NASA plans to mine the Moon within the next decade as part of the Artemis program

[MasterMace]

I've seen this movie before, No Moon Mining

 

[captaincranky]

I see the error. Try replacing the beginning ";" and the ending ";" with ":" and you'll be all set. For example, All the "verbal" emojis use the ":" character for delineation.

Super.! However, none of that serves to explain why all I see in your post, is the same little square I get when I try to post rofl

The emoji will appear in the post composition box > < but fails to show up when the post is made

When I type it out, the same thing happens >

 

[captaincranky]

While the abundance of minerals on the moon may be great, considering the cost to mine them and bring them back to earth is sizeable and a profit margin could be very slim ......

OK, the way I see it, is that NASA is just spouting a bunch of BS to justify it's likely outrageously lavish request for funding.

A bag of moon rock brought in $1.8 million dollars at auction:

Apollo 11 Moon Rock Bag Sells for $1.8 Million in Controversial Auction

NASA waged an unsuccessful legal battle to retrieve the bag, which contains traces of lunar dust, from a private collection

www.smithsonianmag.com

Keep in mind, this was completely unrefined material. So, if you were seeking a particular element for commercial use, (say copper to stamp out a penny), you likely wouldn't get the proverbial, "one red cent", out of the whole bag..Even if NASA auctioned off their entire stock, (about 842 lbs.), they would be very lucky if it sold for enough to offset the cost of the mission. (Adjusted for inflation, of course).

Now, we're talking about commercial quantities being brought back, which would have to have approximately the same cost per pound, as material, "mined locally".

Now, earth's gravity being what it is, and the cost of rocket fuel being what it is, a "soft landing" is for all practical purposes, "off the table.

My point being, the only way to get it back to earth with its price being a modest 10 times what it costs on earth, would be to smelt it down on the moon, and "hard land it", back here on earth.

BY "hard land it", I mean as a meteor, accepting the losses you would encounter by material burn off during its reentry. (Actually "entry", since it was never here to begin with).

That said, your trajectory calculations better be spot on, not to mention the cost of its retrieval from somewhere in the northern Canadian wilderness. (And that's assuming Canada would even permit it)..

So, FWIW, I call "Bullsh!t" on this story, and the premise it rode in on.

 

[Dunkerton]

Personally I don't think we should mine our only natural satellite that controls the seas, weather and even has influence on animals and humans.

I doubt that the mass removed from the moon would affect the gravitational pull it has on the earth by much - unless it exceeded something like 25% of the moon's mass which would be an INSANELY massive amount of the moon chomped out. Good point though, I wonder what amount would have an affect on the Earth?

 

[wiyosaya]

Super.! However, none of that serves to explain why all I see in your post, is the same little square I get when I try to post rofl

The emoji will appear in the post composition box > < but fails to show up when the post is made

When I type it out, the same thing happens >

Well, I see it Captain. Maybe it has something to do with your browser, browser cache, or the version of the OS you are using? Is this on your Windows 7 PC? If you clear your browser cache and still do not see it, maybe try posting to the "TechSpot Reviews and Features Discussion" forum? Honestly, I have no idea, other than what I said, why you are experiencing what you are.

 

[wiyosaya]

Now, we're talking about commercial quantities being brought back, which would have to have approximately the same cost per pound, as material, "mined locally".

The article says nothing about it being "brought back."

So, FWIW, I call "Bullsh!t" on this story, and the premise it rode in on.

I think you both are way off the mark here. On re-reading the article, it sounds like they are planning on mining (whatever) on the moon and then processing it there, too. From that standpoint, it makes perfect sense to be doing so because then they would not have to pay the exorbitant cost of fuel to get it from Earth to space, or, for that matter, all the steps in-between which, as you both note, would be astronomical (you asked for it - pun intended ). As I see it, it makes perfect sense to mine and process on the moon, then use the processed material to build whatever on the moon.

The key paragraphs in the article:

NASA will soon send a drilling rig to the Moon to get the ball rolling, and the Australian Space Agency is also helping to develop a semi-autonomous rover to collect regolith samples on the lunar surface by 2026. Additionally, larger-scale excavation is planned, including a pilot processing plant set to go online in 2032.

Samuel Webster, an assistant director at NASA, stated the rover aims to demonstrate the presence of oxygen in lunar soil in the form of oxides. Separate equipment will be used to extract oxygen from the soil, Webster added.

Despite what the common man sees, NASA is just not as dumb as the common man thinks.

 

[mailpup]

I doubt that the mass removed from the moon would affect the gravitational pull it has on the earth by much - unless it exceeded something like 25% of the moon's mass which would be an INSANELY massive amount of the moon chomped out. Good point though, I wonder what amount would have an affect on the Earth?

I don't know the answer to the question you posed but the mass of the moon is not static. It does gain a small amount of mass every day, an estimated 1000kg a day. Multiply that by 3+ billion years and it adds up.