We should declare the moon like a national park (global park) and preserve it as is.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
226 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
72865 readers
1394 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
An airless desert impossible to reach for and with zero impact (even indirect) on the life of for 99.999% of people, with almost as much surface are as the whole of the Americas and which is entirelly devoid of life and always will be, is the last place you need to preserve.
Ew. This sounds like massive public investment in space for massive private profits in space.
Looks like we'll be at our Expanse style dystopia sooner than expected!
Rather expance style than say, the road
Well, if anything is going to get us there, and establish a permanent colony, it's corporate interests.
Can't wait for the first McDonald's on the moon.
Given the way our political systems works, they'll probably be selling air to workers who are pretty much slaves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's like we have learnt nothing, "let's strip another celestial body of its minerals then fuck off onto the next when we have had our fill."
The difference is, there is no natural life to kill on the moon, and if it turns out to be possible, maybe even easier, to mine for necessary metals on the moon then Earth-side mining won't be necessary
Also, being able to get resources on the moon without having to ship them there from Earth will make it much easier and cheaper to launch spaceships to the rest of the solar system.
So I have two questions from that.
-
How much mass can we remove from the moon until we affect it's rotation around earth?
-
What will the ecological impact on earth be if a dozen companies start launching rockets at the moon on a regular basis?
Mining enough to alter the orbit of the moon would require a pretty ridiculous amount of time and effort. Much more than our global mining efforts combined and multiplied and on a timescale of thousands of years.
And we only have to launch a few rockets, enough to set up a self-sufficient base which can then produce more rockets and fuel from resources on site. Not to mention it's much easier, and even feasible with existing materials, to build a space elevator on the moon.
But then we need to get the resources back to earth... probably multiple launches per week.
Well, first off, if the rocket launches from the moon, is that such a bad thing? Any exhaust would remain on the moon. Not to mention that lunar rockets are much much smaller than earth rocket. Secondly, we probably wouldn't use rockets for it, we would probaby use a lunar space elevator to skip the lift stage entirely and just have enough thrust to move the payload into an orbit that eventually gets to the Earth. Or we could use a mass driver, a massive coilgun that magnetically propels payloads to speeds that let it fall down to Earth in one go. For none of these do we need an Earth launch, the payload just needs to be picked up after falling to the Earth. With maths and timing you could probably designate a single landing area on Earth that all lunar payloads fall into.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Would it not be super cool to have all those minerals until we have extracted that much from the moon that it's orbit becomes unstable and then spirals into earth?
First, figure out how much the Moon weighs. The find out how much we mine form the Earth each year.
Second, the impact of dozens of flights a day will be much less than the impact of mining the Earth
Pollute the moon all you want, better than earth.
I think the shipping costs between earth and moon are ridiculous. Moon manufacturing only makes sense for supplying moon bases and transportation to other planets.
From Earth to the moon for sure, but once it's established, from the moon to Earth isn't as tough.
Wasn't the Moon's gravity low enough that you could basically use electromagnetic cannons to launch payloads from the surface all the way out of lunar orbit?
In the absence of an athmosphere and with only 16.6% of Earth's gravity, achieving orbit from the Moon isn't simply "not as though" as doing so from Earth, it's incredibly less so (maybe 100s of times, though I don't really have the numbers so take it with a grain) - just compare the full size (including boosters) and fuel payload of the vehicle needed to put 3 people on the Moon and those of the vehicle needed to bring them back to Earth (granted, the first vehicle had to also carry the second one, plus food, water and air for the first part of the trip).
Being at the bottom of a 1G well and having to also overcome quite a lot of air drag to get out of it massivelly adds up to the energy needed to do so, both because the whole getting out of a gravity well thing is a logarithmic progression (as you need to spend fuel to haul up the fuel that's going to be used higher u), so overcoming 6x the gravity doesn't just mean using 6x the fuel, and on top of that there are the the losses due to drag in the lower athmosphere which for example severely limit initial launch speeds (as drag is directly proportional to velocity).
If you haven't read it yet, try 'The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress,' by Robert Heinlein. It was written in the 1960s, so some of the tech is a teeny-weeny bit outdated but the story is still great.
I don't know anything about EM canons but between the moon having a relatively weak gravity well and being within Earth's gravity well, I'd think any method would be much easier to use when it comes to transport to Earth
Ok so I did a small bit of research and found optimistic estimates from groups promoting this of $800kg. You can’t just throw shit at earth, you have to put it down safely. In reality what makes sense is manufacturing stuff that you then don’t have to bring up to the moon, or to mars, or anywhere else off of earth. You build it on the moon instead.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ya less gravity to fight... I'm curious what the numbers look like though, it's gotta be much more expensive than bringing stuff over on a boat from China. What advantages would mining on the moon provide?
Independence from China
Why? If it is in fact cost efficient the Chinese will be there too and will do it better at lower cost.
Come on, they can just throw stuf down from the moon…
Man I thought by 2023 I'd be taking my jetpack to my moon meetings not arguing over whether we should strip mine the damn place.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Honestly I think a solar farm on the moon would be much better investing in at some point. I remember reading an article where a nation was experimenting with beaming energy down from orbit or some shit
Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.
Why do you keep saying that?
'Cause they pay me every time I do. You're so smart, why don't you know that?
Because fuck you, he's eating. Eating an extra big-ass fries.
I can see the war for the moon coming over the horizon
We must not allow capitalism to escape this planet
What does that mean practically, how can we pursue this goal?
Hasn't this mission already failed, with SpaceX and other private space companies already doing business in orbit and reaching beyond?
I say we go full capitalism in space.
The one place yet to be corrupted by capitalism:
SBACE
Tim Curry in shambles.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Do you want Morlocks? Because that's how you get Morlocks.
view more: next ›