Daunting space mission: Send astronauts to asteroid

[American Horse]

BTW Dean; I have no link to source but I recall that work done in zero gravity (asteroid) takes about 5 times longer than the same work done in (moon/mars) gravity. Gravity is like having a third hand as a predictable holding device, not just for the tool, but for the worker.

 

[daveman]

All that is fine, and no one doubts there are plenty of minable resources on asteroids, but a platform like the moon, where all the same resources can be found, is way more practical and far better training and preparation for going to Mars.

So much of that in your post is blarney, Dean, and has to be taken with a grain of salt. We hopefully will do it all, but it's much farther into the future than the Moon then Mars. Even the resources we find in asteroids have more application on the Moon and Mars than without those two manned bases of operations.

It's the equivalent of "getting the cart before the horse."

For all your constant haranguing of the "right wing" (etal) they have a quality that you miss: they are first of all practical.

Furthermore there's no reason to go the asteroids to deflect them; we can recon those (WISE) in towards the sun which are invisible coming at us by satellites, and we can calculate mathematically the results of any actions we might take in their regard without going there and trying it first hand. The claim that that was a primary purpose by NASA to visit an asteroid (holy cow! in 2025 yet!) was an agency in search of a purpose, and a reason to find something positive in what they have to buy into . . . . or lose their jobs. It’s so sad what's happened to NASA.

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

That explains why we don't mine metals on Earth.

Oh, wait...

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

I call you stupid, and I have good reason to.

This article says you're wrong about mining the moon.

Of all the resources available, the lunar regolith is the most accessible and most easily converted into construction materials. Lunar regolith contains oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, aluminum and titanium.​

Look, I know Obama told you the asteroids were good, and the moon is bad.

He lied to you. You, mindless robot that you are, dutifully and faithfully believed him.

 

[daveman]

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

The moon is not laden with heavy metals, but has abundant aluminum at the surface. Your quote and assumptions are off base, as it were. In an earlier post I mentioned the upthrust recently discovered called the “Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly;" (CBTA) where the heavy element Thorium is at the surface sufficiently to visibly discolor it. That heavy material was thrust upward by internal circulation, and then perhaps a large impact. The moon suffered many large impacts that caused this same process. A good feature about the relative stability of the lunar surface, erosion, weathering, and plate tectonics ...., is that what emerges onto the surface stays there.

Thorium like uranium, is excellent for producing nuclear energy, and in the process does not create Plutonium.

There indeed have been volcanoes, and since the mantle is more iron rich than Earth's, that as well as other heavy metals would end up in lava flows flooding impact basins.
Here are the relative abundances of useful elements on the surface by percentages;
First in the Maria second in the Highlands:
Silica – 45/45 (pct/pct)
Alumina – 15/24
Lime – 12/16
Iron oxide – 14/6
Magnesia – 9/8
Titanium dioxide – 4/1
Sodium oxide – 1/1
These do not take into account anomalies like the CBTA


(Surface abundances from link at Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't take any pleasure in calling you stupid, but I do see you as a pretender, and your hubris, if it was not so amusing would be extremely offensive.

Uh oh -- that's some of that science stuff that rderp hates.

Remember, science is not real science if it contradicts Obama.

 

[rdean]

A while back on Fox News, a commentator said that a space elevator was not practical for Earth. When asked why NASA awarded the $900,000 (the subject of the link in my last post) the award and why would we promote the wasted effort, he said while it would not work on Earth, it would work on other bodies in space, like our own moon for instance, to transport cargo into space from some future moon base.

I would take issue with that since there is virtually no rotation of the moon (it effectively rotates one time in 27.5 days), there is also no angular momentum to allow a satellite to maintain the synchronous orbit which would be necessary for a space elevator. And also the gravity well of the moon does not require such a large expenditure of fuel/energy to leave the surface to pay for the investment of a space elevator, whether possible or not.

Technology comes in all forms. Even a tether. Something like that could be used on a space station, or even an "asteroid".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Asteroid Mining

. In addition to iron and nickel there is thought to be gold an platinum in some asteroids. Asteroids were formed in much the same way as the Earth, so it only makes sense that they contain many of the same minerals and raw ores as the Earth. In the future, miners will be asteroid mining.
Asteroids are classed in three types: More than 75% of them are C-type which are very much like the Sun, but less volatile. Then there are the S-type which contain iron, nickel, and magnesium for sure, but may also contain gold and platinum. Lastly, there are the M-type which contain iron and nickel. Astronomers know all of this by using telescopic spectroscopy, which analyzes light reflected from the asteroid’s surface, to find out what might be there. They also know that there is water and trapped oxygen on or in some of these asteroids. Asteroid mining would only be possible if miners could take advantage of the oxygen and water there. There is no other way to make a profit or carry all of the supplies that you would need for a long term project.

Water discovered on second asteroid, may be even more common

Water ice on asteroids may be more common than expected, according to a new study that is being presented at the world's largest gathering of planetary scientists.

"This discovery suggests that this region of our solar system contains more water ice than anticipated," said University of Central Florida Professor Humberto Campins. "And it supports the theory that asteroids may have hit Earth and brought our planet its water and the building blocks for life to form and evolve here.

Asteroids

Near-Earth asteroids, or NEA's, are asteroids that have orbits that pass close to that of Earth. Asteroids that actually cross the Earth's orbital path are known as Earth-crossers. As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known and the number over one kilometre in diameter is estimated to be 500–1,000.

It has been suggested that asteroids might be used as a source of materials that may be rare or exhausted on earth (asteroid mining), or materials for constructing space habitats (see Colonization of the asteroids). Materials that are heavy and expensive to launch from earth may someday be mined from asteroids and used for space manufacturing and construction.

Colonization of the asteroids

Low gravity simplifies construction technologies (such as cranes) and reduces structural strength requirements
Large number of possible sites, with over 300,000 asteroids identified to date
Asteroids' chemical composition varies (see asteroid spectral types), providing a variety of materials usable in building and fueling spacecraft and space habitats. The Trojan asteroids, in Jupiter's orbit, may be primarily extinct comets.
Some Earth-crossing asteroids require less energy (delta-V) to reach from Earth than the Moon.
Material mined from asteroids could be a basis for a trade economy.
Low gravity significantly eases transportation of cargo to and from asteroids.
High surface/volume ratio enables effective exploration and exploitation of mineral resources and provides maximal portion of useful building ground on the surface and underground.
High vacuum and low gravity would facilitate the evolution of some hi-tech industries such as material engineering and physical electronics (crystal growth, epitaxy).
Many asteroids (especially the extinct comet cores) contain large amounts (more than 5% of total composition) of volatiles and carbon, which are necessary for life support.
Isaac Asimov pointed out the advantage of building cities inside hollowed out asteroids, since the volume of all the asteroids put together is a great deal more than that of a mile-high building covering the Earth would be, and thus could accommodate a large population.

-----------------------------------------------------

Gotta love the right wing. They love to say "can't".

Do you know how long the right wing has been writing about mining asteroids? Have you ever heard of H. G. Wells and Jules Verne?

Wait a second, you mean Republicans have a H. G. Wells AND a Jules Verne too?

Cuz the Wells I read about was a self proclaimed "socialist" and nearly every book Jules Verne wrote was "anti war".

Funny how you manage to call me stupid in nearly every post. And then with I quote your own words, you feel personally "attacked".

Wells, and his fellow self proclaimed socialists, admired the Bismarckian Empire of Germany.

As for Verne, he believed in personal freedom and opposed large government. That made him left wing by the standards of his day, but right wing in modern America.

Feel free to attack me all you want, I do not feel anything when you do. I just pointed out that, under the rules of this site, personal attacks belong in the flame zine. I did not whinge to anyone, nor did I cry to the mods, I just made an observation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All that is fine, and no one doubts there are plenty of minable resources on asteroids, but a platform like the moon, where all the same resources can be found, is way more practical and far better training and preparation for going to Mars.

So much of that in your post is blarney, Dean, and has to be taken with a grain of salt. We hopefully will do it all, but it's much farther into the future than the Moon then Mars. Even the resources we find in asteroids have more application on the Moon and Mars than without those two manned bases of operations.

It's the equivalent of "getting the cart before the horse."

For all your constant haranguing of the "right wing" (etal) they have a quality that you miss: they are first of all practical.

Furthermore there's no reason to go the asteroids to deflect them; we can recon those (WISE) in towards the sun which are invisible coming at us by satellites, and we can calculate mathematically the results of any actions we might take in their regard without going there and trying it first hand. The claim that that was a primary purpose by NASA to visit an asteroid (holy cow! in 2025 yet!) was an agency in search of a purpose, and a reason to find something positive in what they have to buy into . . . . or lose their jobs. It’s so sad what's happened to NASA.

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

What the fuck?

If asteroids are full of stuff we can mine, and they hit the moon, leaving huge craters, do you think they might leave large deposits of stuff we can mine?

Additionally, the rocks that were returned to Earth from the various Apollo missions and the Russian lunar probes show a high concentration of iron and titanium. The latter would be be of special interest to anyone interested in lunar mining. Instead of taking wild guesses about selenology you should do some basic research.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A while back on Fox News, a commentator said that a space elevator was not practical for Earth. When asked why NASA awarded the $900,000 (the subject of the link in my last post) the award and why would we promote the wasted effort, he said while it would not work on Earth, it would work on other bodies in space, like our own moon for instance, to transport cargo into space from some future moon base.

I would take issue with that since there is virtually no rotation of the moon (it effectively rotates one time in 27.5 days), there is also no angular momentum to allow a satellite to maintain the synchronous orbit which would be necessary for a space elevator. And also the gravity well of the moon does not require such a large expenditure of fuel/energy to leave the surface to pay for the investment of a space elevator, whether possible or not.

Technology comes in all forms. Even a tether. Something like that could be used on a space station, or even an "asteroid".

Why would we put a tether on a space station? Or an asteroid? The purpose of the tether is to get things out of the gravity well, and that is not a problem in tether of the supposed examples you gave.

 

[rdean]

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

The moon is not laden with heavy metals, but has abundant aluminum at the surface. Your quote and assumptions are off base, as it were. In an earlier post I mentioned the upthrust recently discovered called the “Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly;" (CBTA) where the heavy element Thorium is at the surface sufficiently to visibly discolor it. That heavy material was thrust upward by internal circulation, and then perhaps a large impact. The moon suffered many large impacts that caused this same process. A good feature about the relative stability of the lunar surface, erosion, weathering, and plate tectonics ...., is that what emerges onto the surface stays there.

Thorium like uranium, is excellent for producing nuclear energy, and in the process does not create Plutonium.

There indeed have been volcanoes, and since the mantle is more iron rich than Earth's, that as well as other heavy metals would end up in lava flows flooding impact basins.
Here are the relative abundances of useful elements on the surface by percentages;
First in the Maria second in the Highlands:
Silica – 45/45 (pct/pct)
Alumina – 15/24
Lime – 12/16
Iron oxide – 14/6
Magnesia – 9/8
Titanium dioxide – 4/1
Sodium oxide – 1/1
These do not take into account anomalies like the CBTA


(Surface abundances from link at Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't take any pleasure in calling you stupid, but I do see you as a pretender, and your hubris, if it was not so amusing would be extremely offensive.

The list of materials you gave are so "useful".

Silica - is another name for sand. Used to make "dishes".
Alumina - a component used to make aluminum, but it's also a "niche" material, used in ceramics among others.
Lime - most known for the being the "white" in "whitewash" paint.
Iron oxide - a pigment used in tattoos.
Magnesia - we take that when we get an upset tummy, known as "milk of".

Thorium is a common element found all over the world.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was? To call me stupid? And amusing? Uh, thanks, I think.

 

[rdean]

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

What the fuck?

If asteroids are full of stuff we can mine, and they hit the moon, leaving huge craters, do you think they might leave large deposits of stuff we can mine?

Additionally, the rocks that were returned to Earth from the various Apollo missions and the Russian lunar probes show a high concentration of iron and titanium. The latter would be be of special interest to anyone interested in lunar mining. Instead of taking wild guesses about selenology you should do some basic research.

Uh, not every asteroid is a "gold mine".

Once they hit the moon, they are "dust".

Using the science of "spectroscopy", scientists can tell the composition of asteroids and know in advance "which ones to visit".

Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, the question you should ask is, "How many of those rocks came from asteroids"?

 

[daveman]

The list of materials you gave are so "useful".

Silica - is another name for sand. Used to make "dishes".
Alumina - a component used to make aluminum, but it's also a "niche" material, used in ceramics among others.
Lime - most known for the being the "white" in "whitewash" paint.
Iron oxide - a pigment used in tattoos.
Magnesia - we take that when we get an upset tummy, known as "milk of".

Thorium is a common element found all over the world.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was? To call me stupid? And amusing? Uh, thanks, I think.

What kind of engineer are you, anyway? An engineer of stupid?

 

[rdean]

Two facts that rderp refuses to take into consideration (probably because he hasn't been programmed with them):

The moon is better than the asteroids for mining because:

1. It has all the resources of the asteroids, and they're easier to get to and exploit.

2. You can't fall off the moon. It's easier to do a lot of things in a gravity well than in free-fall.

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

That explains why we don't mine metals on Earth.

Oh, wait...

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

I call you stupid, and I have good reason to.

This article says you're wrong about mining the moon.

Of all the resources available, the lunar regolith is the most accessible and most easily converted into construction materials. Lunar regolith contains oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, aluminum and titanium.​

Look, I know Obama told you the asteroids were good, and the moon is bad.

He lied to you. You, mindless robot that you are, dutifully and faithfully believed him.

You might want to reread your "article". Fusion reactors are a "theory". If you can get one to work, then you will be a rich man indeed. Otherwise, going to the moon for concrete and fiberglass seems kind of lame. I think this article was written for discussion, not to be taken seriously. It's a kind of "what if" article, one of several.

Why the Moon

Like the "fusion" reactor and the "there could be ten billion tons of water" blah blah blah.

It's more "hope" than "guess".

Earth's oceans came from the asteroids. That has to be true.

 

[rdean]

The list of materials you gave are so "useful".

Silica - is another name for sand. Used to make "dishes".
Alumina - a component used to make aluminum, but it's also a "niche" material, used in ceramics among others.
Lime - most known for the being the "white" in "whitewash" paint.
Iron oxide - a pigment used in tattoos.
Magnesia - we take that when we get an upset tummy, known as "milk of".

Thorium is a common element found all over the world.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was? To call me stupid? And amusing? Uh, thanks, I think.

What kind of engineer are you, anyway? An engineer of stupid?

Wow, thank you for your keen intellect and deep insight. I'm taken "aback". The power of a GED. Who knew?

 

[rdean]

A while back on Fox News, a commentator said that a space elevator was not practical for Earth. When asked why NASA awarded the $900,000 (the subject of the link in my last post) the award and why would we promote the wasted effort, he said while it would not work on Earth, it would work on other bodies in space, like our own moon for instance, to transport cargo into space from some future moon base.

I would take issue with that since there is virtually no rotation of the moon (it effectively rotates one time in 27.5 days), there is also no angular momentum to allow a satellite to maintain the synchronous orbit which would be necessary for a space elevator. And also the gravity well of the moon does not require such a large expenditure of fuel/energy to leave the surface to pay for the investment of a space elevator, whether possible or not.

Technology comes in all forms. Even a tether. Something like that could be used on a space station, or even an "asteroid".

Why would we put a tether on a space station? Or an asteroid? The purpose of the tether is to get things out of the gravity well, and that is not a problem in tether of the supposed examples you gave.

Or reel things in. An asteroid of even a mile across has virtually no gravity. You couldn't really "land". You would simply "bounce". Hence, the "tether". To reel your ship to the asteroid.

 

[daveman]

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

That explains why we don't mine metals on Earth.

Oh, wait...

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

I call you stupid, and I have good reason to.

This article says you're wrong about mining the moon.

Of all the resources available, the lunar regolith is the most accessible and most easily converted into construction materials. Lunar regolith contains oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, aluminum and titanium.​

Look, I know Obama told you the asteroids were good, and the moon is bad.

He lied to you. You, mindless robot that you are, dutifully and faithfully believed him.

You might want to reread your "article". Fusion reactors are a "theory". If you can get one to work, then you will be a rich man indeed. Otherwise, going to the moon for concrete and fiberglass seems kind of lame. I think this article was written for discussion, not to be taken seriously. It's a kind of "what if" article, one of several.

You don't think at all.

Concrete and fiberglass can be used to build facilities on the moon.

But Obama didn't tell you that, so you think it's impossible.

Why the Moon

Like the "fusion" reactor and the "there could be ten billion tons of water" blah blah blah.

It's more "hope" than "guess".

You voted for Obama for less.

Earth's oceans came from the asteroids. That has to be true.

It HAS to be true.

You're quite the fundamentalist, aren't you?

 

[daveman]

The list of materials you gave are so "useful".

Silica - is another name for sand. Used to make "dishes".
Alumina - a component used to make aluminum, but it's also a "niche" material, used in ceramics among others.
Lime - most known for the being the "white" in "whitewash" paint.
Iron oxide - a pigment used in tattoos.
Magnesia - we take that when we get an upset tummy, known as "milk of".

Thorium is a common element found all over the world.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was? To call me stupid? And amusing? Uh, thanks, I think.

What kind of engineer are you, anyway? An engineer of stupid?

Wow, thank you for your keen intellect and deep insight. I'm taken "aback". The power of a GED. Who knew?

See, given your general lack of knowledge, and your closed-minded fundamentalism, I simply can't accept that you're an engineer.

All the engineers I've ever met -- and that's been a lot -- have been conservative. They believe in things they can put their hands on, in hard data, in hard work, in results. Not the touchy-feely emotionalism that drives you.

 

[rdean]

What kind of engineer are you, anyway? An engineer of stupid?

Wow, thank you for your keen intellect and deep insight. I'm taken "aback". The power of a GED. Who knew?

See, given your general lack of knowledge, and your closed-minded fundamentalism, I simply can't accept that you're an engineer.

All the engineers I've ever met -- and that's been a lot -- have been conservative. They believe in things they can put their hands on, in hard data, in hard work, in results. Not the touchy-feely emotionalism that drives you.

You dumbass moron. Republicans don't believe in data. Otherwise, they would know evolution to be true and look at "climate change" in a serious manner. You're a laughing stock. Who takes you with more than a grain of salt?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

The moon is not laden with heavy metals, but has abundant aluminum at the surface. Your quote and assumptions are off base, as it were. In an earlier post I mentioned the upthrust recently discovered called the “Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly;" (CBTA) where the heavy element Thorium is at the surface sufficiently to visibly discolor it. That heavy material was thrust upward by internal circulation, and then perhaps a large impact. The moon suffered many large impacts that caused this same process. A good feature about the relative stability of the lunar surface, erosion, weathering, and plate tectonics ...., is that what emerges onto the surface stays there.

Thorium like uranium, is excellent for producing nuclear energy, and in the process does not create Plutonium.

There indeed have been volcanoes, and since the mantle is more iron rich than Earth's, that as well as other heavy metals would end up in lava flows flooding impact basins.
Here are the relative abundances of useful elements on the surface by percentages;
First in the Maria second in the Highlands:
Silica – 45/45 (pct/pct)
Alumina – 15/24
Lime – 12/16
Iron oxide – 14/6
Magnesia – 9/8
Titanium dioxide – 4/1
Sodium oxide – 1/1
These do not take into account anomalies like the CBTA


(Surface abundances from link at Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't take any pleasure in calling you stupid, but I do see you as a pretender, and your hubris, if it was not so amusing would be extremely offensive.

The list of materials you gave are so "useful".

Silica - is another name for sand. Used to make "dishes".
Alumina - a component used to make aluminum, but it's also a "niche" material, used in ceramics among others.
Lime - most known for the being the "white" in "whitewash" paint.
Iron oxide - a pigment used in tattoos.
Magnesia - we take that when we get an upset tummy, known as "milk of".

Thorium is a common element found all over the world.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was? To call me stupid? And amusing? Uh, thanks, I think.

Ceramics are used to make heat shielding, not to mention ceramic armor plating for hummers and and other vehicles to protect troops from IEDs. Having an abundant source of raw materials for ceramics on the moon is one of the things that make going there a good idea.

I should really stop insulting stupid people by associating you with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The moon is better for mining? While the moon and the earth are made from the same material, the moons unique history make it particularly unsuitable for mining. Try to find out why if you don't believe me.

Imagine volcanoes on the earth bringing minerals too the surface regardless of how much they weigh. Imagine the moon, in it's early years was a molten mass. When liquid, what sinks to the center? Metals of course. Then the moon cooled. The craters are from impacts NOT volcanoes. To mine the moon would be to dig to it's center. Hardly probable.

I know you guys like to call me stupid, but at least I explain things with somewhat of an understanding. Most on the right don't seem capable. And this is where our scientists come from?

What the fuck?

If asteroids are full of stuff we can mine, and they hit the moon, leaving huge craters, do you think they might leave large deposits of stuff we can mine?

Additionally, the rocks that were returned to Earth from the various Apollo missions and the Russian lunar probes show a high concentration of iron and titanium. The latter would be be of special interest to anyone interested in lunar mining. Instead of taking wild guesses about selenology you should do some basic research.

Uh, not every asteroid is a "gold mine".

Once they hit the moon, they are "dust".

Using the science of "spectroscopy", scientists can tell the composition of asteroids and know in advance "which ones to visit".

Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, the question you should ask is, "How many of those rocks came from asteroids"?

Do you have any idea how spectroscopy works?

You really should catch up with the actual science about the moon.

SELENOLOGY TODAY

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Technology comes in all forms. Even a tether. Something like that could be used on a space station, or even an "asteroid".

Why would we put a tether on a space station? Or an asteroid? The purpose of the tether is to get things out of the gravity well, and that is not a problem in tether of the supposed examples you gave.

Or reel things in. An asteroid of even a mile across has virtually no gravity. You couldn't really "land". You would simply "bounce". Hence, the "tether". To reel your ship to the asteroid.

Why would you want to reel your ship to an asteroid? It would be spinning on three axis in a way that would make it extremely dangerous to get close to it, and anchoring your ship to it with a tether would cause your ship to trade momentum and force you to use irreplaceable fuel to reduce all that extraneous motion.

 

[American Horse]

Why would you want to reel your ship to an asteroid? It would be spinning on three axis in a way that would make it extremely dangerous to get close to it, and anchoring your ship to it with a tether would cause your ship to trade momentum and force you to use irreplaceable fuel to reduce all that extraneous motion.

or get slammed into the surface.