The Economic Development of the Moon

A Response to Plundering the Moon

Andrew Smith, the author of Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth, recently published a polemic in the British newspaper The Guardian, entitled Plundering the Moon, that argued against the economic development of the Moon. Apparently the idea of mining Helium 3,
The Economic Development of the Moon
 an isotope found on the Moon but not on the Earth (at least in nature) disturbs Mr. Smith from an environmentalist standpoint. Even a cursory examination of the issue makes one wonder why.

Many scientists assert that Helium 3 would be very useful as a fuel for future fusion power plants. Helium 3 would burn cleanly and with little or no radioactive residue. When the technology to build such fusion reactors is developed, coupled with the ability to mine and transport Helium 3 from the lunar surface, a source of clean, limitless energy would be made available

Other dreams of economically developing the Moon involve mining it for materials to build space based solar power stations, which would beam the energy gathered from the sun to receivers on Earth. The prospect of either Helium 3 fueled fusion or space based solar power or a combination of both replacing fossil fuels should excite people who express concern for the Earth's environment

Not so Andrew Smith. He is not very clear as to why he feels this way. But he does make clear what he wants to happen in the last paragraph of his polemic. "Earth's sister has played a role in teaching us to value our environment: how extraordinary to think that the next giant leap for the environmental movement might be a campaign to stop state-sponsored mining companies chomping her up in glorious privacy, a quarter of a million miles from our ravaged home."

Extraordinary indeed. There is not even any caribou (or life of any kind) on the Moon to serve as an excuse for keeping the lunar surface pristine. When the Moon is economically developed, not one species will be endangered as a result. There are no species inhabiting the Moon nor will there be but for what we humans will bring when we return to stay.

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 30 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Wow. Do you people have any idea how much mass would have to be removed from the Moon to make a difference, even a barely perceptible one, in the gravity from the Moon, in the tides? Think of everything humankind has ever moved. Every bit of building material, steel, oil, water, ore, glass, meat, whatever. All of that, added up? Wouldn't touch the amount needed to be moved from the moon. The moon is 7.36 x 10^22 kg, or 73 billion *billion* metric tons. Just how much do you think even the biggest industrialist's wet dream could remove in a year? Considering that most of the material mined is industrially useless and would just be tossed to the side. But I know, that's more numbers and Barbie says "math is hard."

Posted on 11/04/2007 at 9:11:00 PM

"I know we've all read Jules Verne's 'Time Machine' and his anecdotal reference therein about over-zealous human mining of the moon which resulted in a catastrophic destruction of our fair satellite. While that may be an extreme, do you really think it wise to play so 'willy-nilly' with something so important to the planet?" Do you really think it's wise to get your science education from 19th century fiction? The moon is not fragile. It's not going to crack into pieces because we drilled a hole in it. If you don't know anything substantive about mining, drilling, or geology, then why should your opinion count for anything? Idiot.

Posted on 11/04/2007 at 8:11:00 AM

Wonder about the longer term impacts. How much of the moons' mass should be removed before impacting the movements of the oceans, as they are influenced by the moon ?

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 4:11:00 PM

"When the Moon is economically developed, not one species will be endangered as a result." Some species are dependent on the tide. If there is a substantial change in the mass of the moon such that the gravity change would considerably affect the tides, would those species have time to adapt or not? This has not only to do with the mining of tritium, but anyhting else we uncontrollable humans may be tempted to do to the moon. Just some speculation, writing down of thoughts.

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 2:11:00 PM

Environmentalism is about anti-capitalism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 2:11:00 PM

David Kous

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 1:11:00 PM

Ha!!! I've got something constructive to say! What about your armpits early in the morning? I mean, do you cold-bloodedly erradicate those nice and mostly harmless Staphylcoccus, Peptostreptococcus, and other bacteria with soap and hot water? Do you wash this pristine, and untouched environment into oblivion, solely for your smelling pleasure? With commertialy available detergents and soaps? And can you reasonably deny that you do not apply a anti-prespirant chemical, deigned to thwart any further multiplication of the little critters, so the wasteland continues to be barren and lifeless? YOU MONSTER!!!!

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 11:11:00 AM

Its clearly convenient to pile all environmentalists on the same mountain of crazy, but most people must realize that one persons erratic rant against moon-dust harvesting doesn't devaluate the arguments of those wanting to protect some of earths natural habitats against exploitation for short term profit.

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 10:11:00 AM

Has anyone heard? It is consuming matter at the rate of 4.26 million tonnes per second! Per second, I said! It's worse than the God-damn Americans!

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 10:11:00 AM

Not to say there shouldn't be some "Global Parks" that are off limits from mining - for example, the six Apollo landing sites. Note to all Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists: DO NOT REPLY!

Posted on 11/03/2007 at 9:11:00 AM

Comments 1 - 10 of 30 Next >>