Let's Play Politics

That's really a fantasy, Jay, perpetruated by some moon obsessed folks. Mars has its promoters as well.

I'm only trying to point everyone to the rocks out there.. that's where it's all at.

I suspect the moon and Mars will be colonized. People will do what they want regardless what I or anyone else has to say. The craters on the moon hold the most promise there. That's where some rocks happened to come in contact with it the moon. And you can heat rocks and suck air out of them.

But, because of the well, even if you had the same resources as an asteroid, you have to expend more time and energy to extract and process it.

That's the best case.

But the fact is the moon is virtually devoid of anything worth anything.

Most everything would have to be imported from earth and space miners for your very survival. You certainly can't stick regolith into space suits and expect to survive very long.

George
http://www.cygo.com/

Mostly I am just lurking on these conversations, but I can not let the statement that "The Moon has no useful resources " pass. One can pick up meteorite iron by just dragging a magnet across the surface. One can heat the soil (regolith) with sun light and capture He3, H, and other volatiles (from the solar wind). One can possibly mine water at the poles, and then there are all of the other elements like on Earth. And there is the sunlight. Rough maps of mineral distribution have been made, and so on. I would claim that any elements on an asteroid or comet can be obtained on the Moon, although they are present in different in different areas in different abundances. One would guess there will be copper and perhaps gold mines on the Moon in the future.

But another idea is that we should not be thinking of the Moon or asteroids or comets, but "and." The colonization of the Americas did not argue for colonizing North America or South America, but both. Both will be used, all options should be explored and undertaken.

Jay Huebner

The moon has no useful resources and you have that nasty gravity well to contend with.

The moon is a bad idea.

Some asteroids are easier to get to than the moon. And you have far more material to work with, including Gold, Platinum Group Metals, and steel-making elements. About half of asteroids are rich in water. The moon is volatile poor.

Ever try to stick popcorn into a space suit?

Get real.

George
http://www.cygo.com/

On 1/27/06, ronfox@... ronfox@... wrote: Since O'Niell's plan calls for habitats as well as powersats to be constructed from lunar material, I wonder if the idea of establishing a moon base might be of some economic and environmental benefit in the long run after all, assuming of course, that powersats are built some day.

>
> Date: 2006/01/27 Fri AM 04:30:37 EST
>
> Environmentalists are an excellent market for serious backers, and they're
> willing to work hard and raise the flags of alert so desparately needed.
>
> The moon offers nothing that could substantially benefit either earth's
> environment or its economic health.
>
> The idea that the moon is easy is just a part of the current mythology so
> many space enthusiasts cling to.
>
> The reality is this is one of those extremely rare occasions in which it's
> easier to get the pot of Gold than to fudge around making sand castles with
> the local elves all day. And likely more satisfying.
>
> Bush is an idiot but any wise oil lobbyist would have warned him about the
> potential of asteroid extraction disrupting oil revenue and nobody wants
> that.
>
> Oh my gosh no.
>
> George
> http://www.cygo.com/
>
> > Quoting Brian Dunbar brian.dunbar@...
> >
> > > to the first US-owned company
> >
> > Why restrict it to just the US ?
> >
> > Brett
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > on the web.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >

Science education
History of space exploration
Space exploration