Private Companies to Mine the Moon

[NASAFanboy]

NASA is planning to begin exploring the resources of the moon and begin mining them in earnest. Born from the successes of its "Big Brother", the Commerical Crew Dev, NASA has begun a new program, the Lunar CATALYST program that is now taking in applications from private companies to mine the 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.

The contract will be a "no funds exchanged" Space Agreement Act, which means the government will not be directly funding the effort, but will receive NASA support. Final proposals are due on March 17th, 2014. NASA has not said when it will announce the winner.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/9/5395684/nasa-begins-hunt-for-private-companies-to-mine-the-moon-catalyst

This may mean future robotic missions to the moon, and, if NASA softens up on funds or if another future President opens up the funds, it may mean Commerical Crew Dev all over again, but this time, for BEO exploration to the Moon and beyond. I'm expecting the first mining missions to be up by atleast 2020, should the NASA 2018 robotic landing probe give us enough data on ISRU resource production.

[Scotius]

Hmmm. I wonder is SpaceX will apply. They are developing methane burning rocket engine - and methane can be produced on Mars, and collected on some gas giants moons.

[Winter Man]

Hmmm. I wonder is SpaceX will apply. They are developing methane burning rocket engine - and methane can be produced on Mars, and collected on some gas giants moons.

I bet they want to, but it'd be Musk's MO to open a terrestrial mining company first to get experience or partner with someone that already has it.

[AngelLestat]

This is just because the Venus idea is too recent and still is not very disclosed.

But well, this help to show many people who said that mining out of earth it has not beneficts.

I supported.

[Klingon Admiral]

But the moon has such a huge gravity well =/

[thescientist]

I'm not sure this will happens in the next future - I think it's too much expensive to became a business with our ineffiecient rockets.

[Scotius]

It's another case of chicken/egg. We don't mine space resources because de don't have good enough rockets? Or maybe we don't have good enough rockets, because we are not doing anything that requires them?

[SargeRho]

But the moon has such a huge gravity well =/

And lots of aluminium and oxygen, too. Although I read it's pretty energy consuming to produce aluminium-oxygen rocket fuel on the Moon.

Also probably Uranium so it might be possible, in time, to build NTR-powered freight shuttles there.

[Rondon]

Actually SargeRho, the concentrations of uranium are low, about 0.6 ppm on average, and its highest concentration is 2.1 ppm at Copernicus crater, so nuclear isn't as viable, as else where e.g. mars which has 7.5 ppm at best, that said (by simplifying a lot) dividing the amount of energy gained form 1 kilo of uranium against the amount of kilograms of material you have to sift through to get it, gives out a million joules per kilogram sifted through, so its not impossible.

what I've wondered about is the possibility of concentrated solar power on the moon. The lunar highlands contain about 0.6% titanium dioxide, which is already used as a pigment in paint, being bright, so you could use a curved mirror made of titanium dioxide or another metal with material with titanium dioxide sprayed on and focus the energy onto a thin strip of solar panel, allowing you to get several dozens of times more energy per meter of solar panel you send over.

[Scotius]

For local use (lunar base) it would indeed be useful, Rondon. But if you want to produce solar power on industrial scale orbital power plants are better choice. Any solar panel on the Moon is in sunlight for two weeks, but sits idly for another two weeks during night.

[Streetwind]

There was a private company with aims to build a space elevator on the moon. Turns out, while technology is at least decades away from pulling it off on earth, contemporary technology could do it on the moon. "Could" with a big uncertainty factor, because nothing remotely like it has ever been attempted.

I can dig up the video... in fact, I may make a new thread because there were multiple interesting videos that are worth posting.

[Rondon]

For local use (lunar base) it would indeed be useful, Rondon. But if you want to produce solar power on industrial scale orbital power plants are better choice. Any solar panel on the Moon is in sunlight for two weeks, but sits idly for another two weeks during night.

Oh yes absolutely, although, you do have to send material up from the moon, if you're expanding operations and you also have to build the infrastructure to receive the power, near the poles there are a few "peaks of eternal light", which due to their height above the poles are illuminated most of the time and with relation to the mining, there's supposed to be a crater with a good deal of hydrogen in it due to the fact that the sun never reaches most of the crater, its not proven though.

[andrewas]

But the moon has such a huge gravity well =/

Without a significant atmosphere, you can use a mass driver to get payloads off the moon without wasting fuel.

[SargeRho]

Rondon, it actually *is* proven. Shackleton Crater has water-ice in it.

[sgt_flyer]

Without a significant atmosphere, you can use a mass driver to get payloads off the moon without wasting fuel.

I'm wondering how much initial speed would be needed to use a mass driver to launch a container directly back to earth from the moon (with aerobraking / very shallow descent) - could be definitely possible to use a fixed mass driver, as the moon is tidaly locked (so the mass driver's aiming direction does not need much adjustements - it would stay pointed in the good direction. (As the mass driver's payload would mostly be raw materials, it should even be possible to not use parachutes i think a big block of metal should be able to resist lithobraking from terminal velocity (aim for a sandy aera for example )

Edited February 15, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[SargeRho]

Just get the deltaV needed to go from the surface of the moon to Earth. That's how much speed you need.

[maccollo]

I'm wondering how much initial speed would be needed to use a mass driver to launch a container directly back to earth from the moon (with aerobraking / very shallow descent)

Around 2.3-2.4 km/s I think, so that might be a little hard with chemical propellant.

But low lunar orbit is around 1.6 km/s so that's easy!

Fires rounds at 1700 m/s

Is orbital canon on the moon

So scale it up to something like this and launch 5 ton projectiles into orbit (very nearly almost orbit), then have a little tug that catches the payload.

Advantages are obvious:

It's awesome.

Disadvantages include having to build a 1500 ton cannon on the moon, and it will probably kick up dust. Lots of dust.

Of course a rail gun could launch stuff straight to earth with no problem, and you wouldn't even need any propellant, but you still have to build a giant gun on the moon.

Edited February 15, 2014 by maccollo

[Skyler4856]

Let's jules verne this *****!!

Quickly nitric acid and cotton!

[Scotius]

Due to strong "kick" cannon is not a very good idea Even if we would shoot only ore or other solids up, the container still would have to be strong (heavy) enough to withstand sudden acceleration. Railgun would spread acceleration on several kilometers.

[kBob]

As to mining rare earths, my understanding is there are several places where they could be mined here on Earth, but are not being for various reasons, given the cost of going to the moon and back I'd think finding a way to mine these might be a bit cheaper, for many years underground mining was used and still is in places, strip mining saves some money but underground mining has still got to be cheaper than going to the moon and will lessen the environmental impact vs. strip mining (still have to deal with the political blocks though).

Edited February 16, 2014 by kBob

[Motokid600]

Cannons or not. I don't see a way to get a bulk shipment of raw metals/ore back to Earth. And then have it be on a regular schedule. I think wed benefit more by processing the ore on the moon. Gas should be easier. But.. could we get enough to produce proper fusion reactors?

[Camacha]

I am not too sure I am totally comfortable with companies going to the moon to mess that place up when we can not seem to mine earth in a responsable way. Of course, no life will be lost, but somehow I feel we will not be remembered as the great pioneers we are hoping to be. Or maybe we will, just like we now remember our imperialist forefathers messing everything up a couple of centuries ago.

I am not saying expanding is a bad thing, quite on the contrary, but we better think this one through properly.

[Scotius]

I'm all for responsible exploatation Camacha, but i think Moon is fairly low on concern list. There is no biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere to pollute, plenty of space to expand, and frankly - what benefits we could get from keeping Moon pristine? Maybe space tourism will become a thing eventually - but it is a song of far future.

[Motokid600]

Yea.. i was also going to say a good way to start mining operations is to bomb the edge of a crater.

[maccollo]

Cannons or not. I don't see a way to get a bulk shipment of raw metals/ore back to Earth. And then have it be on a regular schedule. I think wed benefit more by processing the ore on the moon. Gas should be easier. But.. could we get enough to produce proper fusion reactors?

Well initially such ideas are obviously not practical. However, if there will be large scale operations on the moon at some point in the future, a massive rail gun might not be such a bad idea since you wont need propellant.

I am not too sure I am totally comfortable with companies going to the moon to mess that place up when we can not seem to mine earth in a responsable way. Of course, no life will be lost, but somehow I feel we will not be remembered as the great pioneers we are hoping to be.

I suppose that depends on what you think the point of environmental preservation is. To me, it's simply to safeguard our own long term survival, and life in general.

If life wont be harmed as a direct result of the mining process I personally don't care. It's just a rock.