and crevice. Good luck solving these two.
gordonjames62 t1_ja93un3 wrote
I don't think we will be looking at heavy machinery (prohibitive cost of getting it up the gravity well) or many current technologies. It is also unlikely to have a huge manpower component.
More likely we will establish a small research station on the moon, with a great deal of automated manufacture (think 3D printing) using lunar materials.
Some of the mining we do will be excavation for underground habitation purposes. This activity will probably where we learn more about manipulating and processing lunar materials.
SO far, "we don't know what we don't know".
We have so much to learn, and will really only begin to figure stuff out when we get there and begin a lunar habitation.
Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9ebaw wrote
Temperature difference: only work during the night. Or the day, which ever's easiest.
Moon dust: a constant electric charge to create static.
These things are technical issues. Very difficult ones. But the last few hundred years hint that if you take some egg heads and throw money and give them time, they will probably figure it out. Now give them supercomputers and nanomaterials as well.
The real problem, time and time again, has been working with the constraints that our governments, economies and cultures limit us with when it comes to distributing energy for problem solving.
russianpotato t1_ja659u2 wrote
Oh shit! What if we have machines that work...wait for it.....under water....where something as small as a water molecule can get into the oil and ruin an engine.
Rondaru t1_ja6r7mb wrote
Lubricants don't mix with oil. They mix with moon dust though. And don't underestimate the dust problem: https://youtu.be/0k9wIsKKgqo
russianpotato t1_ja6zyzs wrote
It is a challange. But like I said. If you can keep out water you can sure as heck keep out dust. A positive pressure system would be simple, cheap and effective.
Rondaru t1_ja70vkf wrote
And how do you refill a positive pressure system inside the machine if there is no external atmosphere available that you can just suck in and compress? Do you want to add constant gas resupply from Earth to one of the cost factors?
russianpotato t1_ja71bi5 wrote
If you are building stuff on the moon you're for sure mining the 600 billion kilograms of water ice already discovered and can make all the gas you need!
Rondaru t1_ja76rqv wrote
At a concentration of 1000 parts per million in the soil you'd have to move and kick up a lot more destructive regolith dust than you'd ever hope to get enough gas out of it to protect the excavator from that dust. Not to mention that you're just utterly wasting the most precious resource of all on the Moon.
russianpotato t1_ja7q23f wrote
You're thinkin of the water in the actual moon dust. I was referencing the recently found actual water ice found at the poles. You didn't follow any of that and the proposed Chinese and US moonbase because of it?
Fishtank-Brain t1_ja5240i wrote
it never was a loony idea. people are just unbelievably stupid
[deleted] t1_ja4qlmm wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_ja4umcw wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the Article
>The splashdown of NASA’s Orion spacecraft last month in the Pacific Ocean may have ended the successful Artemis I mission, but humankind’s return to the moon is just getting started, and with it a fantastic opportunity for Canada.
>
>There is enthusiasm – and funding – for more space exploration. A $100-billion-plus lunar economy beckons, and one of the most anticipated components of that economy is space mining.
>
>Is this some pie-in-the-sky fantasy? No more so than establishing a base camp on the moon, which is what NASA, the Canadian Space Agency and other partners are preparing for as part of the Artemis program by the 2030s. China and Russia announced jointly in 2021 that they are planning the same.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11cs5lg/opinion_mining_on_the_moon_is_no_longer_a_loony/ja4pfqh/
[deleted] t1_ja5bc9t wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja5rj27 wrote
[removed]
kompootor t1_ja6kihj wrote
Methods of getting O2 and water from the moon's surface has been researched around the world for decades. Somehow I don't think the final piece to this puzzle is that NASA or ESA just need to hire some scrappy Canadian Arctic oil drillers a la Armageddon (199suck).
Meanwhile, the only material that the article says specifically is of commercial value to mine on the moon is He3. The reason it's valuable, according to the article, is due to its potential in fusion, which they say is something to anticipate because of a breakthrough in fusion, which they link to within their own magazine. And of course, like all other breakthroughs in, and current research around, practical or scalable fusion, it's D-T and has zero to do with He3, which would require from the ground up entirely new engineering to be developed and scaled.
I suppose if I were to invest in a Canadian company that wants to do space mining, I'd ask first if they had or were bidding on a known contract with a space agency that's actually going to the Moon; and if they're talking about He3 and all that, I'd ask if they know what is the absolute capacity of that market, at the current trend of the field. If that passes, then price elasticity is next. This process is part of what I call an Elf Aquitaine hoax sniffer.
TheCh0rt t1_ja6rfm9 wrote
I’m confused. Are you saying Armageddon sucked?
damnedspot t1_ja7p9u4 wrote
Have there been any efforts / considerations to only mine the far side of the moon? It would be nice (and probably unrealistic) to make the facing side an unspoiled International Park.
[deleted] t1_ja8rci9 wrote
[removed]
chasonreddit t1_ja91era wrote
While I love the idea, I have to ask. I've never actually run the numbers, but wouldn't asteroid mining be even more efficient?
Let's ignore the time factor for a Holman orbit to those asteroids and assume we are thinking long term. It seems the total energy outlay (which is really what all space travel is about) is much smaller per tonne to move a small asteroid into lunar orbit or HEO than it would be even to boost it from the moon.
And they come in all flavors: carbon based, ferric, silicates, ice, probably heavy metals, but we really haven't looked for them yet. What do you need and put 10,000 tonnes of it into orbit.
Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9ehzk wrote
I imagine the time factor is actually the main factor vs the moon.
chasonreddit t1_ja9fzu0 wrote
Yes. You notice how I cleverly added "ignoring the time factor". There are near Earth asteroids, but I don't know the density or types. In today's world you can't make an investment with a 45 year payback.
If we could develop vehicles that didn't need low-energy orbits we could.. but that takes a space infrastructure that would take the resource we need. It's a total bootstrap problem.
Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9n82n wrote
Its not a bootstrap problem. You just start at the Moon :P
chasonreddit t1_jaabyh3 wrote
Actually I think you are right. As I thought it through.
gordonjames62 t1_ja92axb wrote
That was a wonderful thing to read here.
>Because you would need so little Helium-3 to produce so much energy with fusion – theoretically, 200 tonnes could provide a year’s worth of global energy needs – there’s a compelling business case for mining it on the moon and bringing it back to use on Earth. Each tonne would be worth billions of dollars.
>Space mining is indeed the stuff of science non-fiction. It is strategic and necessary, and whoever figures out how to do it first will be rewarded. With the proper supports and policies, that could be Canada, and Canadian companies. It is ours to win, a generational opportunity for Canada and its citizens that would benefit life all around our planet.
If we get to the place of He3 fusion as commercially viable, it would be great to see Lunar mining become viable.
green_temple t1_jaa5co5 wrote
It's not a loony idea that it could happen, but it is a loony idea that anyone other than billionaires would benefit from it
Iatola_asahola t1_ja63py8 wrote
Somebody told them there’s maple syrup on the moon and now Canada’s got their ass in the air.
GarlicBreadRules t1_ja65bse wrote
Why not Antarctica first? It’s got air, and water, and you can get there by boat.
Frone0910 t1_ja59grp wrote
There really is no technical limit to which our civilization can grow. We just need access to energy and to build in a way that doesn't deplete the earth's resources or livable space. We need to start using space as our backyard
Codydw12 t1_ja5f29o wrote
Extreme heat in the day can be used for smelting processes, lunar dust will be an issue but likely the first thing to be addressed by scientific outposts.
[deleted] t1_ja508om wrote
[deleted]
ca_kingmaker t1_ja5cfiq wrote
Ah yes, the America alone approach, China loves it when you guys pull that shit.
MechaZombie23 t1_ja55wbg wrote
They are the US’ 2nd biggest trading partner, with China at #1. Almost any US vs China strategy involves or includes Canada
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ja5allg wrote
Canada tagging along for the ride if the only thing it ever did. They will, *again*, build yet another robotic arm, and exchange it for a couple of astronaut tickets on an american ride.
ca_kingmaker t1_ja5cbfr wrote
That’s kind of the description of every country outside of USA, Russia, and China isn’t it?
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ja5uz3k wrote
Europe, Japan, South Korea, India are making a better effort for sure. Even North Korea made it to orbit. Canada's a G7 country with a better GDP than Russia, but has no space ambition at all.
ca_kingmaker t1_ja5vrz4 wrote
But none of them have gotten anybody to space without a trip one somebody else’s rocket.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ja64v1r wrote
True, but at least theyre somewhat trying to get there.
ca_kingmaker t1_ja69g1n wrote
It’s a pretty weak criticism that you disregard Canada for going with USA yet Europe as a continent gets credit.
You’d think it was more an anti Canadian bias.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ja80a03 wrote
Im a canadian citizen, so I have not only a right but a duty to criticise what my government is doing.
ca_kingmaker t1_ja84elv wrote
Lol called it. Let me guess, you don’t live in Canada anymore?
Your criticism in this case is that Canada doesn’t have a space program outside of partnerships, while ignoring that Europe is a cooperative space program of countries many of which are larger populations than Canada.
As they still haven’t launched any of their own people into space.
It’s really quite a dumb criticism.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ja8919d wrote
I did consulting work for the CSA. They bemoan (in private) the government's lack of space ambitions just as I do. They were hoping to get a budget boost when the government switched from the CPC to the LPC and especially with an astronaut as minister of transport, but they got nothing. Canada's missing the boat on developping an actual space industry and with what happened to Bombardier the country is well on its way to lose its aerospace industry as whole. That you cannot discuss that like an adult and resort to petty personal attacks, that is dumb.
nixmix6 t1_ja4umb9 wrote
Totally retarded all going to black projects while the flat earth enclosed system has been near confirmed and still people are too afraid to just research for themselves they are ignorant of the books disproving ball earth a plethora of video crushing the curvature we should see!!! Wake up the elite made up the glide Idea long ago with not a scrape of evidence since!!! Pathetic!!!
Horses4HandJobs t1_ja63lym wrote
It was nice of you to start this word salad with a self diagnosis of your mental capacity.
[deleted] t1_ja4yvjb wrote
[removed]
stewartm0205 t1_ja4s7sn wrote
Mining the moon was never a loony idea. If you wanted to construct large structures in earth’s orbit the the moon is the cheapest place to get the metals needed because it takes 25 times less energy to get stuff from the moon to earth’s orbit than to get it from the earth surface. You don’t even need a rocket. You can use a mass driver to fling the material from the moon to earth’s orbit.