In the eagerness of some in the space sciences to explore objects beyond earth orbit are we ignoring a potential "gold mine" close to home and much easier to get to? Why would our moon not contain high levels of the same minerals and/or elements as the comets and asteroids many are seeking funding to visit. Historically in the quest for mining resources man has always gone for the stuff that is easiest to get. Some people say, well we have already been to the moon so lets go somewhere else. There were lots of places here on earth that were visited and then ignored until someone came along and found something valuable, now they are hot spots for mineral development.

I think we are being really stupid if we bypass the moon in our search for resources off the earth.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I think mining the moon for earth use will become viable once reliable space elevator technology is available, which I think Japan and the US are working on aggressively. Until then, it sounds very expensive to get raw materials back to earth from space. Perhaps until then, the minerals could be used to build moon-based settlements,

In the eagerness of some in the space sciences to explore objects beyond earth orbit are we ignoring a potential "gold mine" close to home and much easier to get to? Why would our moon not contain high levels of the same minerals and/or elements as the comets and asteroids many are seeking funding to visit. Historically in the quest for mining resources man has always gone for the stuff that is easiest to get. Some people say, well we have already been to the moon so lets go somewhere else. There were lots of places here on earth that were visited and then ignored until someone came along and found something valuable, now they are hot spots for mineral development.

I think we are being really stupid if we bypass the moon in our search for resources off the earth.

You forget that Moon is not that abundant in different resources compared to Earth...and the expences are there to go UP!
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon

But there is a Mission to put an asteroid into Moon's orbit...and a manned mission to it! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

They'll have to go some in the next 10 years then because the technology is not there yet to do that. NASA

That'll be interesting if they lose control over the asteroid, and it smashes into Earth, killing millions of people.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit though, if they try such an idiotic stunt.

So far they are talking about Bennu...only a 1MT!

Hiroshima was 16KT & Nagasaki was 21KT...so yes, there is a chance of put it in the hole... :/

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Here is a more professional backup to my initial statement.
http://www.airspacemag.com/articles/moon-firstmine-asteroids-later-180952272/?no-ist

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Here's the text.

The UK Daily Mail recently published a piece extolling the benefits of asteroid mining (before lightly tripping over some mundane, yet critical, technical details). The article leads with the headline: Single asteroid worth £60 trillion if it was mined – as much as world earns in a year. Should we chide them for such blatant sensationalism? Then again, is it blatant, or are they merely following an established pattern? Asteroid mining is a field with lots of hype but little sober consideration. To redeem the technique of in situ resource utilization (ISRU) from the realm of ridicule and science fiction and make it a routine aspect of space mission architectures, we must honestly discuss the difficulties of extracting useful product from raw asteroid debris.

As with every Solar System body of interest and potential use, I am firmly convinced we will eventually mine asteroids. In truth, if we do not take up these formidable technical challenges, there is little hope for any permanent and extensive human presence in space. As long as we confine ourselves to launching everything we need for spaceflight from the bottom of the deepest gravity well in the inner Solar System, we will remain mass- and power-limited and thus, capability-limited. Essential, low-information density material – spaceflight’s “dumb mass” of propellant and consumables – should be obtained from sources in space, rather than long-hauled (at great cost) from Earth. Only complex, high-information density items not easily made in space should be brought up from Earth. For most missions beyond LEO, the amount of dumb mass vastly exceeds the complex mass. For example, in a chemical propulsion human Mars mission, propellant makes up more than 80% of the total mass of the vehicle.

Media attention tends to focus primarily on two aspects of asteroid mining: extraction of water and platinum group metals. While water is probably the most useful material for consumption in space, platinum is often cited as a material whose principal value lies with its return back to Earth. The composition of asteroids – inferred from remote sensing (primarily precision measurements of the objects’ color) and laboratory studies of meteorites (pieces of various near-Earth asteroids) – informs us that both materials are to be found in these objects. While quite rare in most meteorites, water can occur in amounts of up to 10-20 wt.% in some meteorite types. Platinum (symbol: Pt) is a trace element in most meteorites but it can make up about 20 parts per million (ppm) of the metal fraction of meteorites. Although this sounds like a miniscule amount, it is orders of magnitude greater than the average abundance of Pt in the Earth’s crust (~0.005 ppm), where we find it only in rare ore bodies (most of which might ultimately be related to meteorite impact).

Water is the most useful near-term space product and needs to be targeted as locally obtained dumb mass. All accessible near-Earth objects orbit within a couple AU of the Sun (1 AU = 150 million km), inside the “frost line” of the Solar System (~ 5 AU, the zone beyond which water ice is stable). Some known asteroids contain spectral evidence of water ice, but they’re in the Main Belt – the zone between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Water in near Earth asteroids is chemically bound in clay minerals (geologists call these complex structures phyllosilicates). To extract water vapor, one cannot simply heat the raw asteroid material to 100° C, as we do with water ice. The chemical bonds that attach oxygen and hydrogen atoms within the clay crystal structures require considerably more energy (> 500° C) to break than the simple phase change of ice to vapor. Moreover, at very high temperatures, the released water from clay structures is highly reactive and does not remain as “free water” for long – it quickly combines with reduced components in asteroidal debris, such as troilite (FeS) and graphite (C), both common meteorite minerals. The sum of these effects results in an extremely low yield of water from asteroid processing, on the order of much less than 1% by mass and worse.

Low yield is not a problem if you have a high throughput of feedstock and a lot of it to draw on. Presumably the latter would be available at an asteroid, but the problem is getting processing equipment to the object. Hundreds of kilowatts of energy will be needed to make significant amounts (i.e., multiple tons) of product. This will require either enormous solar arrays or a prohibitively expensive (and yet-to-be-devised) nuclear reactor. Solar thermal energy (concentrated by concave mirrors) could provide the needed heat for processing, but the movement of material, the collection and storage of the product, and the power needed to operate the robotic systems supervising the processing stream, all require substantial electrical power. Then there is the need for these operations to be controlled by an intelligent operator (possibly remotely, if the time-delay in communications isn’t too long). For most near-Earth objects, time delays (running into minutes) will require significant automation and intelligent robotics. Again, such systems can be envisioned but do not yet exist.

Given these realities, it makes sense to develop the technologies and operational procedure for remote mining on the Moon rather than on asteroids. At 3 light-seconds round trip, the Moon is close enough that complex machines could be easily operated from Earth. There, we would learn how to handle large amounts of granular materials, collect and store the extracted product, and work out the difficulties of early resource utilization. Experience in conducting lunar ISRU is directly applicable to asteroid processing, including both the equipment needed and the procedures to be followed. Water on the Moon is present in the chemically unbound form of ice and requires only modest heating (to 100° C) for vaporization and collection. When attempting something as potentially revolutionary as ISRU, it makes programmatic good sense to start with the easy stuff first (lunar polar ice) and work up to the more difficult things (asteroid mining) later.

Platinum extraction from asteroids is even dicier. In asteroids, platinum is intimately mixed with other iron-loving metals (called “siderophile” elements). To extract Pt from asteroidal material, we must remove its alloyed iron and nickel (which is 99.9% by mass of the asteroid metal). One approach is the Mond process, named for Ludwig Mond, the chemical engineer who developed it (curiously, Mond means Moon in German). In this time-tested technique, heated carbon monoxide is passed over metallic granular material at modestly high temperatures (~100° C) under pressures of up to 10 atmospheres. The gas interacts with the iron-nickel and forms vaporous iron and nickel carbonyls, which can then be removed from the particle bed and condensed as metal films. The residue from this process forms a dust enriched in Pt (about 0.5 wt.%) along with many other siderophile elements. After collection, this enriched residue dust would be sent back to Earth for further processing.

Once again, this procedure is simple in principle, but doing such processing in space, millions of kilometers from the Earth, raises many difficult questions, the answers to which are mostly unknown. How could we collect and store the gaseous iron and nickel carbonyls? With no gravity, magnetic field separation might be useful, but this again requires high power and complex machinery to separate the components. The containment vessel must be isolated from other components and unreacted feedstock must be cleared and recycled or discarded; can such delicate and complex operations be automated? Having humans in the control loop might answer a lot of these problems, but the most valuable asteroid might not be close to the Earth – out of reach for human missions, at least in the early stages of asteroid mining.

I outline these difficulties not to cast doubt on the feasibility of mining in space, but rather to point out that in complex fields of endeavor, we should crawl before trying to walk and walk before attempting to run. Extracting and making useful materials from space resources is an engaging challenge, one whose mastery can change the paradigm of spaceflight. We are fortunate to have within our near grasp, a Moon that possesses abundant “dumb mass” – those resources needed to both create new space faring capability and to perfect the skills and techniques we will need to reach, secure and use the wealth of the Solar System.

For additional information on the Moon vs. asteroids as our next space destination, please see my three-part series:

Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part I: Operational Considerations

Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part II: Scientific Considerations

Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part III: Resource Utilization Considerations



Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/articles/moon-firstmine-asteroids-later-180952272/#ixzz3KQUNFtvz


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/articles/moon-firstmine-asteroids-later-180952272/#1hsqY2r6FoFdluFT.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

It would be a lot cheaper than a trip to Mars. Makes way more sense to me to have a moon base for further exploration of planets

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

It would be a lot cheaper than a trip to Mars. Makes way more sense to me to have a moon base for further exploration of planets

+ Moon is viable to have a Space elevator designed system... ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Some things get boring, other things are more fascinating.

Is this because of the subject, or is it because of the writer or narrator?

Is it perhaps because a thread title is misleading, but not what you may be able to read when accessing it?

Not meant for Chris S.

You decide.

BTW: One of BobDeWoody's better posts if you happen to have the time.

Sorry Bob, forgot the blank in your name.

Blame my bad hands.

I have read on "Nature" magazine of 26 November that a UK Consortium called Lunar Mission One is collecting money in order to launch a mission to the Moon in 2024. It aims to collect one million US dollars by December 17 and Nature says it has already received half of it.
The mission would cost a total of one billion dollars and aims to drill a hole at the lunar South Pole to find if there is ice in it below the surface.
Tullio

---

Another good reason to reconsider a moon program. Just how many manned missions would anybody including NASA be sending out, or for that matter missions to Mars in the next 20-30 years. Are we going to stop training new astronauts in the meantime? Will the crew of the first mission to Mars all be first time flyers? What about those we already have with only one or two being on the ISS at any given time. With a continuing moon program there would be a constant need to keep trained astronauts on the payroll and eventually some of them would be selected to go out to asteroids and Mars. Ground training can only accomplish so much. Imagine having an air force or a navy where all the personnel are trained in front of a computer screen until they are suddenly needed for actual missions. Silly idea. isn't it?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

A mission to Mars would take two years. Now astronauts on the ISS stay six months and come back. It would take at least another six month to study the effects of long time weightless on the human body. Shorter missions to the Moon would not be sufficient, there is gravity on the Moon.
Tullio

---

If I remember well since a long time has passed and I am older, the Apollo Command Module orbited the Moon with the third astronaut (Walter Cunningham?) and only Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin descended to the Moon in the Lunar Module. Then they climbed back again to the Command Module and came back. So a Lunar Base would probably need a Space Station orbiting the Moon before attempting to build a Lunar Base. But just think of the problem of getting a nuclear reactor on the Moon to provide electricity, then finding some water or ice to get oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis. It is easier said than done.
Tullio

---

Ah yes,

It's time to dream again and to dream big:

I'm not just talking about weightlessness. I'm talking about hands on flying time dealing with all of the things that would happen in space. Would they be able to keep a group of would be astronauts on hand for decades without any real time in space? At least if we have the need to keep a couple dozen or more pilots and mission specialists employed the people with the skills needed would be available for selection when the long duration missions are ready to fly. In the meantime regular trips to the moon would keep the astronaut corps busy and provide them with a sense of accomplishment that they wouldn't get sitting on the ground here on earth. OK, the gravities are different, but all of the other conditions in space wouldn't have to be simulated in fish tanks. All of the astronauts I know of are highly motivated by the prospect of getting in space and going places off the earth. I can't imagine being able to keep 20-30 people trained and ready to go when only a few would ever really get to go anywhere.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I was simply formulating some ideas about the problems in building a lunar base. Nobody has taken care to consider what I wrote, because it is not easy to give an answer. How do you propose to build a base on the Moon?
Tullio

---

I don't have specifics but I'm sure the Chinese do, as well as the Japanese. From what I have read a permanent base should be built near one of the poles where it is highly likely that frozen water ice is plentiful enough to eliminate the need to bring water and fuel. Most of the initial construction would be from indigenous materials. Of course a heavy lifter would be needed to transport the pieces needed to build construction equipment. Landing supply containers on the moon should be easier than bringing a rocket back to earth on motors alone as Mr. Musk proposes.

Anything that is proposed to be done to set up a colony on Mars or land men on an asteroid would be easier to do on the moon. The moon has been struck by the same family of asteroids and comets as the earth for the last 4.5 billion years so why wouldn't the same materials be there?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

As I said, I would start by building a Space Station in Moon orbit. From this expeditions could be sent to search for water ice. If there is no water ice on the Moon, no base is possible. To build a space station in Moon orbit could take from ten to 20 years, depending on funding. All its part should be put first in Earth orbit, then transferred to the Moon orbit. The cost of such an enterprise? No guess is possible. If the Chinese or Japanese want to do this, let them try.
China ha put on the Moon only a Jade Rabbit, which lasted 24 hours.
Tullio

---

Problems building a space station are the same as going to mars but harder on Mars .
To generate power is easy as the surface temp on the side facing the sun is hot enough to make power and you only need to put the radiators in shade to cool them .
If you where to build a dozen across the surface reaching all the way around the moon you would have unlimited power no need for nuke power.

Water has been found on the moon .Hell water has been found on Mercury and look how close that is to the sun . Mars sounds nice but i see no reason other than saying we did it to go there , the moon would be a better place to train and test all space equipment

First you need to learn how to walk before trying to run or skip .

But America is all about publicity instead of national security or Science pity holly wood has so much power it stuff's so many good things up .

---