Effects of Mining the Moon

[Meow Mix]

Seeing the math would help me get a handle on this.

Orbital mechanics use conic sections. For instance for a flyby you would use a hyperbolic section, with an offset parameter determining where the object would pass by the target object at its closest (and if you set this parameter to zero, you get a collision).

With a nearly circular orbit like Luna's orbit, there are a lot of simplifications. I haven't done orbital mechanics since Theoretical Mechanics II, but if I recall, it's still pretty complicated. It's perhaps easier to just calculate the velocity of a circular orbit first (as it will depend on G, mass, and radius; so it will take into account whatever little changes are made to the mass of the object) and then use a brute force trajectory calculation.

Or you could go old school and use Kepler's equation, which is also brute force. Most kinematics in space are brute force.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Isotopes of Helium are theorized to be useful in some pathways for thermonuclear fusion (Helium-3). This can be found on the moon in more abundance and accessibility than on Earth; but the fusion technology isn't there yet. Still, it's important enough that China has declared intention to mine He-3.

Helium 3 is an isotope that is a byproduct of fission reactions also. We used to use it in our product where I worked, Inertial Navigation. During the invasion of Georgia by Russia a while back, they cut off our supply of Helium 3 so our company got an Executive Order putting us near the top for remaining supplies.

 

[Nimos]

Who talks about transporting it back to earth?

The moon is rich in iron and titanium, prime building material for space stations and space crafts. The moon's gravity is only 1/6th of earth's and the moon has no atmosphere (worth noting). I.e. material (especially magnetic material like iron and iron alloys) can be transferred into orbit with a linear accelerator.

Well assumed we would need the stuff here on Earth, doubt a lot of people would feel interested in living or building factories there, unless they are automated

But also you would need facilities capable of processing these minerals, the cost would be astronomical, probably much cheaper to figure out how to recycle all the junk and garbage products we manufacture here on Earth or spend the money teaching people to stop buying it And for some of the money that is left, find a cure for cancer and help fight starvation on Earth and the rest we could throw into figuring out how to do fusion rockets. Some we could throw into solving the climate problems. I mean, I think there are way better ways to spend all those billions and billions of dollars it would cost to be able to mine iron on the moon.

But that is just my opinion

 

[Heyo]

Well assumed we would need the stuff here on Earth, doubt a lot of people would feel interested in living or building factories there, unless they are automated

But also you would need facilities capable of processing these minerals, the cost would be astronomical, probably much cheaper to figure out how to recycle all the junk and garbage products we manufacture here on Earth or spend the money teaching people to stop buying it And for some of the money that is left, find a cure for cancer and help fight starvation on Earth and the rest we could throw into figuring out how to do fusion rockets. Some we could throw into solving the climate problems. I mean, I think there are way better ways to spend all those billions and billions of dollars it would cost to be able to mine iron on the moon.

But that is just my opinion

There may be some rare things up there we can't produce here that would be worth getting but overall I agree. Mining the moon or asteroids isn't going to benefit earth. The benefit of things on the moon and the asteroids is that it is not on earth so it doesn't ave to be transported out of the earth's gravity well at high costs.
If you want to have something in space (space stations, satellites, etc) it is worth the initial investment of a production facility on the moon. But the return of investment would be slow.

 

[Nimos]

But the return of investment would be slow.

I could see the benefits of a moon base like the perfect observatory, no atmospheric interference etc. Obviously for science projects, but it would be very good as a refueling station for missions to mars or other moons, planets in the solar system. A potential space defense program for finding and redirecting threats that could hit Earth, if that would be beneficial to have on the moon.

 

[Heyo]

I could see the benefits of a moon base like the perfect observatory, no atmospheric interference etc. Obviously for science projects, but it would be very good as a refueling station for missions to mars or other moons, planets in the solar system. A potential space defense program for finding and redirecting threats that could hit Earth, if that would be beneficial to have on the moon.

All valid reasons for having a moon base, though most of those would be better located in a moon orbit. Even though it is relatively cheap to escape Luna's gravity, no gravity is even better. But building those stations and satellites would be done with moon material.

 

[ajay0]

Trying to get a handle on how mining the moon might effects its orbit. Gravitational effect is based on the mass of objects. If we reduce the mass of the moon and transfer that mass to earth, will the moon's orbit be affected?

The Indian and Nasa sensors aboard the Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan 1 was instrumental in discovering water deposits on the moon in 2009.

This has escalated hopes of creating permanent habitats for human beings on the moon.

But later on I have come to read science articles hypothesizing that the moon is hollow. Some experiments conducted on the moon have also suggested the same.

Hollow Moon - Wikipedia

The Hollow Moon Theory; Is the Moon an Artificial Satellite? | Gaia

Based on these speculations I think mining may not be a good idea as it might destabilize the structure.

Permanent posts, human habitats and observatories maybe a good idea as they provide a vantage point of observation which would not be available on earth.

 

[Heyo]

But later on I have come to read science articles hypothesizing that the moon is hollow. Some experiments conducted on the moon have also suggested the same.

Hollow Moon - Wikipedia

"No scientific evidence exists to support the idea;" - from the article.

Hollow Moon hypothesis are just as bunk as hollow Earth hypothesis.

What would be nice to find are suitable Lava Tubes. There is a chance that some still exist from the ancient past when the moon was much hotter. Any permanent habitats should be far under the surface anyway to protect from meteorites and radiation.

 

[ajay0]

"No scientific evidence exists to support the idea;" - from the article.

But there are suggestions of the same from both Soviet theorists ( Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory) and Nasa experiments as well highlighted in the article.

If you believe Nasa reveals honestly to the public whatever they are finding out there, I would say you might be being gullible.

 

[Heyo]

But there are suggestions of the same from both Soviet theorists ( Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory) and Nasa experiments as well highlighted in the article.

If you believe Nasa reveals honestly to the public whatever they are finding out there, I would say you might be being gullible.

I don't have to rely on NASA. Firstly there are other players who could spoil NASA's fun and secondly, a "bubble planet" can't form naturally. (At least not of the size of the moon and with a significant space inside. There may exist smaller bubbles deep down and the mentioned Lava tubes.)
The "ancient aliens" hypothesis gets dismissed by Occam's Razor. Why should I unnecessarily multiply entities?
And then there is a practical reason, I wouldn't think too much about the moon being hollow and the structure could be harmed by mining activity: If the meteor impacts didn't do that already, we won't be able to scratch the surface for a long, long time.

 

[ajay0]

And then there is a practical reason, I wouldn't think too much about the moon being hollow and the structure could be harmed by mining activity: If the meteor impacts didn't do that already, we won't be able to scratch the surface for a long, long time.

It is actually the study of the meteor impacts that lead to the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory.

 

[Heyo]

It is actually the study of the meteor impacts that lead to the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory.

And it has been shown that they are perfectly natural. (And the practical reason is still the same. If the meteors couldn't harm the "shell", we can't either.)

 

[ajay0]

... hypothesis gets dismissed by Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic.

Statistically speaking, the odds of intelligent life elsewhere on this vast universe is pretty high.

New study estimates the odds of life and intelligence emerging beyond our planet

 

[Viker]

What's on the moon worth mining?

Water crystals, helium-3, rare earth metals like iron and titanium.

Lunar gold rush: can Moon mining ever take off?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Water crystals, helium-3, rare earth metals like iron and titanium.

Lunar gold rush: can Moon mining ever take off?

Iron is the 4th most common element. That one sounds kind of a waste if money to mine from the moon.

 

[Heyo]

Iron is the 4th most common element. That one sounds kind of a waste if money to mine from the moon.

It would be if you want to return it to earth. But it would be way, way cheaper to mine iron on the moon if you want to build a space station, satellite or spacecraft.

 

[Viker]

Iron is the 4th most common element. That one sounds kind of a waste if money to mine from the moon.

Non-terrestrial usage. It'd be cheaper/ more efficient to mine iron from there for basic purposes.

 

[Viker]

Water mined from the moon could power rockets.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is actually the study of the meteor impacts that lead to the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory.

We can't prove the Moon isn't hollow.
We also can't prove it isn't filled with cheese.
But we can reasonably find both suppositions
to be without value.

 

[JustGeorge]

We also can't prove it isn't filled with cheese.

If we can't prove it, its good enough for me.

I have so little to hope for these days... A moon filled with cheese seems valid.