
Silicon Valley start-up looking to mine the moon  - cwan
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/moonex-rare-earth-rockets-space-travel.html
======
jaysonelliot
There is no law clearly defining private property rights on the moon, but you
can bet that it's not going to be as easy as just showing up and starting to
dig.

A couple key quotes: "The UN says that private expeditions count as national
activities and are covered by the treaty, which has been signed by all the
major players. Lawyers disagreed and a second agreement - the 1979
International Moon Treaty - was drawn up to explicitly ban private ownership
of lunar real estate."
-[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexplorati...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexploration.ideas)

"the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the
moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing
supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty>

Some good articles on trying to use the moon for private gain:

<http://www.slate.com/id/2202888/>

<http://www.space.com/6210-owns-moon.html>

~~~
arctangent
Great post. But I can't help wonder how governments would stop an organisation
that has sufficient technology to go and mine the moon.

A well-capitalised moon mining operation could maintain a base in space and
send energy to Earth via laser beam (or whatever similar scientific approach
you favour). I'm sure that governments could confiscate earth-bound assets of
such enterprises, but they will presumably retaliate by keeping all their
assets in space.

I think that exploitation of space (as an activity) will completely screw with
our concepts of "nation" and "government". Once a private enterprise can go
mine asteroids they're going to have far more capital (i.e. money) than any
nation on Earth.

~~~
HelloBeautiful
>> Once a private enterprise can go mine asteroids they're going to have far
more capital (i.e. money) than any nation on Earth.

Private enterprises like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have had more money
than any nation on Earth for more than a century.

~~~
InnocentB
I've never seen any reference saying the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers ever
had more than a few hundred billion in today's dollars. Compare to the US
federal budget, which is over 3 trillion per year.

~~~
HelloBeautiful
I, and many others, believe Rothschilds have over 500 trillion. Plus 80% share
in Bank Federal Reserve New York ...

~~~
waterlesscloud
I am currently neutral towards your assertion. Can you provide a link that
tips the balance one way or the other?

~~~
HelloBeautiful
Well buddy, it's up to you. My advice: do your own research and make your own
conclusions. There are a number of books on Rothschilds and a ton of Google
hits.

Generally to understand the history of any advanced civilization you have to
follow the money. And since 1815 Rothschild have had enough capital and
reputation amongst private investors to decide who rules in most countries,
which country has the credit to start a war, which country/alliance has the
money to win a war, etc

~~~
rhizome
_There are a number of books on Rothschilds and a ton of Google hits._

Dude, that's such an utter cop-out.

~~~
HelloBeautiful
<http://www.rense.com/general79/tril.htm> (short intro into Rothschilds and
how they control things)

[http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.h...](http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm)
(timeline with narrative)

<http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm> (banking and
usury timeline in general)

<http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/RothschildsTimeline.ppt> (powerpoint slide
deck on Rothschilds from the sources above)

[http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-
bin/archive.cgi/noframes/re...](http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-
bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/39506) (how Nathan Rothschild cornered the
London Stock Exchange and became a billionaire in early 1800s).

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849> (Money as Debt -
quintessential primer on fractional reserve banking and debt)

Money Masters - <http://www.sprword.com/videos/moneymasters/>

The Secret of Oz Trailer - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cq9yEVcGIU>

A few more [http://linkedtheory.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-economic-
coll...](http://linkedtheory.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-economic-collapse-
ahead.html)

------
mekoka
This raises many questions:

\- how speculative are they about the rare material they intend to find?

\- how are they going to mine and transport them?

\- how much is it going to cost?

\- will it be worth it in the end, compared to earth mining (which to this day
still requires considerable manpower)?

Until such questions are answered, I think it would be more appropriate to
look at this more as robotic experiment, not a moon mining startup project.

~~~
tzs
There are something like 20 minerals that are important to US industry (some
are essential) for which the US has no usable internal sources and so relies
on imports. For many of these, most of the world's supply is in assorted
unstable third world countries (mostly in Africa), or the former Soviet Union,
or China. These minerals are often called "strategic minerals".

For instance, here's a map of where cobalt comes from:
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28mined%29.PNG).
(Cobalt is essential in making the alloys used in jet engines, so a loss of
access to cobalt could serious harm the US militarily).

Having an emergency backup plan for these minerals, such as moon mining, would
be good even if it is expensive.

~~~
HelloBeautiful
There is such plan for every single strategic resource. Stuff like opening
mines, that are currently unable to compete, because of low prices of Chinese,
etc. products.

------
listrophy
This is interesting. In my time designing lunar excavation equipment, much of
our problems arose from the intended location: permanently shadowed regions of
craters. We were intending to mine for water for propulsion, consumption, etc
purposes.

Basically, it's _really_ hard to mine in those conditions. And when I say
"conditions," I mean down to 50K. Lots of familiar materials just won't work
at those temps.

Mining, instead, for high-value minerals would presumably not require such
extremely low temperatures. It would, however, still have to endure many of
the other issues we faced: never-eroded (read: abrasive) regolith, the vacuum
of space, reduced reactionary mass, etc.

I wish them luck!

~~~
cma
Couldn't you use mirrors from the surface? I would think you could easily
double that temp in K considering the light from a mirror the size of a piece
of paper puts out about 15W of heat.

------
cafard
Nearly 40 years ago I heard the sometime astronaut and future senator Harrison
Schmitt speak at the Colorado School of Mines. Nearly all I remember is that I
learned that it was possible to sleep sitting up in uncomfortable plastic
seats--Schmitt was not a good public speaker.Yet I remember him, in response
to a question from the audience, distinguishing bodies of ores, which can
economically be mined, and formations of minerals, which perhaps can, perhaps
can't. Schmitt, then and suppose yet the only geologist who had been to the
moon, did not seem to think we'd be mining there soon.

------
Typhon
Sending stuff in space (above low earth orbit) is the costliest things ever.
So far, only a handful of states managed to send things to the moon, and only
two managed to bring something back from it. The last time it happened was
thirty-five years ago. And when I say "bring something", I mean a hundred
grams (less than 3.6 ounces).

Only one organisation managed to send astronauts there and bring them back.

There are plans to do it again, but you can bet space exploration will remain
state controlled for a very long time.

------
rhizome
More on the redoubtable Naveen Jain: <http://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-
k-jain/posts>

------
hristov
It's a scam. Just doing some basic arithmetics would show you that even if you
find rare earth metals on the moon, there is no way you can get them to earth
for anything near their cost on Earth.

These guys probably just want to win the Google challenge and do some cool
spaceship stuff and need a story to tell investors.

~~~
daniel1980fl
well actually we dont know whats inside the moon soil, just like you can have
some sort of "scanner" and scan earth below to determine where diamonds are
located.

AFAIK, there never been any digger machines located on the moon, so... :)

------
anthonyb
Mine the moon? That's a pretty stupid idea. Much better to aim for an asteroid
- no property rights and no gravity well to escape afterwards. Net value of
the rare earths in a 1 km asteroid was ~1 trillion dollars, from memory.

There aren't any trojan asteroids in the earth-moon system according to
<http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html>, but there are quite a
few close approachers which could potentially be redirected closer to Earth.

btw, this is not a new idea, so there's no excuse for not knowing about this,
especially if you're in the field:
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1982-harvesting.htm>

~~~
HelloBeautiful
Those close approaches are moving very fast.

Plus who would wont some limited liability startup to redirect asteroids
closer to Earth, probably using big thermonukes?

~~~
anthonyb
Objects in orbit are also moving pretty fast. Slowing it down a bit so that
it's captured by Earth's orbit wouldn't take that much energy. Also, mass
drivers would be the preferred option, no nukes necessary.

A 200 metre asteroid might make a pretty big hole, but then so would
profitable quantities of ore coming back, or a rocket capable of getting to
the moon in the first place. Nobody seems to be too worried about SpaceX
accidentally crashing their moon-capable rockets into a city.

~~~
JshWright
Seriously? You're comparing a rocket with a self-destruct button to an
uncontrolled projectile with several hundred times more mass?

~~~
anthonyb
Several hundred? I think you're at least a couple of orders of magnitude out
there...

The point behind the rocket analogy was that rockets are inherently dangerous,
uncontrolled projectiles. They explode, spin out of control, travel at
hundreds or thousands of km/hr - but that's apparently ok. And it is, because
there are safeguards in place.

a) how are you getting the ore back to earth? Your choice is to either burn it
back in on a rocket or splash down your hundred or thousand tons of platinum
somewhere. Rockets are hideously expensive, which leaves you with... an
uncontrolled projectile.

b) mass drivers have a small amount of thrust, over a long period of time. It
might take a couple of years to get it captured by earth - think slow orbit
corrections over time rather than an uncontrolled asteroid missile. Once you
get to that point, you'll have several more years to circularise the orbit.
Hardly an uncontrolled projectile - Its path is easy to predict, and is
incredibly unlikely to hit the earth. You'd need to burn a lot of energy to do
so once it's in a stable orbit.

~~~
JshWright
Yep... you're right... s/several hundred/thousands/

My main point is that rockets have a big red button, and an 8,000,000,000kg
rock does not.

~~~
anthonyb
Well, yes - but asteroids have plenty of time to correct, whereas a rocket
doesn't. The safety measures are likely to be completely different.

------
cydonian_monk
About time.

All I can say is good luck, and that I hope to see lots of competition for
these guys in the near future.

------
michaelpinto
Gerard K. O'Neill is smiling up in heaven at this — if you don't know him read
his bio: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._ONeill>

~~~
reneherse
go here instead :) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill>

~~~
michaelpinto
Thank you kind sir!

------
Apocryphon
Does this mean we're in a bubble now?

~~~
fleitz
No the space bubble ended the day Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, we're
currently rebuilding technology to get us back to 1969.

------
pstack
I'm no astronomer or physicist, but isn't the mass and weight of the moon sort
of vital to maintaining stable life as it is now on Earth?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The moon is quite large. To move a measurable percentage from there to here
(one large enough to affect things like tides) is well beyond our current
capabilities. We'll be OK. :)

~~~
pstack
Oh, sure. I'm sure we used to say that about the bison, too. :)

------
gsivil
It is the anti-pioneering spirit in me telling me that this is rubbish?

------
killerdark
That's it. I'm starting a new organisation called Greypeace, to protect the
moon's ecological system. Our goal will be attacking these lunar rovers with
inflatable rockets in order to raise public awareness.

I'll post a link where you can donate money for this completely legit
organisation shortly.

~~~
rmah
I know you're joking, but...

When I was in college, I was hanging out with some guys who worked for
Greenpeace. I asked them, "how would you feel about mining the moon for raw
materials?" The response I got back was basically, "NO!", "THAT'S HORRIBLE!",
"O.M.G. YOU'RE EVIL!"

I tried to explain that the moon was a big, lifeless, ball of rock. But they
were having none of it. They all thought we should leave the moon alone,
pristine in its lifelessness. <shrug>

~~~
patrickk
That _"big, lifeless, ball of rock"_ partially controls the oceans' tides. I
would be in favour of leaving it alone. Just because something is technically
possible doesn't mean it should be done.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Forces>

~~~
pjscott
You would have to remove a significant chunk of the moon's mass before mining
it affected the tides in any serious way. There's a lot of useful mining you
can do without violating that constraint.

