NASA is now accepting applications from companies that want to minethe moon

"NASA is now working with private companies to take the first steps in exploring
the moon for valuable resources like helium 3 and rare earth metals.

Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing
by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a
contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."

See:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:57:31 PM UTC-8, wrote:
"NASA is now working with private companies to take the first steps in exploring

the moon for valuable resources like helium 3 and rare earth metals.



Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing

by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a

contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."


See:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

That's about time. What was their excuse for waiting 4+ decades?

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:06:39 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth


Farside, nearside, either pole or its innards, is all up for grabs. China isn't about to go by any UN policy or "Outer Space Treaty".

Better late than never: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

Perhaps our NASA can't afford to hide their public-funded science and the associated technology, especially now that China has demonstrated how good they can get their stuff safely deployed onto the lunar surface. However, there's still more than a little something fishy going on.

"Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."

Not much lead-time for truly independent prospecting types to get in at the start, especially when proposals are due by tomorrow. No wonder they are finally looking much harder at ways of remaining functional and saving face at the same time.

"FACED WITH A SKELETON BUDGET, THE AGENCY IS LOOKING FOR INNOVATIVE WAYS TO COOPERATE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR"

Perhaps China finally did something that truly represents a competitive threat that our DARPA and NASA understands they'll finally have to **** or get off the pot.

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth

Why?

Do you also think we should limit mining on Earth to deep oceans only,
so it won't show?

Appearance aside, it might be quite beneficial to preserve the moon's
vacuum. This would be a kind of lunar environmentalism.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Monday, February 10, 2014 6:10:53 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



bob haller wrote:



limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth



Why?



Do you also think we should limit mining on Earth to deep oceans only,

so it won't show?



Appearance aside, it might be quite beneficial to preserve the moon's

vacuum. This would be a kind of lunar environmentalism.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

mmany years ago at the start of the space age the military wanted to nuke the moon to show what they could do.

one of the major reasons this didnt happen according to a book I read was they decided not to change the moons appearance.....

dowe really want to see the moon filled with mining?

On 02/10/2014 9:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth

Why?

Do you also think we should limit mining on Earth to deep oceans only,
so it won't show?

Appearance aside, it might be quite beneficial to preserve the moon's
vacuum. This would be a kind of lunar environmentalism.


Perhaps, but how much industrial activity would it take to damage
vacuum? And is the Moon's vacuum all that pure, anyway? It already
has a higher ion density than surrounding space, not to mention dust.

I have a dim recollection that each Apollo lunar landing would increase
several fold the density of the lunar atmosphere, albeit only for a
short period. It doesn't take much to do so. So I would guess that
even low level industrial activity on the Moon would probably
significantly damage lunar vacuum. Lunar vacuum is quite pure, though
as you say less so than surrounding space. Whether or not it is
worthwhile to protect it is another story.


Alain Fournier

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:57:31 PM UTC-8, wrote:
"NASA is now working with private companies to take the first steps in exploring
the moon for valuable resources like helium 3 and rare earth metals.

Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing
by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a
contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."

See:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

Do they really have any option, but to support off-world exploitation of our moon?

Is letting China and India with their much cheaper labor and thereby less than a tenth the cost for getting their tonnes of equipment deployed on the moon, a worthy risk of continually ignoring those commercialization aspects of exploiting our moon, worth taking?

Is there going to be a new round of WW3 threats over any of this?

China has 1.36 billion reasons to exploit our moon, and India has another 1..3 billion reasons.

The innards of that moon is essentially unlimited, and once TBMs have us underground is when that habitat becomes failsafe.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:57:31 PM UTC-8, wrote:
"NASA is now working with private companies to take the first steps in exploring
the moon for valuable resources like helium 3 and rare earth metals.


Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing
by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a
contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."


See:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

Better late than never: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/539...-moon-catalyst

Perhaps our NASA can't afford to hide their public-funded science and the associated technology, especially now that China has demonstrated how good they can get their stuff safely deployed onto the lunar surface. However, there's still more than a little something fishy going on.

"Initial proposals are due tomorrow for the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown program (CATALYST). One or more private companies will win a contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon."

Not much lead-time for truly independent prospecting types to get in at the start, especially when proposals are due by tomorrow. No wonder they are finally looking much harder at ways of remaining functional and saving face at the same time.

"FACED WITH A SKELETON BUDGET, THE AGENCY IS LOOKING FOR INNOVATIVE WAYS TO COOPERATE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR"

Perhaps China finally did a little something that truly represents a competitive threat that our DARPA and NASA understands, they'll finally have to **** or get off the pot, by at least supporting whatever private American investors are willing to risk in order to keep at least one step ahead of China or India, especially it those two combine their resources instead of competing with one another as well as against us.

At this late date and as agency underfunded as well as deeply in debt as we are, it's unlikely that everything our DARPA, NASA and USAF combined has to offer is not going to be sufficient when matched up against the disparity motivation of 2.65 billion others that will need those jobs and benefits of off-world exploitation a whole lot worse than us. In other words, they have less to lose and pretty much everything to gain.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 6:23:26 AM UTC-8, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 02/10/2014 9:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:



In article ,

says...



bob haller wrote:



limit mining to mostly the back side of the moon. so mining doesnt change the apearance from earth



Why?



Do you also think we should limit mining on Earth to deep oceans only,

so it won't show?



Appearance aside, it might be quite beneficial to preserve the moon's

vacuum. This would be a kind of lunar environmentalism.





Perhaps, but how much industrial activity would it take to damage

vacuum? And is the Moon's vacuum all that pure, anyway? It already

has a higher ion density than surrounding space, not to mention dust.



I have a dim recollection that each Apollo lunar landing would increase

several fold the density of the lunar atmosphere, albeit only for a

short period. It doesn't take much to do so. So I would guess that

even low level industrial activity on the Moon would probably

significantly damage lunar vacuum. Lunar vacuum is quite pure, though

as you say less so than surrounding space. Whether or not it is

worthwhile to protect it is another story.


Alain Fournier

The Earth-moon L1 has at least a hundred thousand times better vacuum.