Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If you believe, they'll put a mine on the moonFollow

#1 Jan 30 2006 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Russians to begin mining lunar surface by 2020
Some High-Flauting Science Dealie wrote:
"We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery... of the rare isotope Helium-3," Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of the Energia space corporation, was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying at an academic conference.

The International Space Station (ISS) would play a key role in the project and a regular transport relay to the moon would be established with the help of the planned Clipper spaceship and the Parom, a space capsule intended to tug heavy cargo containers around space, Sevastyanov said.

Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium that can be used in nuclear fusion.

Rare on earth but plentiful on the moon, it is seen by some experts as an ideal fuel because it is powerful, non-polluting and generates almost no radioactive by-product.
Can they do it? Can we beat them? Should we bother trying?

I always figured the Lunar Agreement setting up the moon for the "benefit of all mankind" would go out the window the moment we found something there that would actually benefit mankind. Or at least a nation's worth of mankind.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jan 30 2006 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
****
5,135 posts
Sounds like a good reason for another war.

Lets kill them Vodka drinking bastards now before they can beat us to it!
#3 Jan 30 2006 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Can we keep the Vodka?
#4 Jan 30 2006 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
*sigh*

The only object in the night-sky that I can reliably focus my telescope on and now we are going to try to destroy it.

If we bring enough of the moon back to earth, would it make earth larger and the moon smaller and eventually earth's gravitational pull would make the moon crash into earth?
#5 Jan 30 2006 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
We always knew the first real drive to put a permanent presence on the moon would come from corporations; our governments are too busy with whatever crisis they're creating today to have an eye on the future.

As for the possibility of it - that quoted blurb says their plans rely on a ship that hasn't yet been developed. I'd wait to see how the testing on that goes before making wagers. Russia has had a great many space successes but their failures are likewise numerous. The explosions tend to be spectacular.

#6 Jan 30 2006 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Professor klyia wrote:


If we bring enough of the moon back to earth, would it make earth larger and the moon smaller and eventually earth's gravitational pull would make the moon crash into earth?


Not if we also solve the mystery of Majora's Mask.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#7 Jan 30 2006 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
Professor klyia wrote:
*sigh*

The only object in the night-sky that I can reliably focus my telescope on and now we are going to try to destroy it.

If we bring enough of the moon back to earth, would it make earth larger and the moon smaller and eventually earth's gravitational pull would make the moon crash into earth?


Hell, we could just take the whole thing back to earth. Anyone know how long it would take to move 80,850,000,000,000,000,000 tons of rock with a round trip of 770,000 kilometers?

This worries me greatly. For the most part, large rocks from space coming to earth is seen as a bad thing. I can see it now; some drunken space trucker is going to fall asleep at the wheel and crash 20 tons of the moon into the Pacific Ocean that will create a tsunami that consumes all of California, breaking it off at the fault line, ultimately sinking the entire state.
#8 Jan 30 2006 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
This worries me greatly. For the most part, large rocks from space coming to earth is seen as a bad thing. I can see it now; some drunken space trucker is going to fall asleep at the wheel and crash 20 tons of the moon into the Pacific Ocean that will create a tsunami that consumes all of California, breaking it off at the fault line, ultimately sinking the entire state.
I'm still waiting to hear about the "bad thing"

HEYYY-OHHHHH!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jan 30 2006 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Let's put a mime on the moon. That'll show those Russians.
#10 Jan 30 2006 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Professor klyia wrote:

If we bring enough of the moon back to earth, would it make earth larger and the moon smaller and eventually earth's gravitational pull would make the moon crash into earth?

I'm sure it would take an extremely long time for anything like this to happen.

I think Joph showed me a link to this one time, but no actually owns the moon regardless of our being there first. So if the Russians are going to do it, America probably will too.

I'm trying to figure how this is going to be profitable though. The costs of getting to the moon, let alone mining it and transporting product back, have got to be astronomical.
#11 Jan 30 2006 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
The earth and the moon hold the moon in it's orbit with complementary gravitational pulls. If you increase one and decrease the other at the same rate, you should continue to maintain a commensurate gravitational field, thereby leaving the moon right where it is.
#12 Jan 30 2006 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
I think Joph showed me a link to this one time, but no actually owns the moon regardless of our being there first. So if the Russians are going to do it, America probably will too.
Actually, and allow me to be the first to say I was wrong, but it seems that the infamous Moon Treaty was never ratified, including by the US nor Russia. I had always heard otherwise but I'd hope NASA knows about these sorts of things.
Quote:
I'm trying to figure how this is going to be profitable though. The costs of getting to the moon, let alone mining it and transporting product back, have got to be astronomical.
Pun intended?

My limited understanding is that Helium-3 would be a terrific boon in developing fusion power. Currently we've come close using tritium but we have to make our own tritium before we can use it since it doesn't occur naturally. Being able to lay claim to a readily availble supply of fusion materials would be quite the boon.

At the same time, the moon is a big place and it seems that the US should be able to find its own spot in which to mine. Treaties or no, it's not as if we're going to kick at a pebble and say "shucks" when Russia tells us they own all the lunar Helium-3.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jan 30 2006 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
"Mr. President, we cannot allow a (Moon) Mine Shaft Gap!"
#14 Jan 30 2006 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Comrade Wallace wrote:
Cracking Cheese Comrade Grommit
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#15 Jan 30 2006 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The earth and the moon hold the moon in it's orbit with complementary gravitational pulls. If you increase one and decrease the other at the same rate, you should continue to maintain a commensurate gravitational field, thereby leaving the moon right where it is.


boring Smiley: snore
#16 Jan 30 2006 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
+1 for the REM reference Joph.
#17 Jan 30 2006 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Klyia wrote:
boring Smiley: snore

You could have just typed "huh?"

We would have understood and not laughed, honest. He told me.
#18 Jan 30 2006 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Klyia wrote:
boring Smiley: snore

You could have just typed "huh?"

We would have understood and not laughed, honest. He told me.


I didn't mean your explanation is boring, I meant the moon not crashing into the earth is boring!

I actually rated up your explanation
#19 Jan 30 2006 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Another 500 or so posts in the assylum and you may gain the ability to follow a line of responses without needing to question their interpretive value.

/waits for response of "I was just making a joke..."
#20 Jan 30 2006 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Another 500 or so posts in the assylum and I may gain the ability to follow a line of responses without needing to question their interpretive value.


Here's to hoping Smiley: boozing
#21 Jan 30 2006 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Another 500 or so posts in the assylum and you may gain the ability to follow a line of responses without needing to question their interpretive value.

/waits for response of "I was just making a joke..."
Is that a job specific ability? Also, what is the macro command for that?
#22 Jan 30 2006 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Another 500 or so posts in the assylum and you may gain the ability to follow a line of responses without needing to question their interpretive value.

/waits for response of "I was just making a joke..."
Is that a job specific ability? Also, what is the macro command for that?


/gfy
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 312 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (312)