http://www.physorg.com/news90775696.html
What if through this mining scheme a thousand years from now people have transferred 25% of the mass of the Moon off of the moon. Maybe the Moon then would begin to do "wierd" things, instead of naturally spinning and revolving closer to the earth. I thought of sending nuclear waste in simple rockets on a trajectory to the Sun, and doing so rid the planet Earth of these materials. It"s not a cost effective idea but I wasn"t worried that the idea would throw planetary systems out of whack in some way.
The orbits of satellites are there because of their mass. I don"t think we should mess with the mass of a satellite TOO MUCH ...,
I don"t know.
The effort to remove a significant percentage of the moon would be enormous. To have achieved that, our technology would be able to deal with any problems it would cause.
There are some interesting PDFs on mining lunar resources in the NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004) - Resources from Space lecture series from the University of Wisconsin.
There are some interesting PDFs on mining lunar resources in the NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004) - Resources from Space lecture series from the University of Wisconsin.
The Earth weighs in at about 5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
The Moon weighs in at about 73,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
If we could somehow move a billion tons (9 noughts) from the Earth or Moon, it would be like taking a single grain of sand from a beach and would make no difference. Moving a quarter of the Moon would take millions of years.
The Moon weighs in at about 73,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
If we could somehow move a billion tons (9 noughts) from the Earth or Moon, it would be like taking a single grain of sand from a beach and would make no difference. Moving a quarter of the Moon would take millions of years.
The first and greatest step that we need to conquer before commercial mining of raw material in space can begin, is that we need to have a system of leaving and entering Earth. At the moment, we use rockets which are very expensive and use alot of fuel, plus are dangerous.
Imo, we should be looking into anti-gravity as a means of repelling the Earth and getting into space. But then, this requires major advances in anti-gravity systems. I am not familiar enough with them, albeit I have seen examples of it in action.
Once we conquer this barrier. We will then be able to build larger/heavier craft without the problem of weight. One such craft would be one that has a thick hull of lead, to prevent solar radiation from harming crew members. The ISS has such a room of thick lead to prevent solar radiation harming the crew members during solar ejections, but I think a better way would be to have this permanently as the hull. Anyway, it's just a thought.
Life support systems would then be the next step. I know that they have air recycling systems, but often these are complex and large. I think these could be simplified vastly.
Next would be propulsion systems which allow for faster travel and more manoeuvrability. I cannot fathom such systems, but that's why we have engineers is it not
Only now would you really be able to exploit asteroidal resources with space craft.
As for the moon, well one problem would be resource processing. The surface of the moon is just layers and layers of dust from asteroidal impacts. An open cast system would be good for getting past this.
I do not think that the best thing would be to start mining like conventional mines are mined on Earth. I think a better bet would be to use high power lasers to cut chunks out of the moon. You would do so at 45 deg one side, then 45 deg the other, and cut out pyramids of raw moon material. Having a system of hooking onto these masses of moon material and pulling them out, would be useful too.
I am of course just spinning ideas here
But yeah, once you pull these chunks of moon mass out from the moon. You could just pull them inside the craft and then cut them up even further into smaller pieces which could then be crushed internally inside the craft, and processed into hoppers of broken-down moon material. These hoppers could then be pulled back to a bigger station for further processing into their base constituents.
I personally think that we would at this stage, need a system of separating the elements present in the raw material, into further hoppers of their own element type.
Atm we do not have a system of doing this, except through melting the materials at high temperature and then simply 'skimming-off' the different layers of elements.
I've seen it done when they separate the impurities from Iron ore. Plus, not forgetting electrolysis as a method, albeit it is very slow
I'm sure we'll come up with something though.
There, that's my input for the day.
Imo, we should be looking into anti-gravity as a means of repelling the Earth and getting into space. But then, this requires major advances in anti-gravity systems. I am not familiar enough with them, albeit I have seen examples of it in action.
Once we conquer this barrier. We will then be able to build larger/heavier craft without the problem of weight. One such craft would be one that has a thick hull of lead, to prevent solar radiation from harming crew members. The ISS has such a room of thick lead to prevent solar radiation harming the crew members during solar ejections, but I think a better way would be to have this permanently as the hull. Anyway, it's just a thought.
Life support systems would then be the next step. I know that they have air recycling systems, but often these are complex and large. I think these could be simplified vastly.
Next would be propulsion systems which allow for faster travel and more manoeuvrability. I cannot fathom such systems, but that's why we have engineers is it not
Only now would you really be able to exploit asteroidal resources with space craft.
As for the moon, well one problem would be resource processing. The surface of the moon is just layers and layers of dust from asteroidal impacts. An open cast system would be good for getting past this.
I do not think that the best thing would be to start mining like conventional mines are mined on Earth. I think a better bet would be to use high power lasers to cut chunks out of the moon. You would do so at 45 deg one side, then 45 deg the other, and cut out pyramids of raw moon material. Having a system of hooking onto these masses of moon material and pulling them out, would be useful too.
I am of course just spinning ideas here
But yeah, once you pull these chunks of moon mass out from the moon. You could just pull them inside the craft and then cut them up even further into smaller pieces which could then be crushed internally inside the craft, and processed into hoppers of broken-down moon material. These hoppers could then be pulled back to a bigger station for further processing into their base constituents.
I personally think that we would at this stage, need a system of separating the elements present in the raw material, into further hoppers of their own element type.
Atm we do not have a system of doing this, except through melting the materials at high temperature and then simply 'skimming-off' the different layers of elements.
I've seen it done when they separate the impurities from Iron ore. Plus, not forgetting electrolysis as a method, albeit it is very slow
I'm sure we'll come up with something though.
There, that's my input for the day.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Feb 16 2007, 01:15 PM)
Imo, we should be looking into anti-gravity as a means of repelling the Earth and getting into space. But then, this requires major advances in anti-gravity systems. I am not familiar enough with them, albeit I have seen examples of it in action.
Really? Care to elaborate? When? Where? Who? ...
TEOTW(AWKI)
Really? Care to elaborate? When? Where? Who? ...
TEOTW(AWKI)
QUOTE (TheEnd+Feb 16 2007, 01:48 PM)
Really? Care to elaborate?
Yes, I saw a clip of a frog being suspended in mid-air by what the clip said was anti-gravity. I unfortunately do not have a link for it, but I don't think it was a particularly verifiable experiment anyway. I don't doubt that such a process is possible in physics though. Furthermore, I heard that the US military were testing anti-gravity propulsion, but that was conspiracy theory I think..
I guess we'll just wait and see whether anything viable comes out on the market.
Yes, I saw a clip of a frog being suspended in mid-air by what the clip said was anti-gravity. I unfortunately do not have a link for it, but I don't think it was a particularly verifiable experiment anyway. I don't doubt that such a process is possible in physics though. Furthermore, I heard that the US military were testing anti-gravity propulsion, but that was conspiracy theory I think..
I guess we'll just wait and see whether anything viable comes out on the market.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Feb 16 2007, 04:02 PM)
Yes, I saw a clip of a frog being suspended in mid-air by what the clip said was anti-gravity. I unfortunately do not have a link for it, but I don't think it was a particularly verifiable experiment anyway. I don't doubt that such a process is possible in physics though. Furthermore, I heard that the US military were testing anti-gravity propulsion, but that was conspiracy theory I think..
I guess we'll just wait and see whether anything viable comes out on the market.
I think I've seen the from video you speak of, It's not anti-gravity but a very strong magnetic field that is suspending the frog!
Anti-gravity is still in the rhelm of Sci-FI (or area 51 ).
A more likely prospect for cheep access to space in the (reasonably) near future is the space elevator. ~20-30 years off ?
TEOTW(AWKI)
I guess we'll just wait and see whether anything viable comes out on the market.
I think I've seen the from video you speak of, It's not anti-gravity but a very strong magnetic field that is suspending the frog!
Anti-gravity is still in the rhelm of Sci-FI (or area 51
). A more likely prospect for cheep access to space in the (reasonably) near future is the space elevator. ~20-30 years off ?
TEOTW(AWKI)
QUOTE (TheEnd+Feb 16 2007, 04:37 PM)
Anti-gravity is still in the realm of Sci-FI
Like in dark energy which is pure SF?
Like in dark energy which is pure SF?
A couple of comments I would like to add...
From NOM
Thanks for posting the link; I haven't had the chance to go through them, but I always like having good information like this available on the web. In the same vein...
From kaneda
Thanks for posting the link; I haven't had the chance to go through them, but I always like having good information like this available on the web. In the same vein...
From kaneda
The Earth weighs in at about 5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
The Moon weighs in at about 73,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
I seem to remember reading some time ago (I don't have the reference, but trusted the source {maybe NASA?}) that ~ 100,000 tons of dust is added to the moon (or was it Earth) annually from space. I found that bit out while researching the idea brought up by mergatroid about a shift in the mass ratio of the Earth/Moon system. With that much mass coming in annually, we would have to be doing an awful lot of mining to make any kind of dent. My original research had to do with using asteroids as material instead of the moon, but the results are the same.
From Bryn Richards
I've been rather partial to something known as (Extended) "Heim Theory". There is a thread on physorgforum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385 if anyone is interested. It has a lot of potential, is an attempt at a Unified Field Theory, and found some interesting forces in the universe that have not been detected as of yet, or if so are being attributed to "dark matter/energy", stuff like that. One of the "benefits" (if it is valid) is a means of propulsion that utilizes a form of gravitational force. I won't go into the details, if you are curious, read through the forum.
From TheEnd
I've been rather partial to something known as (Extended) "Heim Theory". There is a thread on physorgforum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385 if anyone is interested. It has a lot of potential, is an attempt at a Unified Field Theory, and found some interesting forces in the universe that have not been detected as of yet, or if so are being attributed to "dark matter/energy", stuff like that. One of the "benefits" (if it is valid) is a means of propulsion that utilizes a form of gravitational force. I won't go into the details, if you are curious, read through the forum.
From TheEnd
A more likely prospect for cheep access to space in the (reasonably) near future is the space elevator. ~20-30 years off ?
TEOTW(AWKI)
The biggest technical issue with this right now is the manufacturing of the "ribbon" to use as the cable. The numbers indicate that buckytubes (nanotubes) have the physical properties to pull it off, but the production of them is such that they can't make very long ones, and there are a number of flaws in what is made compared to what they need. 20 to 30 years may work, or then again they may not get around that issue. By the way, TEOTW(AWKI) is great.
As to products to mine, the "biggest bang for the buck" will probably be Helium-3, a rare element that is being touted as "the fusion fuel of choice". The idea is that the sun is spewing Helium-3 into space, and that over billions of year the moon has been capturing it in the regolith (surface dust).
Also, the various views on lunar ISRU normally involve some form of surface scrapper that collects up the material, and using high heat convert the materials into product. The source of the heat is the controversial issue, because for practical purposes it will probably be powered by nuclear energy.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.
From NOM
QUOTE
There are some interesting PDFs on mining lunar resources in the NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004) - Resources from Space lecture series from the University of Wisconsin.
Thanks for posting the link; I haven't had the chance to go through them, but I always like having good information like this available on the web. In the same vein...
From kaneda
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are some interesting PDFs on mining lunar resources in the NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004) - Resources from Space lecture series from the University of Wisconsin. |
Thanks for posting the link; I haven't had the chance to go through them, but I always like having good information like this available on the web. In the same vein...
From kaneda
The Earth weighs in at about 5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
The Moon weighs in at about 73,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
I seem to remember reading some time ago (I don't have the reference, but trusted the source {maybe NASA?}) that ~ 100,000 tons of dust is added to the moon (or was it Earth) annually from space. I found that bit out while researching the idea brought up by mergatroid about a shift in the mass ratio of the Earth/Moon system. With that much mass coming in annually, we would have to be doing an awful lot of mining to make any kind of dent. My original research had to do with using asteroids as material instead of the moon, but the results are the same.
From Bryn Richards
QUOTE
Imo, we should be looking into anti-gravity as a means of repelling the Earth and getting into space. But then, this requires major advances in anti-gravity systems. I am not familiar enough with them, albeit I have seen examples of it in action.
I've been rather partial to something known as (Extended) "Heim Theory". There is a thread on physorgforum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385 if anyone is interested. It has a lot of potential, is an attempt at a Unified Field Theory, and found some interesting forces in the universe that have not been detected as of yet, or if so are being attributed to "dark matter/energy", stuff like that. One of the "benefits" (if it is valid) is a means of propulsion that utilizes a form of gravitational force. I won't go into the details, if you are curious, read through the forum.
From TheEnd
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imo, we should be looking into anti-gravity as a means of repelling the Earth and getting into space. But then, this requires major advances in anti-gravity systems. I am not familiar enough with them, albeit I have seen examples of it in action. |
I've been rather partial to something known as (Extended) "Heim Theory". There is a thread on physorgforum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385 if anyone is interested. It has a lot of potential, is an attempt at a Unified Field Theory, and found some interesting forces in the universe that have not been detected as of yet, or if so are being attributed to "dark matter/energy", stuff like that. One of the "benefits" (if it is valid) is a means of propulsion that utilizes a form of gravitational force. I won't go into the details, if you are curious, read through the forum.
From TheEnd
A more likely prospect for cheep access to space in the (reasonably) near future is the space elevator. ~20-30 years off ?
TEOTW(AWKI)
The biggest technical issue with this right now is the manufacturing of the "ribbon" to use as the cable. The numbers indicate that buckytubes (nanotubes) have the physical properties to pull it off, but the production of them is such that they can't make very long ones, and there are a number of flaws in what is made compared to what they need. 20 to 30 years may work, or then again they may not get around that issue. By the way, TEOTW(AWKI) is great.
As to products to mine, the "biggest bang for the buck" will probably be Helium-3, a rare element that is being touted as "the fusion fuel of choice". The idea is that the sun is spewing Helium-3 into space, and that over billions of year the moon has been capturing it in the regolith (surface dust).
Also, the various views on lunar ISRU normally involve some form of surface scrapper that collects up the material, and using high heat convert the materials into product. The source of the heat is the controversial issue, because for practical purposes it will probably be powered by nuclear energy.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.
Very interesting responses ...
Imagine perhaps a thousand or two years from now there are factories orbiting the gas planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, and these factories number into the thousands or hundreds of thousands. Each one of these factories have tubes running down into the gaseous atmosphere of these gas planets and vacuum the gas of the planet into themselves, turning the gases into whatever type of processed material(s). Given this scenario now, and considering once these factories are up and running ... will it only be when the planets do start to subtly wobble and then wander out of orbit will someone say, "Uhh ...? Houston, we have a problem."
If nothing else this idea could be used and included in a future movie plot/theme ... Movies today are quite bland and uninspiring, but I digress.
With regards to the propulsion system of future spacecraft comment, one practical idea I heard decades ago though have not heard NASA or anyone experimenting with is nuclear engines. Basically the engine is set up to control a series of four or five, or fifty, sixty nuclear explosions to be used as forward and reverse (slow-down) propulsive thrust.
Again, if nothing else, this idea would be an interesting problem exercise to read and work through inside a Physics 102 textbook. You know, for some extra credit, or perhaps someones patent is pending ...?
This is for the more ambitous student or group of students who would like a real-world problem to put their problem solving skills upon
Design the simple rocket that could lift a fifty-five gallon drum of nuclear waste up and out of earth's orbit, to then engage a simple navigation system to put the fifty-five gallon drum on a trajectory towards the sun ... to be burned up and disposed of. To do the research and then to write a feasibility report (the idea is or is not doable) for such an idea is an excellent textbook, classroom problem. Let me start the ball rolling ... depending upon who's reference I read, it costs approximately ten thousand dollars per pound to put something into geo-synchronous orbit; nuclear waste weighs on average how much per pound; there are how many gallons or pounds of nuclear waste on presently on earth and also created each day, which translates into how many rockets lifting off each day, at what cost per day; what is the cost of simply storing hazardous waste underground, as we presently do ...?
Hey, it's an interesting problem to work through anyway.
Imagine perhaps a thousand or two years from now there are factories orbiting the gas planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, and these factories number into the thousands or hundreds of thousands. Each one of these factories have tubes running down into the gaseous atmosphere of these gas planets and vacuum the gas of the planet into themselves, turning the gases into whatever type of processed material(s). Given this scenario now, and considering once these factories are up and running ... will it only be when the planets do start to subtly wobble and then wander out of orbit will someone say, "Uhh ...? Houston, we have a problem."
If nothing else this idea could be used and included in a future movie plot/theme ... Movies today are quite bland and uninspiring, but I digress.
With regards to the propulsion system of future spacecraft comment, one practical idea I heard decades ago though have not heard NASA or anyone experimenting with is nuclear engines. Basically the engine is set up to control a series of four or five, or fifty, sixty nuclear explosions to be used as forward and reverse (slow-down) propulsive thrust.
Again, if nothing else, this idea would be an interesting problem exercise to read and work through inside a Physics 102 textbook. You know, for some extra credit, or perhaps someones patent is pending ...?
This is for the more ambitous student or group of students who would like a real-world problem to put their problem solving skills upon
Design the simple rocket that could lift a fifty-five gallon drum of nuclear waste up and out of earth's orbit, to then engage a simple navigation system to put the fifty-five gallon drum on a trajectory towards the sun ... to be burned up and disposed of. To do the research and then to write a feasibility report (the idea is or is not doable) for such an idea is an excellent textbook, classroom problem. Let me start the ball rolling ... depending upon who's reference I read, it costs approximately ten thousand dollars per pound to put something into geo-synchronous orbit; nuclear waste weighs on average how much per pound; there are how many gallons or pounds of nuclear waste on presently on earth and also created each day, which translates into how many rockets lifting off each day, at what cost per day; what is the cost of simply storing hazardous waste underground, as we presently do ...?Hey, it's an interesting problem to work through anyway.
Yes, of course we should mine the moon.
There are steps even the common person can take to speed our ascent into the solar system. And we should take those steps.
There are steps even the common person can take to speed our ascent into the solar system. And we should take those steps.
Consider the previous comment about the sheer size of the moon...removing gigatons a year would be insufficient to make any difference on a timeline we care about. The Earth is many times the mass of the moon, the gas giants are many times the mass of the Earth. These things are big, if we ever have the capability to affect their mass significantly, we'll be quite capable of dealing with the result. Also note that the planets are all constantly gaining mass as they sweep up the scattered dust and rocks in the solar system, and the sun is constantly losing mass due to its fusion reactions and the solar wind. It will be a long, long time before we could even begin to approach those effects.
Also, the planets wouldn't suddenly one day begin to wander out of their orbits. Any changes in orbital trajectories would be gradual and continuous, and predictable to as far in the future as we have processing power, patience, and interest to look. The effects would also be mostly limited to reductions in the perturbations of the orbits of the other planets...by that point, our own activities in moving such enormous amounts of mass around would drown such effects out.
The propulsion system you describe is known as Orion. It's feasible, big, and it's somewhat amusing that you're suggesting it at the same time that you talk about launching nuclear waste into the sun, as even the cleanest nuclear bombs produce some fallout. It's my opinion that the costs of a few launches would be far outweighed by the benefits, but it's likely that such systems will only ever operate in orbit, far from Earth's surface.
As for the nuclear waste...most high-level nuclear waste is still valuable fuel, with only a small fraction of the useful energy having been harvested. If burned more completely, the resulting material decays to radiation levels comparable to the original ores after a matter of centuries. Launching it into the sun is wasteful and enormously expensive, you need to get it out of Earth's gravity well and then cancel almost all of Earth's orbital velocity in order to have it hit the sun, and you have to put it in a container heavy enough to withstand a failed launch that results in it impacting Earth. It's far more sane to bury it until you have a use for it.
Also, the planets wouldn't suddenly one day begin to wander out of their orbits. Any changes in orbital trajectories would be gradual and continuous, and predictable to as far in the future as we have processing power, patience, and interest to look. The effects would also be mostly limited to reductions in the perturbations of the orbits of the other planets...by that point, our own activities in moving such enormous amounts of mass around would drown such effects out.
The propulsion system you describe is known as Orion. It's feasible, big, and it's somewhat amusing that you're suggesting it at the same time that you talk about launching nuclear waste into the sun, as even the cleanest nuclear bombs produce some fallout. It's my opinion that the costs of a few launches would be far outweighed by the benefits, but it's likely that such systems will only ever operate in orbit, far from Earth's surface.
As for the nuclear waste...most high-level nuclear waste is still valuable fuel, with only a small fraction of the useful energy having been harvested. If burned more completely, the resulting material decays to radiation levels comparable to the original ores after a matter of centuries. Launching it into the sun is wasteful and enormously expensive, you need to get it out of Earth's gravity well and then cancel almost all of Earth's orbital velocity in order to have it hit the sun, and you have to put it in a container heavy enough to withstand a failed launch that results in it impacting Earth. It's far more sane to bury it until you have a use for it.
Since this thread is about mining the moon...
It is likely that much of the mining on the moon will be done using robots. It would make economic sense to produce these robots using lunar resources, so robots will be building robots. An exponential growth of these mining robots is therefore likely. Since solar energy will be the main source of energy for lunar mining and production, it won't be too long before the whole lunar surface is covered with solar cells.
Given this, Would the moon's surface look any different from Earth? What would be the reaction of the general public to the the moon looking different?
It is likely that much of the mining on the moon will be done using robots. It would make economic sense to produce these robots using lunar resources, so robots will be building robots. An exponential growth of these mining robots is therefore likely. Since solar energy will be the main source of energy for lunar mining and production, it won't be too long before the whole lunar surface is covered with solar cells.
Given this, Would the moon's surface look any different from Earth? What would be the reaction of the general public to the the moon looking different?
EARTH FIRST!.... We'll mine other planets later.
-Dr. O
-Dr. O
QUOTE (Dr. Obvious+Mar 16 2007, 10:16 AM)
EARTH FIRST!.... We'll mine other planets later.
Good point, if you are discussing bringing the mined material back to Earth. This would only be practical for rare and valuable isotopes, such as Helium-3. I doubt it would make economic sense even to ship precious metals like gold or platinum back to Earth. Though it could be done with a giant rail-gun firing lumps of metal aimed to fall to Earth - but try selling that idea to the public.
It does make sense to mine the moon for use in space applications. It takes a lot less effort to lift things from the moon than from Earth.
Good point, if you are discussing bringing the mined material back to Earth. This would only be practical for rare and valuable isotopes, such as Helium-3. I doubt it would make economic sense even to ship precious metals like gold or platinum back to Earth. Though it could be done with a giant rail-gun firing lumps of metal aimed to fall to Earth - but try selling that idea to the public.
It does make sense to mine the moon for use in space applications. It takes a lot less effort to lift things from the moon than from Earth.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.