Engineering News

You can't "unearth" something on the moon. You can unluna it, perhaps?

Also I'm perplexed how his propsed venturi would work. The lunar surface is essentially a vacuum. Not sure how he proposes to do "suction attraction" to transport material. Unless he means to pile it up into some kind of containment vessel first, fill that with air and then suck it up...?

<...lunar soil...>

Can it be labelled "soil" if it hasn't had any biological activity in it?

_{Just askin'.}

I don't see how this could ever be cost effective...What could possibly be that valuable on the Moon?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2012/02/26/with-latest-discovery-there-are-no-more-unique-moon-minerals.html

Well, there's a fair amount of scrap metal that needs tidying up:

Poppycock, or should I say bunkum, or maybe a dream to a far shore.

In ballistics used for spaceships the energy needed to be expended is expressed in deltaV. That is the speed differential you need to expend to achieve anything. Gravity among others is a main factor, but not all. If you have an old fashioned chemical rocket, the mass of the rocket will change massively, while the engines operate. With ion drives the exhaust speed is nearly 2 magnitudes larger, hence little mass have to be expended for the needed deltaV. Tradeoff? Low impulse = it really takes time.

Since 90+% of the whole task is getting out of Earth's gravity well, why go into another 1/6th gravity well at all?!? To come out later heavily loaded to spend and spend fuel again? Unbridled nonsense and public relations nonsense.

There was an announcement a few weeks ago, that a few people of Bill Gates stature announced mining asteroids close to Earth's orbit. If any, that makes sense in deltaV. If you have the time, you can get there on little expended fuel. That means robots. Landing back home is nothing new: aerobraking for finished products and spacecraft.

We already visited a couple of comets and minor asteroids. From one some material was landed in the Moiave desert, in grams amounts, I believe.

Telepresence anyone?

So who's to say they are not also planning on using the mined lunar materials to set up shop to produce the necessary materials for building other lunar facilities that people will work and live in?

The lunar soils have high percentages of oxygen, silicon, iron, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and other elements that are very useful in construction the stuff we need while there but have near zero value in being transported back to earth in volume for any reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil

I agree with you so far.

I recall, that Sun's bombardment of the soil there produced a lot of deuterium and tritium. T's price is $ 30thousand-100thousand / per gram. At that price that is worth shipping back. Deuterium I am not sure.

Shipping back T 100kg x $30k/gm = $3billion in that shipment. I guess, that is on the scale of NASA's yearly budget. Not shabby.

There is method to the madness in approaching meteorites too. Plenty of rare and heavier metal can be found on earth at meteorite impact craters. Nickel, chromium, vanadium, platinum, palladium, silver, gold, etc.... Take a 50meter one, that conveniently would fit into half of a football field. A smallish one. That would be 125000m³ = 2 million tons metal, roughly. If, only 1% is valuable (beyond Fe, Ni), that is 20 thousand tons. If it takes 40 years to separate and ship "down", it would be 500 tons per year mostly semiprecious metals to the market.

Since this exercise was a guesstimate, and the next is guesstimate:

guesstimate x guesstimate = near vaporware

Nonetheless, I figure, that that concentrated metal body may be supplying 0.1-1% of the world production of that metals. For a fabulous price. Dazzling.

Now, I have to admit, that I have set you up. Man's mind is rotten at estimating volume and weight. I guess, there was no evolutionary need for it. A modest 10m one would be more appropriate.

The other thing is, that such a venture has a fabulous price, way beyond a Darpa could dream of. Ultra high risk, high return, if.....and if.... and if....

Other than that, I would venture, that we can walk and chewing gum at the same time. Two venture should not confuse any simple minds. Rather, they should be Apollo1 and Apollo2.

-------------------------------------------------------

We see much further, because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Putting risk aside $30-$100 thousand / gram, your overlooking a very important issue. And that is the reason the price is where it's at is because of the scarcity.

Please do not confuse Earth scarcity with a relative abundance in Lunar soil. That is the very reason to be interested in a lunar colony's activities. Do you want to finance them from tax monies forever?!?

leveles,

confuse Earth scarcity with a relative abundance in Lunar soil.

Yes, you are correct, I am confused.

Your the one basing the price of the commodity based off of earths scarcity of that same commodity.

Or maybe I'm not reading you correctly. And look at it as a gold rush back in 1849 to advance extraterrestrial exploration. Like the boom towns in the west.

Gold rush to the Moon? With a shovel, a mule and $20 in the pocket? You are yanking my chain!

My question is simple. NASA had a long run at taxpayer expense, and overall I do not begrudge it. But, then they get back to the Moon, and start to build their fabulously expensive village from local soil. The roads are paved with gold, so to speak (tritium, at $30-100thousand/gram). Is not their obligation to send home some of the riches, or should we all ignore it, and ignore that science here needs it many different ways. And continue with pure taxpayer funded boondoggle fun.

That is a simple enough question for all of us, I would say. I am interested in your take.

My example of the 1849 gold rush was a metaphor, is this case tritium is the gold, and all who rush to make or get their take of the riches didn't. The actual riches were the derivatives.

And the derivatives were these, who made the actual riches, Levi Struass, Wells Fargo, ect..

Secondly, to touch off, I like to poorly quote Neil Degrasse Tyson, and that is; "Throughout history, it has always been governments that could afford to initially afford the risks to fund these types of projects"

And Tyson was addressing this very same issue. And yes those funds came from the taxpayer, and the reason why as Tyson put it and I agree, is that the Government is the only one that can afford to take these risks initially. As the risk are reduced, capitalism takes over.

All you said are truisms, but...

All, who shoot for the cheerleader, do not get her either (and the lucky one might regret it). The same is true for exploration.

One pharaoh some 3000 years ago sent out a team of boats exploring the absolutely unknowns in the pacific basin. Some traces remain on some islands and supposedly in chile.

Vasco da Gama aimed at circumnavigating Africa to get at East India.

The Spanish court financed (thru loans) the discovery of the Americas.

Was all that pretty to our modern sensibilities? Not at all. The more we go back in ancient history, the more hard, I say savage it appears. Some of us can stomach it as part of those times, some of us recoil, turn away and retch.

But, It appears, discovery is in the genes. The remaining choice is, that if we are part of it we may influence it in a maior or minor way. If we are not, only secondguessing remains. Good game, but fruitless. Blocking it entirely? Good luck with that, I am not buying any stock in it.

Profit is the motivation and mother's milk of all human enterprizes. You balance that motivation every day of your life. You marry on that basis. You may be soured on it, but that how life functions.

Whatever else I might think, NASA bringing back precious moonrock or tritium is something I consider fair return for my support. Otherwise, they are sponges, plain and simple.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature abhors vacuum.

The SpaceX rocket got scrubbed. It had some celebritie's ashes on board for a fee.

Tawdry? Yes. Life is not pristine. Life, like politics is the art of doable.

Doogan ashes were one of them aboard (who played Scotty on star trek)

James Doohan's ashes yes. And I think the best quote in favor of exploration was from Arthur C. Clarke, in the Challenge of Space. "If we fail to continue the exploration of space, we will have turned our backs on the summits before us and begun retracing the path down the long slope that leads back to the shores of the primeval seas."

In other words, we MUST continue to expand outward and upward, or cease to be human beings. If we cease in exploration, we lose that which MAKES us human. The curiosity, the drive for knowledge, and if we generate prosperity for ourselves and others, so much the better.

Dragon

I just read/saw a lecture, it was actual deals with statistics, and what was used with an explanation why civilizations collapse.

And the only way they can extend their existence is through innovation usally technology.

They were able to graph it which the graph is called a hockey stick it would start out small gain and shoot up and after the apex, sharp decline.. pretty interesting. It actually echos Arthur C. Clarke.

It was pretty recent, I'll look for it.

Exactly but before you can run you have to learn to crawl. Same with space exploration. They do bring back precious material, but the value is sceintific.

But yes, those who want to profit with no real input. Those I don't have no patience for.

Discovery is in our genes, I don't believe we can ever be satisfied.

Exactly, Tritium prized because there is a dwindling finite supply has skyrocketed in price just recently from $1000 a gm....and only because it is being used for fusion research as a source of 3He....

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-21/tech/mining.moon.helium3_1_helium-3-nuclear-weapons-fusion-research?_s=PM:TECH

Good link, I just read the entire link after I wrote this.

Some examples I like to share, Salt because of the scarcity it was used as payment to the roman legions, hence the term salary.

Being paid in salt today, I don't think that would fly.

Like salt, other Spices were the same. Earlier days that what drove exploration. And what is today's price of cinnamon compared to back then.

The problem or more precise, the mistake people make with justifying Extraterrestrial mining, is people think on terrestrial common terms. They shouldn't do that, instead think of Extraterrestrially terms.

Is there an element that would have an greater atomic weight (Lr) than Lawrencium?

Does one exist? Now that would be rare? But making it rare does not constitute a high price. The demand/supply ratio is what drives the value of the mineral.

With an abundance of minerals on the moon compared to earth. what would be set up would be simular to trade between country's on earth.

You got something I want, and I got something that you want.

Sure to get there, one may have to flood the market with rare elements such as Tritium. One can control the price like they do with diamonds, but would that benefit or take full advantage of Extraterrestrial mining. I can't answer that. No one can. but you're never know what you're going to find when exploring the unknown.

T(ritium) - D(euterium) is the easiest FUSION process. No wonder, researchers crave it. But the price is prohibitive and availability is in miniscule amount on Earth. Plentiful on Luna thanks the Sun's particle streams. Getting to the moon is technical, but not adventurous at all. Apollo did it a few times. Apollo brought back some 140kg moon rocks. So, that seems no real problem.

But, before going into this discussion, I want to make a principal proclamation. Folks, I did live in privation and damn scarcity. I do not want it again, no matter what clowns want it. The concentration Lagers and the Gulags, and later the Bataan march still haunt me. While I saw the last two only in documentaries, I met returning people from the gulags. People's cruelty against others seems infinity. And I do not want to go there. If there are some clowns here and now, let them set up their enclave, and lead by example. I will watch them closely, and praise them on their success right away. But, forgive me, if I do not hold my breath for it.

The last century was filled with prophets of scarcity, iustifying their particular brand of cruelty. I am, for good reason, for overall abundance. That frees the people to let thousand flowers to bloom. Yours for you, mine for me. And let us convince by example. I will pay close attention. In the meantime, abundance. And that is not theory, but a discussion for a different time, I promise.

There is a book out with the title, sorry, not mine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Those, refusing to learn from history, are bound to repeat it. My problem is, that my own grandchildren may be caught up in the same maelstrom. Damn their hide for it!