It’s 2024. NASA’s Artemis program is in full swing, and we’re hoping to get back to the surface of the Moon real soon. Astronauts haven’t walked on the beloved sky rock since 1972! A human landing was scheduled for 2025, which has now been pushed back to 2026, and we’re all getting a bit antsy about it. Last time we wanted to go, it only took 8 years!
Now, somehow, it’s harder, but NASA also has its sights set higher. It no longer wants to just toddle about the Moon for a bit to wave at the TV cameras. This time, there’s talk of establishing permanent bases on the Moon, and actually doing useful work, like mining. It’s a tantalizing thought, but what does this mean for the sanctity of one of the last pieces of real estate yet to be spoilt by humans? Researchers are already arguing that we need to move to protect this precious, unique environment.
There’s Moon Gold In Them Thar Moon Hills
Previously, astronauts have rocked up to the Moon with enough supplies to sustain themselves for a short visit. With plans being worked up for a sustained base on the Moon, there’s more interest in exploiting locally-available resources. This would help cut back on the amount of cargo required to be freighted in by rocket, which is incredibly expensive. Scientists have found frozen water on the Moon, lurking in craters that are shielded from the sun. They regularly remain at temperatures below -225 C, and could hold clues to how asteroids carried water to Earth. Or, they could be mined to sustain the needs of astronauts living on the Moon, either to provide water for drinking, or to split into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for fuel.
There are also hopes that these ultra-cool craters could serve as a useful base for a Moon-based telescope. Much like space-based telescopes, a telescope on the Moon wouldn’t have to contend with the distortions of Earth’s atmosphere, nor light pollution. By being so cold, it would be possible to build a highly-sensitive detector without a need for complicated refrigeration mechanisms as used on space telescopes like the JWST. A large telescope built in a Moon crater could potentially help us image the surfaces of distant planets similar to our own.
There’s also the prospect of finding useful minerals to bring back to Earth. Prime candidates are rare-earth elements and helium-3 deposits that could be useful for fusion power generation. The latter can be readily found on Earth, and the latter isn’t particularly useful until we have viable commercial fusion reactors. However, scientists and engineers are always planning ahead, and there are researchers working on concepts for how these resources could be obtained on the Moon and brought back to Earth for gainful exploitation.
The problem with mining is that it tends to disrupt the environment a bit. Or a lot, depending on how deep you go digging and how you go about it. On Earth, humanity has started to manage this problem. Many countries now require environmental assessments and strict approvals processes to be passed before new mining projects can begin. To some degree, this keeps mining activity in check, and helps preserve the environment. Sadly, plenty of environmental damage still occurs due to mining, but we’re at least aware of the problem and doing something to rein it in.
On the Moon, though, it’s an altogether different situation. The Moon isn’t the property of any one nation, nor does it fall neatly within one country’s borders. The Artemis Accords were developed to solve this problem, being a set of “Principles for Cooperation In The Civil Exploration And Use Of The Moon, Mars, Comets and Asteroids For Peaceful Purposes.” Much like earlier space treaties, they enshrine cooperation and mutual respect as core tenets, and aim to avoid conflict or military uses of such areas or resources. They also commit nations to support each other through the use of interoperable standards wherever possible, and in rescue and provision of emergency assistance to each other’s astronauts.
Scientists hope that in a similar spirit, nations might respect the status of the Moon as a precious and unspoiled place. Concerns have been raised that mining operations could disrupt the natural environment, compromising efforts to study the Moon as it stands today. For example, water mining operations could destroy vital clues to the history of our solar system, buried deep in lunar ice. Increased activity in the Moon’s orbit could disrupt science efforts, too. With more satellites orbiting around the Moon in support of new operations, there’s a risk that future radio astronomy efforts on the Moon’s far side could be disrupted by spurious emissions. The area has been set aside as a “radio quiet zone” since 1971 by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), but the rules don’t take into account the increased prevalence of new satellites.
For now, only a few sites are protected under the Artemis Accords. Historic artifacts left behind by the Apollo missions are the main example—no surprise given the importance of the first Moon missions. However, the accords don’t provide any real protection for areas of potential interest to scientists. Thus, it’s possible areas of great research value could be spoiled by the forward march of human mining operations.
There is a hope that this will change. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is on the case. It hopes to clearly define which areas of the Moon should be preserved for further research. It also plans to improve upon the ITU’s work in protecting the radio silence on the far side of the Moon, by creating clear rules for what’s okay, and what isn’t. A working group, led by astronomer Richard Green, held its first meeting on the matter last year.
Given we haven’t landed on the Moon yet, this might seem a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The problem is, once crucial sites on the Moon are mined or otherwise interfered with, crucial science could be lost forever. Thus, it’s important to have all this figured out before humans return to the Moon in any major way. Here’s hoping scientists can protect what’s important as humanity takes baby steps towards maybe, one day, spreading itself beyond this Earth.
“Now, somehow, it’s harder,”
The difference lies in the goals.
The original moon race was to get people to the moon and back safely.
Artemis is about getting people to the moon and staying there.
It’s the difference between building the first ever airplane in your backyard and building a company that can crank out airplanes by the thousands.
Doing a task is often simple. Making a factory to do the same task is greatly more difficult.
Getting to the moon the first time around was damned hard.
Getting there and staying there while building the infrastructure for continuing work is many times more “damned hard.” It’s like “damned hard” squared or cubed.
They weren’t just once there, though, but multiple times. With 50 years old tech. 🙂👍
Apollo 8 (in moon orbit), Apollo 10 (in moon orbit), Apollo 11 (first landing), Apollo 12, 13 (yikes), 14, 15, 16, 17..
Just to name a few.
They weren’t there with 50 year old tech. They were there with brand new tech.
I don’t know if you (Joshua) were falling into this pattern of thinking, but humans have a tendency to think of the past as though all the things they had at the time were as those things are now. The Victorians didn’t fear their chairs breaking, medieval people didn’t wear only brown, Romans didn’t live in ruins.
Everything is relative. 🤷♂️
And everyone can see from different perspective.
Speed for light for example.
Light of an object 10 light years away from us does take 10 years to reach us. But only from our perspective.
Because if the light was sentinent, it wouldn’t experience a 10 years travel time.
So everything depends on perspective, and neither may be wrong.
Or on Earth, if you go west just long enough, you’ll end up in the east.
So telling someone that wants to reach a certain place in the east to go a long route that goes west isn’t wrong. Just inefficient, maybe.
But maybe that inefficient route is less dangerous, also. So it’s not bad, either. Everything is relative. Even the term itself. ;)
Also, today’s tech is even more dated than the corresponding Apollo technology of the time of the landings, strictly speaking.
Because, we have same principles in common use since the 1980s.
The electronics parts, at least. We can do computer simulations, also. And new materials, can do material analysis more accurately.
We have a larger, proven basis to build upon, in short.
The Apollo guys didn’t in their time. They were pioneers and had no prior missions like that they could learn from.
The first satellite, Sputnik, was just started in 1957.
Everything had to be learned and done within a 10 year time frame.
Under high stress and pressure, which may lead to a higher chance of mistakes in general.
So it’s even more understandable why things are so slow. We had time enough. So much that we had time to forget, in fact.
Aren’t you the guy who a few weeks ago was talking about how Russia had a better track record, I subsequently pointed out Soyuz 1 (1 death), Soyuz 11 (3 deaths), the Nedelin incident (est. 100 deaths), and the Proton-M explosion in which some Boris literally mounted an angular velocity sensor in backwards, which it was physically designed to make impossible, except for Boris then literally hammering it into place?
Do you ever get tired of making it obvious how little you know, and/or how obvious it is you’re a Russian bot?
“Aren’t you the guy who a few weeks ago was talking about how Russia had a better track record [..] ”
Yes and no. Please calm down your pro-USA ego, please.
I just pointed out that the USA weren’t leading all the time in the space race during cold war, except for the moon landings when they truely were ahead.
They had Sputnik, Laika and Gagarin up there before the USA had any notable success.
Meanwhile, USA’s first satellite crashed down on ground while making “beep beep beep” when its rocket fell apart at launch time.
See Vanguard TV3.
Soviet moon and venus probes also were quite successful for their time. By contrast, USA were more ahead with their mars probes years later.
Same goes for shuttle program (STS), were the USA were ahead.
But that was because the USSR was financially on its knees already at the time. The prototypes of the Buran shuttle were promising and technological impressive. Unfortunately, they never had the chance to fly to space.
After space race ended, the USSR also were ahead in terms of space stations. They had the Saljut stations and MIR, even at same time for a while. By that time, Skylab had de-orbited for years already.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-USA or pro-Russian whatsoever. That thing wasn’t my war.
But for years, the western press always had downplayed the achievements of the USSR space program. Or just ignored.
In my older astronomy books, science magazines and school books, too, there was always being propaganda in favor of the USA. The USSR missions were barely even mentioned, not even their failures. That wasn’t fair, it was western propaganda sort of. Or simply ignorance. As if NASA was the only space organization.
And as a German, I simply can’t stand propaganda of that kind. The achievements of the former eastern blocks should be evenly acknowledged these days, as well.
Space exploration is something that we as a whole human race should be proud of, no matter the nation. Even if it’s, say, China or India.
Screw that. Why spend any time fighting to give Russia credit? No-one here is diminishing or disregarding their successes; why do you (Joshua) feel it necessary to stamp your foot and preach about it? Seems suspect- if your German, where’s your reference to Von Braun? What about the nazi’s contributions to space flight? Why “even if it’s, say China or India?” (making it sound as if you would ordinarily disregard success or contributions from those countries, but if it helps your argument in support of Russia, you’re “even” willing to give them credit? Sounds a little nationalistic on one hand, and on the other, sounds like a Russian writing a book called “Why Were We Forgotten? We’re Better Than U(S)” . Neither is impressive, and either way it comes across as desperation.
Also Other M: calling Russia Boris while listing their foibles just feeds more fuel to the fire- it insinuates that we westerners think of Russians as dumb brutes. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Certainly there were multiple Apollo missions to the moon.
Each was in basically a one shot, custom made ship.
Apollo was like Charles Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh
One and done, even though others did it after him.
Artemis is about building the industry behind today’s international airlines. That’s companies who build airplanes, companies that operate airports, companies who operate airplanes, companies who provide food for the passengers, etc.
Artemis is about all of that stuff that has to go on to make space travel as normal and reliable as airliners and sea cruises.
Imagine if Charles Lindbergh had first had to start Boeing and then Trans World Airlines before he could cross the Atlantic. That’s Artemis – all that other stuff besides just going to the moon.
“Imagine if Charles Lindbergh had first had to start Boeing and then Trans World Airlines before he could cross the Atlantic. That’s Artemis – all that other stuff besides just going to the moon.”
I understand. But right now Artemis seems to be more like Eilmer of Malmesbury than Charles Lindbergh to me, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilmer_of_Malmesbury
Thanks for the link!
I had not heard of him.
NASA as a science-based organization (originally–and continues to resist the absolute infiltration of partisan agendas when compared to many other federal agencies), has a long history of developing new technologies and (one of a handful that still do) basic R&D. Then the fruits of these efforts are given (free, as in beer) to industry, both commercial and government , who add additional resources to convert that science into products that improve the quality of life or protections thereof to directly or indirectly benefit the population that funds it. This is the main fact that is ignored by a surprisingly large part of the population and many that have avoided a Darwin Award long enough to be in positions of influence within the government that the people choose to authorize the monetary appropriations that fund those efforts.
That “50 year old tech” was the newest, most advanced of its time. Much of that ancient stuff was the precursor to today’s technology.
Small computers? Apollo.
Low power computers? Apollo.
Surface mount electronic components? Apollo.
It’s no coincidence that home computers became a thing in the early 1970s. Apollo had pushed so many boundaries that things that were impossible in the 1950s and 1960s became household devices in the 1970s.
Apollo planted a lot of “technology seeds” that have born fruit in so many ways.
Artemis is now harvesting the technology forest planted by Apollo. Artemis is possible because of the technology invented for Apollo that has become everyday boring stuff.
The smartphone in your pocket has more computation “power” than was available in a supercomputer at the time of Apollo. With appropriate software and connections to a spaceship, your phone could pilot you to the moon and back – with far more ease than Apollo’s on board systems. Your phone could replace all the computers (human and mechanical) that were needed to plan the orbits and burn times for Apollo.
Artemis is pushing our existing technology to the next level. It’ll make use of what we have now, and drive development in the future.
“The smartphone in your pocket [..]”
Oh please, no. Please spare me. That’s one of the simple mindest comparisons ever made (imho; I don’t blame you for repeating it).
It’s next to comparing a venerable 1950s mainframe to a shabby C64..
The greatness of the Apollo AGC wasn’t computing power but outstanding reliability.
Something no smartphone comes even close to that now.
The AGC didn’t stop to function, even if being extremely burdened (say, flooded with radar information).
The priority based design was one of the biggest reasons of that.
Second was radiation safe core memory. The program was hand-woven, it couldn’t be erased even under high radiation.
Now let’s do exposure hard radiation to any eMMC chip in a fancy smartphone and see if it keeps working flawlessly.
Right. The AGC had a world of difference in how it worked.
It doesn’t change the fact that your phone has a good thousand times the computing power of the AGC.
You could stuff half a dozen smartphone processors in the volume of the AGC, having each one run a differently implemented version of the required software, with voting to kick out any that crap out – and still have lower power consumption and more functionality than the AGC. Heck, you can add shielding for the phone processors and still come up with a module smaller, lighter, less power hungry, and more computationally powerful than the AGC.
The AGC was a marvel, and I really wish that some of its concepts had made it into modern devices. Your phone is still worlds more powerful.
“Now let’s do exposure hard radiation to any eMMC chip in a fancy smartphone and see if it keeps working flawlessly.”
You… you do realize they’ve literally done that, right? There’s an entire NASA project about it called, unsurprisingly, “PhoneSat.”
A lot of what’s been done since Apollo is figuring out what’s *actually* necessary to make something radiation tolerant rather than the brute-force approach, because you *entirely lose* the benefit of modern technology with the brute-force approach.
For instance, one of the common tricks with processing power being so cheap is to literally just do the same computation multiple times with multiple processors in lockstep and majority vote the output. Or obviously with sensors and such you just duplicate the whole thing multiple times. Plus the same trick used with the AGC still works – reset and get back to where you were as fast as possible.
Of course, the other trick that wasn’t even *available* at the time were advanced error-correcting codes, which are *really* helpful for radiation mitigation. I mean, the raw bit error rate for eMMC is like 0.1% – 1%, so they fail regularly even *without* the radiation!
Seriously.
Smartphone from 2011: 36 MFlops (36 000 000 floating point ooerations per second.) https://www.legitreviews.com/motorola-atrix-4g-smartphone-performance-benchmarks_1554/2
Apollo AGC: 14245 floating point operations per second.
A smartphone from 12 years ago is 2500 times faster than the AGC.
“Artemis is pushing our existing technology to the next level. It’ll make use of what we have now, and drive development in the future.”
Our technology isn’t that great, actually. It’s the same tech we had in the 80s already, just more polished.
It’s way overrated. And unnecessary. We don’t need smart technology, but bright people.
The reason we constantly argue about technology being unready is because of our inferiority complexes. It’s an excuse to compensate for our defects.
I mean, what do we still have with our fancy technology being removed?
The average individual can’t sustain itself, can’t live without it anymore.
It’s an addiction that we praise. Mainly the smartphone in particular.
But what exactly says the smartphone about its users?
Did he/she build the smartphone himself/herself? Or invent it?
I don’t think it. So why does everybody brag about the smartphone all the time?
The people using it didn’t have made any contribution to it, they’re merely users. Consumers.
An individual without a smartphone but a fresh mind is much more lucky.
He/she can find a solution to a problem on his own/her own.
Why don’t people say “See? Done entirely without the assistanceof a smartphone. And it works good.”
– And as a response, in a sane world, everyone would applaud and admire that person for being an enrichment for human kind.
For being a positive example of humankind.
Have you actually stopped to think what’s inside that dinky little phone you are so set on insulting?
1. There’s a display in it with better resolution and color than anything in 1980. To get anywhere close to the resolution and color fidelity with 1980 technology, you’d have needed a CRT the size of a desk.
2. The dinky little low power CPU you curse because it is too slow has more raw processing power than a supercomputer from 1980.
3. The 4GB of RAM your phone has would have filled a (large) room and required a massive cooling system to operate with technology from 1980.
4. The 64GB of flash storage in your phone would have taken rooms full of extremely expensive harddisk drives in 1980.
5. 2.4GHz transceivers were objects of military research – if someone had tried to build a WiFi system with it, there wouldn’t have been any point to it. The mobile processing power would have required a computer the size of a big truck trailer. The radio parts would have all been hand made and extremely power hungry – like, need its own portable generator for power.
6. The accelerometer your phone uses to detect when to autorotate the display couldn’t have been built in 1980. The MEMS technology to do so was still making its way through the laboratories.
7. The organic LEDs used in the display didn’t exist back then, either. Not to mention the “gorilla glass” that keeps the display from shattering and getting scratched.
Phones integrate a lot of technology and represent a lot of really hard work by thousands if not millions of people.
Put it this way:
In 1980, you’d have needed a university laboratory full of equipment to even begin to approximate that stupid little phone you can stick in your pocket.
As someone who experienced the advances of technology from the mid 1970s until today, I find our equipment phenomenal – and our use of it abysmal.
If you gave a scientist from 1975 the computing power of your smartphone, you’d get scientific advancement back.
The same phone in the hands of an average person just gets you another round of “Candy Crush” – or a rant on some website about how little technology has improved.
“Have you actually stopped to think what’s inside that dinky little phone you are so set on insulting?”
I have to confess I have never spent a single thought about how that magic brick works. Not a single time. I have not the slightest concept of computing history, mass storage, the working of LC displays, a field effect transistor, a condenser, skin effect or what an ALU is. I’m totally an ignorant here. Likely because I’ve nearly always slept in computer, chemistry and physics classes in school. Because all the comprehensive information exhausted my modest mind, making me tired early. Otherwise I couldn’t possibly have another opinion than the majority of normal people? 🤷♂️
“As someone who experienced the advances of technology from the mid 1970s until today, I find our equipment phenomenal – and our use of it abysmal.”
Yes, that makes sense.
I’ve noticed that in ham radio, too.
The old guys age 60+ threw their homebrew stuff away (literally into the trashcan), in favor of a mass-made high-tech radio from the catalog.
It was small, black and full of SMD parts.
Meanwhile, my generation was totally being fascinated about the idea that those guys had built all those complicated little gadgets at home in their youth.
Like those fine microwave horns, chassis with chamber technique for better RF insulation, or homebrew tube PAs.
Or their RTTY filter converters, their DIY oscilloscopes..
It’s like throwing a grammophone out of the window, in favor or a 5€ MP3 player.
That makes someone really think about the meaning of value.
And about how to interact with elderly people.
“The original moon race was to get people to the moon and back safely”
More a case of beating the Soviet Union to land people – they had first satellite, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first space walk… Kennedy needed something that the USA could be first at. I am so glad they stepped up and did it, shame everyone lost interest as soon as 12 showed it wasn’t a fluke, though 13 did pique the public’s attention.
“Artemis is about getting people to the moon and staying there.”
It isn’t even just “to the Moon and staying there.” It’s to “anywhere on the Moon.” Getting to the equatorial regions of the Moon is relatively easy. Getting to the polar regions is a lot harder.
The other point is that it’s often forgotten that the Apollo missions were designed to be *as easy as possible,* not as useful as possible. The mission and timings weren’t limited by the supplies they had, they were limited to ensure that the astronauts were only there during specific portions of the lunar day.
Plus, of course, it’s also about getting people to the Moon *affordably* (economically sustainably), which Apollo *absolutely* didn’t give a whit of a care about. It may seem weird to suggest a program that will involve 10+ refueling flights as “affordable” versus a single Apollo launch, but Artemis wasn’t designed around Starship, it was designed around Falcon Heavy and SpaceX just said “we’ll do it with Starship for even cheaper.”
“It isn’t even just “to the Moon and staying there.” It’s to “anywhere on the Moon.” Getting to the equatorial regions of the Moon is relatively easy. Getting to the polar regions is a lot harder.”
Use a rover to get there?
They had a solar powered rover in the Apollo day.
Can’t something similar be built?
Sure, how far could it be? It’s just a big rock, right?
The Moon’s basically *a planet*. It’s like ~2500 km from the equator to the poles. You’re gonna do that and back in a few days with no roads?
“They had a solar powered rover in the Apollo day.”
Battery, not solar. Apollo was entirely powered by batteries and fuel cells – didn’t have decent photovoltaics then. With maybe 100 km range and a speed of like ~10 kph. Obviously you could do something better now, but driving 2500 km is way harder than just doing more advanced rocket science.
“Plus, of course, it’s also about getting people to the Moon *affordably* (economically sustainably), which Apollo *absolutely* didn’t give a whit of a care about. It may seem weird to suggest a program that will involve 10+ refueling flights as “affordable” versus a single Apollo launch, but Artemis wasn’t designed around Starship, it was designed around Falcon Heavy and SpaceX just said “we’ll do it with Starship for even cheaper.” ”
Sigh. I’m a bit tired about the economy/profits/cost savings argument. It has become like an endless-loop, sort of.
If we have a look at the US healthcare system, the US competency in terms of “affordability” really is questionable.
Same goes for its humble automobile industry. If that country can’t even do manufacture quality cars anymore, like it used to do, how will it do master space exploration? 🤷♂️
Things could be really easy if people were willing to work together in a community. Like with healthcare systems all over the world, were people are willing to invest a reasonable amount of money into a common financial pool.
In an emergency, all of them will have a benefit from it.
Um, how should I do explain myself? The whole mindset of the US is reverse, from my/our point, I mean.
The research for cost savings measures may result in higher costs than just doing things properly.
Than just invest the money things are really worth. The country could use the money meant for military, for example. It’s many times higher than space program, anyway. The military wouldn’t even notice the financially loss, I suppose. It wastes masses of money all the time, anyway. A single missile may cost half as much as a Starship, not sure. 🤷♂️
About money savings, to provide an analogy, it’s like with a tool. You can buy one very expensive tool once that lasts for twenty years. Or you can be cheap on money and buy a cheaper tool (say, a third the price) that will last for 6 months and may ruin your business if it fails in the worst moment.
That cheap tool will you safe money on the short term, but cost you a fortune on the long run. The unwillingness to spend money may backfire.
PS: Sorry about the poor English. I’m not writing on an old PC with a keyboard, but a smartphone with a touch screen. Which is exhausting. So my posting quality is the direct result of our technological progress.
You realize there’s a space station in orbit representing countries totalling multiple billions of people working together, right?
You’re welcome to criticize countries spending too much on military purposes, but the sheer number of people contributing to space exploration now is far larger than any point in history.
That’s true, but there’s a lot more to it than that. We’re not anywhere near those mission goals yet and they are already running into huge problems which the original Apollo program would have had to solve successfully. They are not inspiring confidence in their ability to get to the moon, much less stay there.
“they are already running into huge problems which the original Apollo program”
The original Apollo program resulted in the deaths of three astronauts in the first attempted orbital flight.
*Those* were huge problems. These are nothing.
The problem is that Apollo was built by contractors who were under tremendous pressure to deliver on time. Currently NASA is plagued by contractors who fail to deliver on time and the costs balloon out of control. NASA used to be an engineering driven organization that delivered real hardware. It is a national embarrassment that we were not even able to get humans to orbit after the shuttle program ended and that Artemis is struggling and has now taken longer than Apollo to get back to the moon with all of our modern technology.
“Currently NASA is plagued by contractors who fail to deliver on time and the costs balloon out of control.”
Those contractors are on fixed-price contracts. They get exactly zero dollars and zero cents for things being late, and as a general rule, those same contractors are actually fronting 50%+ of the actual development costs themselves.
The one part that’s *not* on a fixed-price contract is the one whose funding purpose really has nothing to do with the space program.
“Could Moon Mining Spoil Its Untouched Grandeur And Science Value?”
China will claim the entire moon is theirs – exclusively! Then waddya gonna do?
“This time, there’s talk of establishing permanent bases on the Moon, and actually doing useful work, like mining. It’s a tantalizing thought, but what does this mean for the sanctity of one of the last pieces of real estate yet to be spoilt by humans? ”
I think it would make sense to build a small colony up there and create an archive of history of earth. An archive, containing human history, DNA samples, etc. Just in case if catastrophe.
Like a space monastery, so to say. Monks on earth did make copies of important books and guarded secrets of the past.
Doing this on moon might be ensure the survival of many thousands of years of music, science and mythology.
It’s not even required that moon colony inhabitants come back to earth quickly.
It would be enough if they’d survive and send back a probe or time capsule containing things.
They could help the remaining survivors to rebuild society from the far, like mentors.
Alas, such ideas will likely be ignored by arguing it’s not feasible or financially possible.*sigh*
I wished professors and philosophers of the 1970s were still with us. They’d try to convince people for the better.
A moonastary, if you will….
I like that idea of making big, safe(-ish) repositories of culture.
Honestly I think we should do that here on Earth as well.
I guess the problem would be you’d have to solve super-long term data storage. Especially with the moon, the amount of time to get back there could be thousands of years. You’d need to be making punch cards from stainless steel or something like that.
I guess it’s the sort of thing that could be done if there were people, and industries, on the moon permanently.
There are such preservation projects in place on the Earth right now.
How about the seedbank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
The wikipedia page mentions that other, national, seedbanks contribute to the international seedbank.
How about the GitHub Open Source Archive? https://archiveprogram.github.com/
It seems to be using the same caverns as the seedbank.
How about the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_the_Study_of_the_Preservation_and_Restoration_of_Cultural_Property
For that fact, how about Wikipedia itself?
There’s a lot of good that goes on in this world that nobody pays attention to.
Many national and international libraries and organisations have set up an maintain archives of all kinds of library content. Many of theses archives are intended to survive centuries if not millenia.
How did you manage to forget archive.org? Don’t forget though, that major portions of modern culture *and* scientific advancement are paywalled indefinitely, much of it will never be stored.
5D optical data storage would be a good choice for that. The data is burned into a piece of fused quartz with a laser. Fused quartz would last a very long time if it were stored in an underground vault on the moon. Whether or not someone can figure out how to read it thousands of years in the future is another matter though.
“I think it would make sense to build a small colony up there and create an archive of history of earth.”
You… you think the place to build a permanent cultural archive is the big rock with no protective atmosphere that gets smashed by other rocks all the time and is bathed in constant UV?
_Inside_ the moon. You do know that it’s hollow, right..? >.<
Has anyone thought about how that might upset the inhabitants? I heard that the ringing from the landing of the craft that has/does visit, is unbearable. Furthermore, the benevolent US government has never ignored or actively exploited marginalized (and/or indigenous) peoples to further their own power, wealth, or influence. Well, at least there was no mention in my Texas School Book Repository approved elementary education.
We can’t even make it to the moon again, but we shoot for mars?
🤷♂️
I suppose it’s because of Mars having an atmosphere and a magnetic field that both cause protection. A bit, at least.
Mars also comes “from beind” every few years, also.
So a spacecraft merely has to leave Earth at right time, up until Mars flies by. In simple words, I mean.
The moon is a stepping stone to Mars. We’ll get to the moon, then work our way to Mars.
Mars is a bit more hospitable, long term. It doesn’t have much of an atmosphere, but it does have one. That helps in many ways.
Yeah, and they won’t even use nukes to do it. It’s absurd, completely unserious.
“The Artemis Accords were developed to solve this problem…”
Not really. The Artemis accords may have been -intended- to “solve the problem”, but they are non-binding. Worse, China is not a signatory.
Preserving the aesthetics of the moon concerns me. Standing aside as the CCP eats our lunch concerns me more. Any mining operation we conduct is likely to be far more respectful of the environment in any case.
Because “we” are so much better than those pesky Chinese? “We” never accidentally empty lakes into underground tunnels, undermine entire regions so the land becomes unstable, or fail to maintain our dams? China may not have your best interests at heart, but nor do “we”.
I’m legally allowed to criticize my government when they do bad things. So yeah I’d bet money that any democratic nation with free speech is better able to protect the environment than a single-party nation with heavy censorship
False corollary. “Democratic Nations” have proven time & time again how much regard they have for the environment – especially when there’s dollars involved. State apparatchiks, with their necks on the line, may well be more likely to do “the right thing”…
You misspelled Oligarchy
In the real world, your criticism means absolutely nothing to what your government does, high-minded ideals are great but we don’t live up in the clouds, there is lots of evidence that capital interests pretty much rule under liberal-democratic governments (textbook liberalism, where private ownership is necessary to the concept of freedom). And you can’t vote out Raytheon or the insurance companies! Democracy in theory, might-makes-right in practice. There are myriad practical examples of this in the U.S.
Stripmine the Moon! But only on the farside.
Why not? Mankind has pillaged this planet, why not somewhere else, also?
Very piratophobic of you
There is nothing that can be done to the moon that will make it worse than it already is. There is nothing so horrid that some environmentalist won’t want to preserve it.
It just proves that the environmentalist movement is more anti-capitalist than pro-environment. That’s where the term “watermelon” comes from – green on the outside, red on the inside. It’s the ultimate in greenwashing. I’m sure you can figure what red I’m talking about, comrade.
If I could teleport my 2024 android phone back to the Roswell incidents , have the proper agencies decode it,, we would be reading these posts somewhere on Mars👽
COULD LANDING ON MARS SPOIL ITS UNTOUCHED GRANDEUR AND SCIENCE VALUE?
The tension between science and mining reminds me of the novel “Birth of Fire” by Jerry Pournelle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_Fire
The wikipedia write up doesn’t mention it, but the title refers to a plan that is carried out to give Mars more of an atmosphere to make it easier to live there. Not a breathable atmosphere (not immediately) but more gases to help keep the surface temperature higher.
Part of the story is about a research group on Mars trying to sabotage the atmosphere plans because they want more time to study Mars in its original state.
Other folks on Mars (settlers who have to build atmosphere domes for their farms) want the atmosphere program to run ahead full speed now.
Pushing the action are the repressive policies of the mining companies who only want cheap food for cheap laborers to work in their mines and refineries.
I’d hope humanity can manage it without actual warfare on the moon, but I’m afraid that people aren’t reasonable enough to peaceably settle things and stick to the agreements.
As being able to do serious research on the moon effectively will really require at least some people on the moon* and to mine it effectively would largely require that research is done first anyway. So using lunar resources to maintain a presence on the moon seems fine to me, at least at that scale. And its not likely to be economic for a very long time to come to really do more.
Now the whole internation politics bit is somewhat concerning, but I doubt it will matter for long – space stuff being really practical and substantial in scope is still a long way out and there are troubles enough at home right now that look likely to rather reshape the political landscape in the next few decades so significantly that it is quite likley nobody will have the ability to do anything or much care about space…
*at least if undertaken any time soon – maybe oneday AI and robotic platforms will be good enough to not need the brain or general dexterity/strength (with tools) of a human.
can’t go to the moon, there’s nazies there, there’s even a movie about that…
Doesn’t stop anyone from going to Florida
+1
Best laugh I’ve had all day
+1
“Could Moon Mining Spoil Its Untouched Grandeur”
Who cares? Better there than Earth!
“And Science Value?”
Would pollution spread on a celestial body with no liquid aquifers and virtually no atmosphere? If not then it’s not like mines are going to cover every last square meter of the moon. Surely there would be untouched places of all types of lunar environment for many generations after the start of exploiting lunar materials.
The Moon is a dead place, a completely barren rock without a trace of life on it. We even use the term “moonscape” to refer to a place that is so dead it reminds us of the moon. It is not particularly useful or practical to mine the Moon for resources to be used on Earth, but using the Moon’s resources to allow construction of habitats and spacecraft to bootstrap the colonization of space is perfectly sensible, and there is nothing that is truly worth preserving there. Note that even in the most ambitious possible mining and construction scenarios, a microscopic fraction of the Moon’s surface would be used for such purposes, and it would still basically all remain exactly as it is now. It would also be difficult to notice any activities from the Earth without a telescope.
With obsolescence in all we produce, when the colonies fail and we realize it’s too expensive for the benefit we could get, the big pile of mess will be washed to the sea. Hopefully, of tranquility.
Go ahead and spoil it. The remaining parts will become more valuable – ask any Realtor. Moon condos are where you want to be – people pay through the nose for the views and you can slap them together overnight.
All of that aside, the prospect of a commercially viable mining operation between gravity wells defies comprehension due to the sheer mass of equipment and material that have to travel out of one and reliably and safely into another. Was that your new reduction furnace that just missed orbital insertion and is headed for Andromeda? Refined lithium splashdowns on Earth should be extra fun.
The economics are another matter entirely – look at the copper and precious metals mines that open and close on a regular basis with shifts in the markets here on terra infirma, and think about the added costs and risk premium of orbiting that stuff twice.
This leaves only a couple of niche projects – high risk (“Go ahead and pollute the other planet – we’ve already done it here with our industrial waste”), and very, very unusual (read: “insanely lucrative”) things that can only be produced with hard vacuum, lots of sunlight, and feedstock from a planet/moon/asteroid that has already done most of the hard work by coming into existence in a more pure state. Those will most likely surface in terrestrial laboratories (in minute quantities) before they’re seen as catnip for the Belter rebellion.
And any means of delivering significant quantities of moon materials to Earth could be a massive disaster if the materials are accidentally, or maliciously, delivered to the wrong location. I can’t be the only one who thought of Heinlein here…
It would also be a major disaster if an airplane hit a big block of apartment buildings. And yet we still fly airplanes, and mostly they don’t kill people at all.
Studies on how to feasibly bootstrap space industry date back to the mid-1960s and seem to indicate that most of what you’re saying here isn’t true.
When anyone talks about mining the moon, I can’t help but think of the, “we did go too far” scene from the 2002 remake of the time machine.
Is there really an economic case for mining anything on the moon?
A lot of the lunar mining studies basically look at economic feasibility not for return to Earth, but for in-situ resource utilization. Generally most of them are pretty close to viability under strong enough assumptions – robotic operation, for instance, and “free prospecting” (as in, government figures out where stuff is for you).
Put more straightforward, what they’re saying is that for the Moon, one of the best financial options is… a gas station.
A gas station- if you want to stay on the moon- it is still a pretty deep gravity well. Daniel Suarez in the book “Delta-V” explored this pretty well.
Nah, lifting from the Moon’s dramatically simpler. A lot of launch mechanisms work from the Moon that won’t on Earth. A space elevator to a Lagrange point can be made with kevlar, for instance.
>ctrl-F
>”Uranium”
>Zero results
No there isn’t
i think this phrase, from the article, brings my tension with its frame into focus: “the sanctity of one of the last pieces of real estate yet to be spoilt by humans?”
the moon is a new frontier. the fact that we are still looking at new frontiers after all that has already happened on Earth suggests we will always be looking at new frontiers (until extinction, at least). so “last” isn’t really appropriate.
for better or worse.
Because since the 20th century the western world has had a crisis of identity concerning the expression of their own will
Opinion: Unless there is a concerted effort it’s unlikely to make a difference in the unassisted eyeball view from Earth. Look at the photos people take from ISS of Earth. They are just a few hundred kilometers away and you have to be looking for signs of human structures to see them. The moon is more than two orders of magnitude farther away than that. Unless Dominos bulldozes their logo into an area the size of a small country you aren’t going to see it.
For the loss of science value, that is a real thing. Right now, today, it’s relatively pristine, barring the Apollo detritus, a handfull of landers, and the unlucky particles whipped off our atmosphere by the solar wind. That said, I struggle to believe that blemished virginity is worth the tradeoff of *not* sending thousands or millions of people to live and work the moon. Yes, we’ll dirty up the place, but we’ll get more lunar science in one day than have been done in the last three decades combined.
What I don’t get is how there are any sort of mechanisms for concentrating raw ore. The Earth has had 100’s of millions of years of processing to concentrate some ores- but that requires erosion, plate tectonics & volcanism. Saw an estimate that just 2% of the earth’s surface is not recycled through subduction. Because of that, most lunar material is the same as any other?
I see how some water could be concentrated through temperature cycling, and Helium 3 is available (because of the effect of solar wind), but what else would be economical to extract? Maybe some giant solar furnaces could melt the regolith and then some sort of fractional distillation, but we are still a long way (and a lot of delta-V up the gravity well) from there.
“Because of that, most lunar material is the same as any other?”
The lunar surface gets processed by a mechanism not available on Earth – asteroid impacts.
Nope. Hope and change, people.
On earth processing and concentrating ores usually involves lots and lots of water. But on the moon you could end up needing six times more water because with one sixth the gravity the settle time could be six times longer.
Unless of course some new techniques and processes are developed to use the advantages of lower gravity. Using the lower gravity to seperate the ores of lower mass from higher mass without water somehow probably involving centripetal force.
I’m pretty sure that shipping water up there for separating ores is the last thing they’d wanna do
That is why there are plans to search some of those places where the sun never hits on the moon … looking for native water.
I assume (maybe incorrectly) that new methods would be used to separate ore. I don’t think mining water from the lunar soil will ever be cheap. Water should be cherished when it’s found in a dry place that makes the atacama desert seem wet.
New vacuun based processes would be better because exposing moon ore to water will produce additional chemical reactions. But how do you develop new low gravity processes on earth. Maybe the near zero graviy of the ISS might help. But the processing should be executed in vacuum while ecposed to the harsh space environment (UV-C).
I guess the environmentalist movement needs a new venue to worry about. Let’s see.
No liquid water to pollute
No atmosphere to contaminate
No species to go extinct
Warming and cooling of the atmosphere is non-existent
No oil to frack
Any gases released would vent out into space
Everyone on the surface has to wear a spacesuit
There is zero co2 in the atmosphere
There is no greenhouse effect
I am supporting this and think we should give the environmental movement the entire far side of the moon…as long as they go there to “protect it”. They will have to figure out how to get their private jets and limos there.
Scientists aren’t going to be *going* there to study anything if being there doesn’t become economically sustainable. We’re not going to be housing teams of scientists on the moon in multi-billion dollar Apollo-like pure science missions — certainly not on any regular basis.