I’ve always been a moon man myself. I understand wanting to go to Mars, and I hope mankind can pull it off in this century. I don’t see Luna as a launching pad, but I do see it as a much better test of what will be needed on Mars than an orbital space station.
We need to learn to construct things in a place where we have limited raw materials, much of which doesn’t immediately lend itself to construction. We need to learn to survive in a world without an atmosphere. We have to learn to live with lower gravity. And most importantly, besides just learning to live and survive; we need to figure out what we can do when we get there.
The Delta-V difference between the Moon and Mars is fractional to just getting to Earth’s orbit. But the days in transit are significant. If we can develop the means to make use of the Moon, then we will know what to take to Mars when we decide to expend the extra time to get there.
Lastly, there is no Earthborn natural disaster that can wipe out life on both the Earth and Moon. Just getting to the moon and establishing a settlement there protects our species from annihilation. Over time, we can save other ones by making habitable space for them. We certainly will want to do so for plants nearly right away.
I have been a believer that the eighth continent (which, since it was carved from the Earth, it is) is where we as humans should go..
Hickam hasn’t been keeping up. The notion that the moon was “carved from the Earth” has long since been given up.
By whom?
What is this new explanation for the Moon’s origin of which you speak to replace the Big Whack/Splat theory?
This is what I have been saying.
As a federally-funded agency with the most responsibility for our future, I believe NASA should make the case to our citizens that it is on our moon where we can open up a new domain of wealth for them and their families, thus justifying any expenditures in that pursuit.
No, as a federally funded agency it is the responsibility of NASA to preserve the Moon and prevent it being despoiled by corporations and the white patriarchy. The Moon should not belong to anyone and owning any part of the Moon should be illegal. We should be increasing spending on the Moon but we need no more justification other than science.
I am sure everyone agrees, or are you a racist who hates children?
(Joking aside, the only way to prevent people with these views from controlling the future is to reduce the role of government. But there are also a lot of non-marxist people who don’t want to look up at the Moon and see the evidence of human presence.)
I would be greatly cheered by looking at the Moon through binoculars or a small telescope and seeing the lights of thriving human settlements and transport ways in the night part.
But there are also a lot of non-marxist people who don’t want to look up at the Moon and see the evidence of human presence.
That may be, but I’d personally much rather see a human presence when I look up.
These people probably don’t get just how big the human presence would have to be to be seen from the earth.
Yes. But I do 🙂
And many of the people in favor of colonizing the moon are unaware of how important the Moon is to other people. Its like they don’t actually understand human nature.
Mars, Saturn, countless other heavenly bodies are not the same thing as something as culturally and historically significant as our Moon. It would be nice if people who want to go to the Moon actually respected it and its place in our shared human heritage.
There are solutions, like limiting development to the far side but some people seem intent on tagging the Moon like a graffiti “artist” tags other people’s property.
Oh, I can just see the ginormous COKE sign, blazing away each night….
/snarc
I think that was an A. C Clarke short story.
Well, if it is just a couple of neckbeards living in their regolith huts with their sexbots, then lunar society isn’t going to leave a mark. But if we are talking about spreading human civilization on a scale large enough for it to exist off Earth and to settle the solar system, then we can expect that over time changes to the Moon would be noticeable.
Try and think beyond a couple of school bus sized habitats and the impact of centuries of human development will look like. The Moon isn’t like Earth where nature is always reclaiming the land.
The Moon is a special place. Most of it should be treated as an international monument.
I think that was an A. C Clarke short story.
Nah, Heinlein. The Man Who Sold the Moon.
My own view is increasingly that NASA is not the one to task with going to the Moon or Mars, let alone settling them.
Rand, I agree with you regarding “safe is not an option”, but that does not mean I support idiotic unnecessary risk (and I doubt you do either). And that’s what NASA is currently doing.
For example, does anyone here think it wise to put a crew on your first flight of your life support system? NASA would never tolerate that from a commercial crew provider, and that’s to LEO. But, NASA is planning the first flight of the Orion life support system to be EM-2, a manned mission around the moon. Think that through; commercial crew is going to LEO, and in LEO you can get back to atmosphere pretty quick if your life support packs up. That’s not true for a moon mission.
Could they avoid this by simply flying the life support system on the unmanned EM-1 test flight? Yes. That’s why I call this an unneeded risk, and that’s part of why (Sheer incompetence plus hypocrisy) I think NASA being involved in any space settlement plan is a detriment to said plan. (the other part is if NASA is involved, it will take forever and cost too much to ever get done).
“The eighth continent is where I believe NASA clearly needs to set its sights for human habitation and suspend for now any fixation on a human-settled Mars which is no more real than the canal-striped version of Percival Lowell but sadly within the same dreamy context. ”
Can’t say I have always been a Moon guy or Mars guy. And always thought NASA is going nowhere. And have always been interested in other markets in Space. And used to be a CATS guy. And thought key was space rocks.
But apparently the Moon could have water, so in 1998, I thought NASA would do it’s job and quickly explore the Moon, but it didn’t.
Currently I think NASA should explore the Moon to determine whether there is minable water- so as to potentially start new markets in space.
I don’t think NASA should mine lunar water, nor that NASA should colonize the Moon- that sounds like a lot waste time and money- and lots of governmental oppression.
After exploring the Moon, and should require less than 10 years to do this, NASA should explore Mars OR explore elsewhere- could be Venus or Mercury. Or give me another choice.
I think Mars would be fine, after exploring the Moon. Mars has great possibilities and plus one has a strong fan base- and NASA only exists due to public support.
I don’t want NASA to colonize Mars- that probably almost as bad as colonizing the Moon. Plus there is no support from Congress to colonize anywhere in space- and politically speaking it is madness.
But bases on Mars would be needed. If could practically explore Mars without bases [and people are deluded enough they imagine this is possible] one not have bases on Mars. It seems government bases are needed for a number of reasons. But governent bases are not needed to explore the Moon to determine if and where there could be minable lunar water.
If there is minable water on the Moon in polar regions, one will get bases on the Moon- lots of them. And maybe NASA will have a few of them- but they are not needed to determine if there is minable water on the Moon. They needed for a lot reasons- assuming one can make rocket fuel at lunar surface. So all kinds of bases by all kinds of nations and all kinds of businesses.
But after exploring the Moon to determine if there is minable water, it might take a few years or maybe a decade or two, before bases and/or water mining happens. The exploration results might take time to be finished and in meantime NASA should be focused on exploring Mars [or something else- but let’s say it is Mars]
Mars is huge and we know little about it. NASA should explore Mars to determine if and where human settlements would most viable on Mars. Settlements on Mars are markets on Mars.
So I continue to think NASA should look for potential markets in space and does this by exploring space.
I don’t think NASA should mine lunar water, nor that NASA should colonize the Moon
Don’t worry about that; NASA isn’t going to colonize anything.
As said above, I think the Moon with minable water is viable destination. And we don’t know if the Moon has minable lunar water.
And if Moon had a frozen lake of pure water, NASA not make it minable.
Not sure NASA could if demonstrate that water is minable.
Or if pure lake of water is not minable, NASA could doing anything to make it minable.
I think lunar water is worth $500 per kg. Without lunar water nothing on the Moon worth as much as $500 per kg.
$500 per kg is 1/2 million dollars per ton.
1 ton of water is probably not worth 1/2 million dollar, the assumption of $500 per kg is the assumption one buy as much water as you want and when you want it and that is what is worth $500 per kg.
If you had a fixed amount, 10 tons of water at $500 per kg is better price than only getting 1 ton. And 100 tons is better than 10 tons and 1000 tonnes is better than 100 tons. But being able to buy as much as you want when want it, is better deal than buying a 1000 tons. A 1000 tons at $500 per kg totals 1/2 billion dollar. Paying up front with promise of lunar water is not as good a deal as paying for water when it is actually delivered, and best delivered when want or need it delivered. Or it might take years to use 1000 tons of water, or paying for 200 tons per year for 5 years, could be almost be as good as buying as much water as you want, when you want it.
So anyhow I don’t think there is anything on the moon which worth this much.
Let;s say you lunar iron rust to sell. Say you collect 1000 or 10,000 tons of Fe2O3 or Iron(III) oxide . Wiki:
“Iron(III) oxide or ferric oxide is the inorganic compound with the formula Fe2O3. It is one of the three main oxides of iron, the other two being iron(II) oxide (FeO), which is rare, and iron(II,III) oxide (Fe3O4), which also occurs naturally as the mineral magnetite. As the mineral known as hematite, Fe2O3 is the main source of iron for the steel industry. Fe2O3 is ferromagnetic, dark red, and readily attacked by acids. Iron(III) oxide is often called rust…”
I don’t think such ore, either Fe2O3, FeO, or Fe3O4 is worth $500 per kg on the moon, nor would pure ores of alumium oxides or any other oxides. though collecting pure Iron and or iron ore would fairly simple to collect, and quite simple to remove the oxygen for iron ore of oxides.
One could collect hydrogen and lunar H2 is worth much more than $500 per kg. And hydrogen can used to extract oxygen from oxides. And CO also can used to make iron from iron ore- and apparently there is also CO on Moon.
But H2 or Co is only valuable in terms of having and way to get O2.
Or if had H2 or CO it would make a large pile of Iron ore more valuable.
Now with 9 kg of water you get 1 kg of hydrogen and 8 kg of O2 and it’s possible the 8 kg of O2 is worth more than 1 kg of H2.
Or I think one sell O2 at $1000 per kg and H2 at $4000 per kg- or O2 is worth twice as much. Though maybe it $1000 per kg and H2 is $8000 per kg or more. If Hydrogen is much more than $8000 per kg, one getting close to a price that is possible if you ship the hydrogen from Earth.
And since use more mass of oxygen than hydrogen- what matters is the price of oxygen.
And I think say most important thing is price of LOX at lunar orbit- because again use more O2.
Or you have lunar economy where ship hydrogen or methane from Earth to Low lunar orbit and if had cheap lunar LOX at lunar orbit that could work.
So getting back to have piles iron ore to sell, it might cheaper to import H2 and/or CO from Earth in order to extract the O2 from the ore, rather than having a separation operation which mines lunar hydrogen and or CO.
Let’s say hydrogen on the Moon is 10,000 per kg. And got pile iron ore and buy iron ore at price of it’s weight in oxygen at $500 per kg. And lets assume one sell the LOX made at $1000 per kg.
And would compare to being able to buy water at $500 per kg.
I would assume part of lunar water mining is separating iron ore from lunar regolith. Because, it’s easy, it would have some value, and it lessen the amount material required processed to extract water from. So remove rocks and then with magnetic separation remove anything magnetic, leaving ore to remove water from. Though there could other ways of doing it.
If the focus was getting iron ore, it seems would skim or plow the surface and remove iron ore with magnets. Though one do same as mining water, and be interested removed rocks and removed magnetic material- and toss the rest- or further sort it and/or remove H2 and other gases from these tailings.
And it’s possible the lunar polar regions doesn’t have much water and might instead have higher concentration of H2 as compared to elsewhere.
Anyhow back to question would rather have cheap large pile of iron ore or water at $500 per kg.
Or water at $500 kg and cheap pile iron ore and pile of unsorted rocks. And I guess other gases, also.
I’ve always been a moon man myself. I understand wanting to go to Mars, and I hope mankind can pull it off in this century. I don’t see Luna as a launching pad, but I do see it as a much better test of what will be needed on Mars than an orbital space station.
We need to learn to construct things in a place where we have limited raw materials, much of which doesn’t immediately lend itself to construction. We need to learn to survive in a world without an atmosphere. We have to learn to live with lower gravity. And most importantly, besides just learning to live and survive; we need to figure out what we can do when we get there.
The Delta-V difference between the Moon and Mars is fractional to just getting to Earth’s orbit. But the days in transit are significant. If we can develop the means to make use of the Moon, then we will know what to take to Mars when we decide to expend the extra time to get there.
Lastly, there is no Earthborn natural disaster that can wipe out life on both the Earth and Moon. Just getting to the moon and establishing a settlement there protects our species from annihilation. Over time, we can save other ones by making habitable space for them. We certainly will want to do so for plants nearly right away.
I have been a believer that the eighth continent (which, since it was carved from the Earth, it is) is where we as humans should go..
Hickam hasn’t been keeping up. The notion that the moon was “carved from the Earth” has long since been given up.
By whom?
What is this new explanation for the Moon’s origin of which you speak to replace the Big Whack/Splat theory?
This is what I have been saying.
As a federally-funded agency with the most responsibility for our future, I believe NASA should make the case to our citizens that it is on our moon where we can open up a new domain of wealth for them and their families, thus justifying any expenditures in that pursuit.
No, as a federally funded agency it is the responsibility of NASA to preserve the Moon and prevent it being despoiled by corporations and the white patriarchy. The Moon should not belong to anyone and owning any part of the Moon should be illegal. We should be increasing spending on the Moon but we need no more justification other than science.
I am sure everyone agrees, or are you a racist who hates children?
(Joking aside, the only way to prevent people with these views from controlling the future is to reduce the role of government. But there are also a lot of non-marxist people who don’t want to look up at the Moon and see the evidence of human presence.)
I would be greatly cheered by looking at the Moon through binoculars or a small telescope and seeing the lights of thriving human settlements and transport ways in the night part.
That may be, but I’d personally much rather see a human presence when I look up.
These people probably don’t get just how big the human presence would have to be to be seen from the earth.
Yes. But I do 🙂
And many of the people in favor of colonizing the moon are unaware of how important the Moon is to other people. Its like they don’t actually understand human nature.
Mars, Saturn, countless other heavenly bodies are not the same thing as something as culturally and historically significant as our Moon. It would be nice if people who want to go to the Moon actually respected it and its place in our shared human heritage.
There are solutions, like limiting development to the far side but some people seem intent on tagging the Moon like a graffiti “artist” tags other people’s property.
Oh, I can just see the ginormous COKE sign, blazing away each night….
/snarc
I think that was an A. C Clarke short story.
Well, if it is just a couple of neckbeards living in their regolith huts with their sexbots, then lunar society isn’t going to leave a mark. But if we are talking about spreading human civilization on a scale large enough for it to exist off Earth and to settle the solar system, then we can expect that over time changes to the Moon would be noticeable.
Try and think beyond a couple of school bus sized habitats and the impact of centuries of human development will look like. The Moon isn’t like Earth where nature is always reclaiming the land.
The Moon is a special place. Most of it should be treated as an international monument.
Nah, Heinlein. The Man Who Sold the Moon.
My own view is increasingly that NASA is not the one to task with going to the Moon or Mars, let alone settling them.
Rand, I agree with you regarding “safe is not an option”, but that does not mean I support idiotic unnecessary risk (and I doubt you do either). And that’s what NASA is currently doing.
For example, does anyone here think it wise to put a crew on your first flight of your life support system? NASA would never tolerate that from a commercial crew provider, and that’s to LEO. But, NASA is planning the first flight of the Orion life support system to be EM-2, a manned mission around the moon. Think that through; commercial crew is going to LEO, and in LEO you can get back to atmosphere pretty quick if your life support packs up. That’s not true for a moon mission.
Could they avoid this by simply flying the life support system on the unmanned EM-1 test flight? Yes. That’s why I call this an unneeded risk, and that’s part of why (Sheer incompetence plus hypocrisy) I think NASA being involved in any space settlement plan is a detriment to said plan. (the other part is if NASA is involved, it will take forever and cost too much to ever get done).
“The eighth continent is where I believe NASA clearly needs to set its sights for human habitation and suspend for now any fixation on a human-settled Mars which is no more real than the canal-striped version of Percival Lowell but sadly within the same dreamy context. ”
Can’t say I have always been a Moon guy or Mars guy. And always thought NASA is going nowhere. And have always been interested in other markets in Space. And used to be a CATS guy. And thought key was space rocks.
But apparently the Moon could have water, so in 1998, I thought NASA would do it’s job and quickly explore the Moon, but it didn’t.
Currently I think NASA should explore the Moon to determine whether there is minable water- so as to potentially start new markets in space.
I don’t think NASA should mine lunar water, nor that NASA should colonize the Moon- that sounds like a lot waste time and money- and lots of governmental oppression.
After exploring the Moon, and should require less than 10 years to do this, NASA should explore Mars OR explore elsewhere- could be Venus or Mercury. Or give me another choice.
I think Mars would be fine, after exploring the Moon. Mars has great possibilities and plus one has a strong fan base- and NASA only exists due to public support.
I don’t want NASA to colonize Mars- that probably almost as bad as colonizing the Moon. Plus there is no support from Congress to colonize anywhere in space- and politically speaking it is madness.
But bases on Mars would be needed. If could practically explore Mars without bases [and people are deluded enough they imagine this is possible] one not have bases on Mars. It seems government bases are needed for a number of reasons. But governent bases are not needed to explore the Moon to determine if and where there could be minable lunar water.
If there is minable water on the Moon in polar regions, one will get bases on the Moon- lots of them. And maybe NASA will have a few of them- but they are not needed to determine if there is minable water on the Moon. They needed for a lot reasons- assuming one can make rocket fuel at lunar surface. So all kinds of bases by all kinds of nations and all kinds of businesses.
But after exploring the Moon to determine if there is minable water, it might take a few years or maybe a decade or two, before bases and/or water mining happens. The exploration results might take time to be finished and in meantime NASA should be focused on exploring Mars [or something else- but let’s say it is Mars]
Mars is huge and we know little about it. NASA should explore Mars to determine if and where human settlements would most viable on Mars. Settlements on Mars are markets on Mars.
So I continue to think NASA should look for potential markets in space and does this by exploring space.
I don’t think NASA should mine lunar water, nor that NASA should colonize the Moon
Don’t worry about that; NASA isn’t going to colonize anything.
As said above, I think the Moon with minable water is viable destination. And we don’t know if the Moon has minable lunar water.
And if Moon had a frozen lake of pure water, NASA not make it minable.
Not sure NASA could if demonstrate that water is minable.
Or if pure lake of water is not minable, NASA could doing anything to make it minable.
I think lunar water is worth $500 per kg. Without lunar water nothing on the Moon worth as much as $500 per kg.
$500 per kg is 1/2 million dollars per ton.
1 ton of water is probably not worth 1/2 million dollar, the assumption of $500 per kg is the assumption one buy as much water as you want and when you want it and that is what is worth $500 per kg.
If you had a fixed amount, 10 tons of water at $500 per kg is better price than only getting 1 ton. And 100 tons is better than 10 tons and 1000 tonnes is better than 100 tons. But being able to buy as much as you want when want it, is better deal than buying a 1000 tons. A 1000 tons at $500 per kg totals 1/2 billion dollar. Paying up front with promise of lunar water is not as good a deal as paying for water when it is actually delivered, and best delivered when want or need it delivered. Or it might take years to use 1000 tons of water, or paying for 200 tons per year for 5 years, could be almost be as good as buying as much water as you want, when you want it.
So anyhow I don’t think there is anything on the moon which worth this much.
Let;s say you lunar iron rust to sell. Say you collect 1000 or 10,000 tons of Fe2O3 or Iron(III) oxide . Wiki:
“Iron(III) oxide or ferric oxide is the inorganic compound with the formula Fe2O3. It is one of the three main oxides of iron, the other two being iron(II) oxide (FeO), which is rare, and iron(II,III) oxide (Fe3O4), which also occurs naturally as the mineral magnetite. As the mineral known as hematite, Fe2O3 is the main source of iron for the steel industry. Fe2O3 is ferromagnetic, dark red, and readily attacked by acids. Iron(III) oxide is often called rust…”
I don’t think such ore, either Fe2O3, FeO, or Fe3O4 is worth $500 per kg on the moon, nor would pure ores of alumium oxides or any other oxides. though collecting pure Iron and or iron ore would fairly simple to collect, and quite simple to remove the oxygen for iron ore of oxides.
One could collect hydrogen and lunar H2 is worth much more than $500 per kg. And hydrogen can used to extract oxygen from oxides. And CO also can used to make iron from iron ore- and apparently there is also CO on Moon.
But H2 or Co is only valuable in terms of having and way to get O2.
Or if had H2 or CO it would make a large pile of Iron ore more valuable.
Now with 9 kg of water you get 1 kg of hydrogen and 8 kg of O2 and it’s possible the 8 kg of O2 is worth more than 1 kg of H2.
Or I think one sell O2 at $1000 per kg and H2 at $4000 per kg- or O2 is worth twice as much. Though maybe it $1000 per kg and H2 is $8000 per kg or more. If Hydrogen is much more than $8000 per kg, one getting close to a price that is possible if you ship the hydrogen from Earth.
And since use more mass of oxygen than hydrogen- what matters is the price of oxygen.
And I think say most important thing is price of LOX at lunar orbit- because again use more O2.
Or you have lunar economy where ship hydrogen or methane from Earth to Low lunar orbit and if had cheap lunar LOX at lunar orbit that could work.
So getting back to have piles iron ore to sell, it might cheaper to import H2 and/or CO from Earth in order to extract the O2 from the ore, rather than having a separation operation which mines lunar hydrogen and or CO.
Let’s say hydrogen on the Moon is 10,000 per kg. And got pile iron ore and buy iron ore at price of it’s weight in oxygen at $500 per kg. And lets assume one sell the LOX made at $1000 per kg.
And would compare to being able to buy water at $500 per kg.
I would assume part of lunar water mining is separating iron ore from lunar regolith. Because, it’s easy, it would have some value, and it lessen the amount material required processed to extract water from. So remove rocks and then with magnetic separation remove anything magnetic, leaving ore to remove water from. Though there could other ways of doing it.
If the focus was getting iron ore, it seems would skim or plow the surface and remove iron ore with magnets. Though one do same as mining water, and be interested removed rocks and removed magnetic material- and toss the rest- or further sort it and/or remove H2 and other gases from these tailings.
And it’s possible the lunar polar regions doesn’t have much water and might instead have higher concentration of H2 as compared to elsewhere.
Anyhow back to question would rather have cheap large pile of iron ore or water at $500 per kg.
Or water at $500 kg and cheap pile iron ore and pile of unsorted rocks. And I guess other gases, also.