I seem to recall a website that listed NASA data regarding the
chemical properties of Ilmenite, the most common mineral on Luna
(Earth's moon).
an atmosphere of Hydrogen, it gives off water vapor. Even further
heating would smelt out Aluminium, Titanium, and Silica slag. It is
not certain whether the silica would be useful for making sheets of
glass, but Lunar mining is certainly an option.
By launching these into Earth orbit from the surface of Luna, it will
require only 1/36 the fuel that launching from Earth would require.
It takes a while to dig up the info, but I think I originally found
it at www.asi.org
The whole point is not only souces of hydrogen, but oxygen, water, as
well as metals for building stations, habitats, and space ships in
orbit as opposed to building on earth.
bottom line is the only way we can do this is as a corporate effort,
with some way to generate profit at each stage. Lunar mines would
sell materials for the first true space station to be built in earth
orbit. The station would in turn offer ship construction as well as
scientific returns. The ships, once built, would mine the asteroids
for minerals not common on earth ( for the earth market) and
everything else for the colonial market.
As long as there is a good chance of decent returns, investors can be
found to fund our vision step by step.
-Kimo
At 04:00 PM 10/26/2006, Kimo wrote:
>chemical properties of Ilmenite, the most common mineral on Luna
This document might help:
1980: Handbook of Lunar Materials. NASA Reference Publication 1057.
Technical report: the physical, chemical, thermodynamic, and geologic data
on lunar rocks, minerals, and processes are summarized, and a set of data
on metals that might be extracted from lunar materials is presented. 183
pages. [PDF 3.4 MB]
It is available here:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/index.htm
Best wishes,
David
> From: makenamicro
> I seem to recall a website that listed NASA data regarding the
> chemical properties of Ilmenite, the most common mineral on Luna
> (Earth's moon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilmenite
from it, and the only way you can make water is to supply your own hydrogen.
John
On 10/26/06, ANTIcarrot wrote:
(...)
> The mineral contains oxygen, titanium and iron. Hydrogen cannot be extracted
> from it, and the only way you can make water is to supply your own hydrogen.
(...)
in hydrogen-absorbing minerals (mainly titanium-based). By
(metaphorically) squeezing huge amounts of lunar sand you could
extract some hydrogen and synthesize some water. Conceivably it is
also possible to design man-made "hydrogen traps" that would stay in
surface collecting solar hydrogen. Of course the whole process may be
very costly, and lunar water done that way would be *very* expensive.
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of makenamicro
I'm sure the amounts of hydrogen would be relatively minor. Worth
hanging onto if given off in the course of extracting other desired
elements, certainly, but probably not worth doing for its own sake.
But before I leave the subject of lunar hydrogen: I've heard interesting
comments on that science paper disputing lunar ice. I heard one
scientist say that the press briefings where not as carefully qualified
as the paper itself. The paper doesn't dispute the presence of ice,
only the existence of thick slabs of ice. He said that was a bit of a
straw man; nobody had really expected it to be in the form of thick
slabs. Fine grains of ice distributed in the soil is a much more likely
form, and cannot be ruled out based on the radar returns. That hydrogen
detected from two different probes has to be coming from somewhere.
I heard one commentator say that fine grains of ice is actually a better
outcome from a retrieval standpoint, saying that thick slabs would not
be as easy to break up as the kind of ice we're used to on Earth, since
it would be at cryogenic temperatures.
> By launching these into Earth orbit from the surface of Luna,
> it will require only 1/36 the fuel that launching from Earth
> would require.
True, but even more significantly, since the lunar surface is in vacuum,
horizontal launch off the surface via EM forces becomes practical,
offering significant savings over chemical rockets.
> Lunar mines would sell materials for the first true space station
> to be built in earth orbit. The station would in turn offer ship
> construction as well as scientific returns.
Lunar mining would probably only make sense in the context of
construction programs measuring into the megatons, which is why SPS
construction is usually the main industry proposed in conjunction with
lunar mining. On the other hand, in any situation where lunar materials
were being used to make SPS, and we additionally also wanted to build
large space stations and manned ships for exploration, no doubt the
existing infrastructure would be used to build these from lunar
materials as much as possible. I'm only cautioning that building a few
space stations and some exploratory ships would probably not by
themselves fully justify lunar mines, mass drivers and catchers, and
orbital ore refineries and manufacturing centers.
Regards,
Mike Combs
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of makenamicro
>
> > If heated in a vacuum, it gives off Hydrogen.
>
> I'm sure the amounts of hydrogen would be relatively minor. Worth
> hanging onto if given off in the course of extracting other desired
> elements, certainly, but probably not worth doing for its own sake.
>
> But before I leave the subject of lunar hydrogen: I've heard
interesting
> comments on that science paper disputing lunar ice. I heard one
> scientist say that the press briefings where not as carefully
qualified
> as the paper itself. The paper doesn't dispute the presence of ice,
> only the existence of thick slabs of ice. He said that was a bit
of a
> straw man; nobody had really expected it to be in the form of thick
> slabs. Fine grains of ice distributed in the soil is a much more
likely
> form, and cannot be ruled out based on the radar returns. That
hydrogen
> detected from two different probes has to be coming from somewhere.
>
> I heard one commentator say that fine grains of ice is actually a
better
> outcome from a retrieval standpoint, saying that thick slabs would
not
> be as easy to break up as the kind of ice we're used to on Earth,
since
> it would be at cryogenic temperatures.
>
> > By launching these into Earth orbit from the surface of Luna,
> > it will require only 1/36 the fuel that launching from Earth
> > would require.
>
> True, but even more significantly, since the lunar surface is in
vacuum,
> horizontal launch off the surface via EM forces becomes practical,
> offering significant savings over chemical rockets.
>
> > Lunar mines would sell materials for the first true space station
> > to be built in earth orbit. The station would in turn offer ship
> > construction as well as scientific returns.
>
> Lunar mining would probably only make sense in the context of
> construction programs measuring into the megatons, which is why SPS
> construction is usually the main industry proposed in conjunction
with
> lunar mining. On the other hand, in any situation where lunar
materials
> were being used to make SPS, and we additionally also wanted to
build
> large space stations and manned ships for exploration, no doubt the
> existing infrastructure would be used to build these from lunar
> materials as much as possible. I'm only cautioning that building a
few
> space stations and some exploratory ships would probably not by
> themselves fully justify lunar mines, mass drivers and catchers, and
> orbital ore refineries and manufacturing centers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
robots could significantly reduce the initial mining costs.
I am only speaking generally, in that without a viable ROI, it doesnt
seem possible to move forward.
Kindly remember, I am new to the group and thanks to all for elping
me clarify the main issues.
BTW...umm... what is an SPS?
--- makenamicro wrote:
> No, but mine shafts on the moon could be turned into
> "hotels", and
> robots could significantly reduce the initial mining
> costs.
>
> I am only speaking generally, in that without a
> viable ROI, it doesnt
> seem possible to move forward.
I agree. The only way that space will become truly
viable for commerce and industry is if money can be
made from it.
>
> Kindly remember, I am new to the group and thanks to
> all for elping
> me clarify the main issues.
>
> BTW...umm... what is an SPS?
>
SPS stands for Solar Power Satellite, and it is one of
those ways that money can be made from space. Suppose
you have a large satellite that collects solar power
and converts it into electricity, located in a halo
orbit around the Earth-Sun L2 point. Such a device
would receive continuous sunlight, unfiltered by
Earth's atmosphere. The electricity could then be
converted into microwaves (unlike a microwave oven
though, these microwaves would be of a frequency that
will not resonate water) which would then be beamed to
a "rectenna" on the earth. A rectenna is basically
just an array of wires connected by diodes; when
microwaves hit the rectenna, they are converted
directly into electricity. The ground nderneath the
rectenna could be safely used for agriculture, as the
microwaves would not affect plant or animal life.
When building a solar power satellite in orbit, we are
not limited in size even though such a structure would
probably be pretty flimsy. It could be a parabolic
reflector say 100 km in diameter. The power beamed to
rectennae on the earth from such a device would exceed
the total of all commercial nuclear power produced
today.
Ed
On 10/27/06, makenamicro wrote:
(...)
> BTW...umm... what is an SPS?
(...)
ed,
this could be what they are using to power what I have seen prior to taking
this picture out the back door of my house next to Otis air force base on cape
cod, ma.?
(http://aolsvc.pictures.aol.com/NASApp/ygp/Start?event=DirectPictureView&shareInfo=mFQYMXJcDsVy92TNUEK/KpNEdBq15YTNN1icOQ6RTml76ebX7zvmrc7pyg28G5
lMhjPZqxwshcNE
HI9/IHC2RXL3ZM1QQr8qM7EExf/gJL4=&pageName=AlbumViewFromEmails) what do you
think this is running on?
Smartaspaper,
that one, I suggest that you use http://tinyurl.com as
that will allow you to make a shorter URL, which can
be reached with a single click (in Yahoo mail, very
long links like that are spread out over several lines
and are not clickable).
So, what is in that picture? A dirigible? Some
military "flying wing" seen edge-on? A bit of hair or
grass on your camera lens? Something else? It is
impossible to say.
Ed
--- SMARTASPAPER@... wrote:
> ed,
> this could be what they are using to power what I
> have seen prior to taking
> this picture out the back door of my house next to
> Otis air force base on cape
> cod, ma.?
>
(http://aolsvc.pictures.aol.com/NASApp/ygp/Start?event=DirectPictureView&shareInfo=mFQYMXJcDsVy92TNUEK/KpNEdBq15YTNN1icOQ6RTml76ebX7zvmrc7pyg28G5
> lMhjPZqxwshcNE
>
HI9/IHC2RXL3ZM1QQr8qM7EExf/gJL4=&pageName=AlbumViewFromEmails)
no sir this is no mistake at all. it is not the edge of anything like you
or I have seen i can guarantee you this. I did not see this while taking the
picture or after I took the picture. it was my teenager that saw something
of a UFO while driving down the canal when she was 12 yrs. old. I have no
equipment to make this appear. I took this with a disposable camera to show the
building of a new neighborhood for my grandson to see. surely you have
equipment to see just what this is. it is something the government does not want
you to know about. this much I am sure of.
is this us coming or going is the question? how old is this humanity? is
this our new world order leader? or is this what scientologist teach?
something I am not a fan of. they teach their patrons we are of many aliens and
they are inside of us taking over. oh well so much for theory. I am a
Christian that is what I believe in. the lord made the big bang, though I did
receive knowledge from a Tibetan priest at U Mass Amherst. I might go along with
Deepak Chopra's theory when we die we reach another conscious level that we
work on as we live here. I have looked into factors or fractures which some
call the thumb print of God. I do not put anything past mankind or physics.
we have only scratched the service of knowledge. so behold this flying
object is something our government is well aware of though you might not be does
not make it not so. LOOK AT IT AGAIN. work the resolution of the picture.
I do not have time to play games with anyone as I am fighting for my
grandson's life as he once knew it while living in this house this picture was taken
from. I have spent the past four yrs. learning how to pretend to be an
Atty. while enduring lung operation for sm. cell lung cancer from benzene radon
arsenic and diesel fuel which took the life of my show dog whippet 3 yrs.
after moving back to cape cod, ma. I had this operation under an assumed name as
not to have this used against me. I do not want or need any attention.
that is why I sat on this for almost 3 yrs. due to not having money for an Atty.
to fight for my rights. for this picture I feel could be used against me in
court cases. then why am I now showing this? I could no longer wait for
justice in court now that my appeal is in motion I will take this chance. I
am no longer a lover of the law and feel this draconian government has hid and
done enough to the people for the interest of the elite only. are you one?
nor am I but have paid into this system that is keeping us in the dark while
dumping it's poison on our children. that is another reason why I took this
picture. just use your own judgement on what this is. you might jump ahead
in your theories. there just might be a space station like none of us ever
will hear of. it will be for the new world order. or has been for some
time now? who knows. I do know this is a disk, it might be what my daughter
and I saw when she was 12 and now 19 yrs. old which was a ball that glowed then
sped off fast enough to say it almost disappeared. my friend and his wife
saw one in Quincy, ma. I have spoken to many people that have seen such
things. maybe you have too but blocked it out. my daughter almost did but I
would not let her knowing how the mind works. she is of the next generation and
needs to adapt herself to what is to come. I would not want her to become
polarized like the Germans did. the very things you discus on this site.
check out the history channel as I saw film footage of a man names john frost who
made a proto type per some general in the 60's till the government told him
they were going to scrap the project. I don't think they did.
do this then get back to me and tell me this is a hair on film. your funny.
PS thank you for the URL site.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau
>
> --- makenamicro wrote:
>
> > No, but mine shafts on the moon could be turned into
> > "hotels", and
> > robots could significantly reduce the initial mining
> > costs.
> >
> > I am only speaking generally, in that without a
> > viable ROI, it doesnt
> > seem possible to move forward.
>
> I agree. The only way that space will become truly
> viable for commerce and industry is if money can be
> made from it.
>
> > Kindly remember, I am new to the group and thanks to
> > all for elping
> > me clarify the main issues.
> >
> > BTW...umm... what is an SPS?
> >
> SPS stands for Solar Power Satellite, and it is one of
> those ways that money can be made from space. Suppose
> you have a large satellite that collects solar power
> and converts it into electricity, located in a halo
> orbit around the Earth-Sun L2 point. Such a device
> would receive continuous sunlight, unfiltered by
> Earth's atmosphere. The electricity could then be
> converted into microwaves (unlike a microwave oven
> though, these microwaves would be of a frequency that
> will not resonate water) which would then be beamed to
> a "rectenna" on the earth. A rectenna is basically
> just an array of wires connected by diodes; when
> microwaves hit the rectenna, they are converted
> directly into electricity. The ground nderneath the
> rectenna could be safely used for agriculture, as the
> microwaves would not affect plant or animal life.
>
> When building a solar power satellite in orbit, we are
> not limited in size even though such a structure would
> probably be pretty flimsy. It could be a parabolic
> reflector say 100 km in diameter. The power beamed to
> rectennae on the earth from such a device would exceed
> the total of all commercial nuclear power produced
> today.
>
> Ed
>
energy. Good concept, as long as global warming is prevented.
Quoting makenamicro :
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > When building a solar power satellite in orbit, we are
> > not limited in size even though such a structure would
> > probably be pretty flimsy. It could be a parabolic
> > reflector say 100 km in diameter. The power beamed to
> > rectennae on the earth from such a device would exceed
> > the total of all commercial nuclear power produced
> > today.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> I take it that sidelobe losses are acceptable due to the free solar
> energy. Good concept, as long as global warming is prevented.
>
The last article I read on the subject said that 87% of the energy would be in
the main lobe.
B.
(http://aolsvc.pictures.aol.com/NASApp/ygp/Start?event=DirectPictureView&shareInfo=mFQYMXJcDsVy92TNUEK/KpiFlo4NONQ9DlK+HnH1uDl76ebX7zvmrc7pyg28G5lMhjPZqxws
hcMJ
E9Ky7oGMZnL3ZM1QQr8qqdtWzRCY+vA=&pageName=AlbumViewFromEmails) so you think
this is running on what?
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Minchau
> and converts it into electricity, located in a halo orbit around
> the Earth-Sun L2 point.
That would be an exceedingly distant SPS, and would have
more-complicated pointing issues. Most studies have recommended
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). Much closer, and pointing issues are
greatly simplified. Due to the inclination of the Earth, a satellite in
GEO is in continuous sunlight over 98% of the time.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of makenamicro
One problem there, though. The mining technique recommended by the NASA
studies was a kind of strip mining from the surface. So unfortunately,
no shafts.
Of course, it's always possible that once we're there, we'll engage in
types of mining not foreseen by the NASA studies.
There are some lunar enthusiasts who hold out great hope for lunar lava
tubes. You might have a look around on the Internet for stuff related
to that.
> and robots could significantly reduce the initial mining costs.
It's certainly true that every year which passes by before we start,
robots and telepresence will be a greater part of the mix.
> I am only speaking generally, in that without a viable ROI,
> it doesnt seem possible to move forward.
Absolutely. It's the number one problem we have to solve: what is the
killer app for space that requires large numbers of people?
Regards,
Mike Combs
True, and GEO satellites would be able to point to a
specific longitude. The advantage of the L1 sat is
100% sunlight and a 1 year rotational period rather
than daily. Also, GEO is getting kind of crowded
isn't it?
--- "Combs, Mike" wrote: