The Economic Development of the Moon
A Response to Plundering the Moon
Many scientists assert that Helium 3 would be very useful as a fuel for future fusion power plants. Helium 3 would burn cleanly and with little or no radioactive residue. When the technology to build such fusion reactors is developed, coupled with the ability to mine and transport Helium 3 from the lunar surface, a source of clean, limitless energy would be made available
Other dreams of economically developing the Moon involve mining it for materials to build space based solar power stations, which would beam the energy gathered from the sun to receivers on Earth. The prospect of either Helium 3 fueled fusion or space based solar power or a combination of both replacing fossil fuels should excite people who express concern for the Earth's environment
Not so Andrew Smith. He is not very clear as to why he feels this way. But he does make clear what he wants to happen in the last paragraph of his polemic. "Earth's sister has played a role in teaching us to value our environment: how extraordinary to think that the next giant leap for the environmental movement might be a campaign to stop state-sponsored mining companies chomping her up in glorious privacy, a quarter of a million miles from our ravaged home."
Extraordinary indeed. There is not even any caribou (or life of any kind) on the Moon to serve as an excuse for keeping the lunar surface pristine. When the Moon is economically developed, not one species will be endangered as a result. There are no species inhabiting the Moon nor will there be but for what we humans will bring when we return to stay.
Not that the Moon can be actually said to be pristine. After being formed billions of years ago, the Moon has been subject to bombardment by meteors, asteroids, and comets that has left craters and other scars on its surface. The notion that mining the Moon for Helium 3 or for materials to build space based solar power plants would somehow harm the Moon's aesthetic beauty is to have a unique view of what aesthetic beauty means.
One can be forgiven for suspecting that the true motives of environmentalists, whether they oppose mining the Moon, drilling for oil in Alaska, or building wind farms off Nantucket, involve less a love for the environment and more a hostility for technology itself. Modern politics has been driven, in part, by not only an irrational fear of technological progress but an antipathy toward corporations, fueled by popular culture, that make a profit off new technology.
It would be a pity if the economic development of the Moon, which has such a potential for addressing problems of energy and the environment here on Earth, could be stymied by political protest brought about by irrational fears. The attitude expressed by Smith is likely shared by many others. It suggests that the job of education of the benefits of the economic development of the Moon and space in general will be a long and arduous one.
Source: Andrew Smith Plundering the Moon The Guardian
Published by Mark Whittington
Mark R. Whittington is a writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo, Dark Sanction, and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington... View profile
- The Development of Modern ArtIn the end, it seems reasonable to argue that the development of postmodern art was inevitable.
- Effects of the Cold War on America and the USSRThe Cold War affected mostly just two countries. Here we will analyze both of these and what effects occurred to each country.
- Members of the International Community Pledge $30 in New Aid for Iraq United Nations officials announced that members of the international community have pledged to contribute $30 billion in aid to help stabilize Iraq. The promised aid is part of an international effort to stabilize Iraq.
- John McCain's Space ProgramWhat would space policy be like under a John McCain Presidency? Some hint of what the course of the United States space program would be was given recently when Senator McCain came out very strongly for the Vision for...
The Passing of NASA's Space Shuttle AgeThe space shuttle, once thought to be the solution to cheap access to space, will be retired in 2010 having never achieved that goal. However, cheap access to space may yet be a...
- Toward the Third Space Age
- The Case for Private Property Rights on Other Worlds
- The Economic Aspect of Japanese Colonialism in Korea
- Future of Space Exploration
- After Constellation: The New Future of American Space Travel
- Command of the Cosmos
- Spartan Government During The Catalyst of the Great Rhetra
31 Comments
Post a CommentThere actually are a couple of tangible reasons to discount mining H3 from the moon. One is that H3 would make nuclear warheads far more efficient and compact. The other is the sheer amount of ore required to get useable amount of the stuff, and the scale of the operation.
Far better to put up a Lunar Solar Power System - per Dr. David Criswell - and beam energy back to earth, to provide commercial electricity for about a tenth of today's price, and be able to rapidly scale the system up to meet world population demand.
H3 fusion production is not attainable with present technology. Solar Power Via The Moon is attainable with today's technology. In fact, it could have been built 20 years ago.
Check out lunarsolarpowersystemdotcom.
Wow. Do you people have any idea how much mass would have to be removed from the Moon to make a difference, even a barely perceptible one, in the gravity from the Moon, in the tides?
Think of everything humankind has ever moved. Every bit of building material, steel, oil, water, ore, glass, meat, whatever.
All of that, added up? Wouldn't touch the amount needed to be moved from the moon. The moon is 7.36 x 10^22 kg, or 73 billion *billion* metric tons. Just how much do you think even the biggest industrialist's wet dream could remove in a year? Considering that most of the material mined is industrially useless and would just be tossed to the side. But I know, that's more numbers and Barbie says "math is hard."
"I know we've all read Jules Verne's 'Time Machine' and his anecdotal reference therein about over-zealous human mining of the moon which resulted in a catastrophic destruction of our fair satellite. While that may be an extreme, do you really think it wise to play so 'willy-nilly' with something so important to the planet?"
Do you really think it's wise to get your science education from 19th century fiction? The moon is not fragile. It's not going to crack into pieces because we drilled a hole in it. If you don't know anything substantive about mining, drilling, or geology, then why should your opinion count for anything? Idiot.
Wonder about the longer term impacts.
How much of the moons' mass should be removed before impacting the movements of the oceans, as they are influenced by the moon ?
"When the Moon is economically developed, not one species will be endangered as a result."
Some species are dependent on the tide. If there is a substantial change in the mass of the moon such that the gravity change would considerably affect the tides, would those species have time to adapt or not?
This has not only to do with the mining of tritium, but anyhting else we uncontrollable humans may be tempted to do to the moon. Just some speculation, writing down of thoughts.
Environmentalism is about anti-capitalism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.
David Kous
Ha!!! I've got something constructive to say! What about your armpits early in the morning? I mean, do you cold-bloodedly erradicate those nice and mostly harmless Staphylcoccus, Peptostreptococcus, and other bacteria with soap and hot water? Do you wash this pristine, and untouched environment into oblivion, solely for your smelling pleasure? With commertialy available detergents and soaps? And can you reasonably deny that you do not apply a anti-prespirant chemical, deigned to thwart any further multiplication of the little critters, so the wasteland continues to be barren and lifeless? YOU MONSTER!!!!
Its clearly convenient to pile all environmentalists on the same mountain of crazy, but most people must realize that one persons erratic rant against moon-dust harvesting doesn't devaluate the arguments of those wanting to protect some of earths natural habitats against exploitation for short term profit.
Has anyone heard? It is consuming matter at the rate of 4.26 million tonnes per second! Per second, I said! It's worse than the God-damn Americans!