×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To Avoid a Scramble For the Moon and Its Resources

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the blow-it-up dept.

Moon 365

MarkWhittington writes "With the Chang'e 3 and its rover Jade Rabbit safely ensconced on the lunar surface, the question arises: is it time to start dividing up the moon and its resources? It may well be an issue by the middle of the current century. With China expressing interest in exploiting lunar resources and a number of private companies, such Moon Express, working for the same goal, a mechanism for who gets what is something that needs looking into. Moon Daily quotes a Russian official as suggesting that it can all be done in a civilized manner, through international agreements. On the other hand, law professor and purveyor of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds suggests that China might spark a moon race by having a private company claim at least parts of the moon. 'International cooperation will certainly rule supreme while there are no economic interests, while it is not clear where commercial profits lie. Scientists can't help communicating with each other and sharing ideas.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

365 comments

slashdot is for fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745647)

slashdot is for fucking bastards who hit babies with railway sleepers.

nothing of any us to us on moon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745671)

no chance of just leaving it alone? arrogance abounds as abuse victims abuse everything

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (3, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 4 months ago | (#45745727)

Won't someone think of the native people?

Mooninites are people too! They're from the moon.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#45746025)

mooninites are dicks and their enormous bullets are easy to dodge so I think we're cool.

but srsly fucking lunar conservationism? wtf? what's next, a petition to preserve venus as it is? let's just stay out of europa and do wtf we want with the rest, mkay?

and I propose the following rule to it: whoever manages to get to the resources can use them as they see fit. I find it unlikely that they'll erase it out of existence any time soon.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (1)

Agent ME (1411269) | about 4 months ago | (#45745743)

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#45745793)

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?

Um, because humans have a tendency to royally fuck up every environmental factor we can get our grubby little meathooks on, and the Moon plays a vital role in the tidal flow of our oceans?

If we mine a shitload of material out of the moon, won't that affect it's gravitational effect on the planet?

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745913)

We'd have to mine a hell of a lot to noticeably change the moon's gravity. And a slightly lighter moon might make up for the energy we're taking out of the system with tidal power.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745969)

If we mine a shitload of material out of the moon, won't that affect it's gravitational effect on the planet?

I haven't seen a failure of perspective (or even expending a minute effort to think) of this magnitude in quite some time. You're a fucking retard.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45745987)

Yes, and when technology supports shipping quintillions of tons, we'll worry about that.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (4, Insightful)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | about 4 months ago | (#45745991)

If we mine a shitload of material out of the moon, won't that affect it's gravitational effect on the planet?

Mass of moon: 7 x 10^22 kg

World annual steel production: 1 x 10^12 kg

World annual concrete production: 2 x 10^13 kg

Not an imminent problem to solve!

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745825)

What are the resources there?

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745939)

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?

Airless lifeless rocks have feeling too, you know.

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 4 months ago | (#45746153)

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?

Airless lifeless rocks have feeling too, you know. You insensitive clod!

FTFY

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746127)

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt.

So no whalers on the moon?

Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45746079)

no chance of just leaving it alone? arrogance abounds as abuse victims abuse everything

I'll leave it alone if you leave it alone.

But I'll prepare to pillage the lunar resources, just in case you make a move.

NUKE IT NOW !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745677)

If we cannot have it no one can !!

Why bother? (-1, Flamebait)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#45745693)

I don't know why we Americans would even bother discussing the issue. We're never going to get back to the moon, manned or robotically. While China and India are sending spacecraft there, our government can't even build a working website, and our finest minds are squandered on ways to get people to click links. We'll be lucky if we can keep the bridges standing, the roads open, the water clean, and the electricity flowing by mid-century.

   

Re:Why bother? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745741)

You're so jaded you just come off as ignorant. Bridges standing, roads open, clean water, electricity: those are all *major* problems that China and India actively struggle with. We don't.

Re:Why bother? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745847)

Bridges standing, roads open, clean water, electricity: those are all *major* problems that China and India actively struggle with. We don't.

Except for the bridges that have collapsed and the ones that are in critical need of maintenance; roads barely worth the name; constant water boil advisories across various parts of the country and - I take it you've never lived in the Northeast if you think we don't still laughably struggle with electricity.

Keep waving that flag though and ignoring our ailing infrastructure. We'll be number one in the race to the bottom at least, I guess.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745981)

Sometimes when i play monopoly, instead of developing my current properties i race to gobble up free spaces. I usually win.

Re:Why bother? (1)

eof (33820) | about 4 months ago | (#45746147)

Except that we do. U.S. infrastructure is crumbling, we have lobbyists working around the clock to deregulate environmental protection, and even keeping the power on is becoming more of an issue. Thank goodness we have plenty of money to dump into unneeded military tech projects, though.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745775)

yeah, things are so bad that when we first went to the moon most of the people were still poor and only a tiny minority could even dream of going to college

Re:Why bother? (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#45745811)

Right. We're so backwards we can't even land the most complex lander ever devised on Mars. Or put satellites in orbit and Jupiter and Saturn.

And keep a manned spacecraft up and running for years. Or pay for the Hubble (several times).

Awful. Awful. Awful.

Yeah China - they manage to take mostly Russian technology and do something that both the US and the USSR did 40 years ago.

The Chinese are to be congratulated - no matter where the tech came from, it's a significant accomplishment. And FSM knows we need some competition here (it's the American way, right?). But quit the angst.

Re:Why bother? (3, Insightful)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 4 months ago | (#45745953)

The problem is not technology to go to space, you americans already have this. The problem is will to do this again.

Re:Why bother? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45746013)

Except that that will shouldn't necessarily be focused on the Moon. Mars, Venus, and the outer planets all have a lot more to investigate about them. We put enormous multi-focusing telescopes in space to look at planets beyond our own system. It's not unreasonable to say the U.S. has ambitions with regard to space that outpace other nations.

Re:Why bother? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#45745823)

We're never going to get back to the moon

Hyperbole much? "Never" is an extremely long time.

Re:Why bother? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 4 months ago | (#45745833)

Based on previous examples, what seems to work well for American's to really get it together tech wise is to have a president outline a grand, almost impossible plan then shoot them. Worked for Kennedy/Apollo and Reagan/Star Wars although obviously Ronnie got better.

Re:Why bother? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#45745997)

"Star Wars" worked?

Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; and its scope from global to more regional coverage. It was never truly developed or deployed, though certain aspects of SDI research and technologies paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative [wikipedia.org]

If you consider rescoping the project and completely ditching the satellites to still 'work', yeah, I guess.

Heh--I do really like that the satellite component had the acronym ERIS, though.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745839)

Because the website was hashed together relatively quickly, by staff with little personal stake in its success, and honestly there were plenty of efforts to ensure external data would remain unreachable by the website's calls.

A moon mission is very different altogether & would be managed differently. Stop whining & have some faith.

Re:Why bother? (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#45745877)

Dude, we have two active rovers on Mars - one that has been roving around for 10 years. In addition, two of the orbiters we sent there are still operational, with another en route. The ESA has had an orbiter for 10 years. Even India has an orbiter en route to Mars. Do you really think we don't have the capability to land a rover on the moon?

Re:Why bother? (3, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#45746031)

No, we NEED to go back. We can't let China - a communist nation that hates freedom - beat us at this. In fact, we need to one up them and send a manned mission to Mars. To do that, we should pour tons of money into NASA and various scientific organizations. That'll show those dirty, rotten commies.

(Waits for the "blindly patriotic" crowd to start chanting for more money to NASA and science.)

Enforcement (1, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45745703)

Property rights might come into play some day, when the moon is crowded or scarce materials are identified in limited places, but until then, good luck writing things down on paper on Earth and expecting anybody to care about that. Property on The Moon will belong to whoever gets there and defends their claim.

If any Earth Nation expects to shoot down transit flights to or from the moon to enforce their paper claim, the ramifications will be far more severe than if they simply did nothing. Perhaps the politicians will mumble and gurgle about it, but then do nothing, as is their typical pattern.

Re:Enforcement (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 4 months ago | (#45745747)

Yeah, it's not like a government can forcibly seize assets and keep you from launching to begin with.

Re:Enforcement (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45745865)

Yeah, it's not like a government can forcibly seize assets and keep you from launching to begin with.

Who's going to invade China to seize their launch assets? Make no mistake, all this kerfuffle really is about China having a million people working on their space program and investing in human presence on The Moon and Mars whilst the other nations continue to shut down their productive capacity.

Space X is wonderful, but they'll always find a home somewhere on Earth for launches, even if their current host country decides to crush them. China would be one example of a country that would be likely to do so.

Take the Manifest Destiny approach (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 4 months ago | (#45745709)

He who gets there, and stays there, first with the most wins the rights.

Re:Take the Manifest Destiny approach (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 4 months ago | (#45745753)

I think you mean whoever gets there and brutally murders anyone who was there before them wins the rights.

Yeah, that sounds more like manifest destiny.

No (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745711)

No one can get to the Moon and no one has the resources to do so. Realistically this is something we'll have to figure out in a hundred years, not every time someone lands a rover on the moon.

Re:No (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#45745777)

No one can get to the Moon and no one has the resources to do so.

I am thoroughly convinced that this statement is about to be proven wrong... to borrow a phrase from a particular US President, while speaking about almost identical subject matter, "by the end of the decade". I do not mean the US reference to make make any implications as to which nation(s) might accomplish the task, however.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#45745821)

No one can get to the Moon and no one has the resources to do so. Realistically this is something we'll have to figure out in a hundred years, not every time someone lands a rover on the moon.

We went from the Wright brothers flight to landing a couple dudes on the Moon in less than 60 years. Because we had a reason.

Never underestimate the drive and ability of human beings with a purpose.

Is it really an issue (2)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#45745725)

Other than being a place to wave your flag, and maybe--and I mean maybe--a handy place to build a telescope and a base for scientific research, is it really economically viable to haul back minerals and other materials by the ton?

Re:Is it really an issue (1)

Ben C. (2950903) | about 4 months ago | (#45745807)

You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space. Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.

Re:Is it really an issue (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 months ago | (#45745933)

You're begging the question. All those materials you mine in space would be used for what? Building mining equipment in space?

Re:Is it really an issue (4, Interesting)

netsavior (627338) | about 4 months ago | (#45745907)

Helium 3 is 15 million dollars per kilogram, which makes transport less of a concern and we haven't really even figured out how to use it yet., hypothetically, it is the only known element that can be used in a fusion reactor with little or NO radioactive waste.

the only place we can get it is natural gas wells (it is extremely scarce, but sometimes found in very small quantities in wells), it happens to be relatively abundant on the moon.

The race for the moon is really a race for clean nuclear energy, which is quite a prize.

Re:Is it really an issue (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#45746121)

You're not really pushing a rational business case here. You would typically find a use for the uber expensive material before you spend a lot of money going after said expensive material.

Re:Is it really an issue (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 4 months ago | (#45746129)

I feel like we (us humans) are playing this D&D game. We get to a level, we need to spend some time acquiring EXP and stuff before we can level up. Your comment makes me think we just found a dungeon run that would really require a larger cooperative party to beat it and get the prize (H3). Once we get that prize our energy production goes up, civilization continues and we level up.

Now the scary part is that (1) we're not doing so well at cooperative game playing (2) the bosses are starting to get harder and harder to beat because of (1) and I feel (3) that *We* could suffer a major loss in this current game run and we don't get a life restore option. We fail, we are done.

(use to play too much WoW)

Re:Is it really an issue (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 4 months ago | (#45746089)

Well, you can send metals mined from Moon to Earth, one way is a mass driver to go out and then a carefull planned "meteoric entry" using a low-cost heat shield to avoid the loss of material to atmosphere reentry. But as others have already commented, this material would be more useful on the moon and in space itself, would be much easier to build a large spaceship on the Moon than on Earth

Re:Is it really an issue (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746201)

Depends what it is, if we ever get He3 reactors then it will economical to bring He3 at least back from the moon, it's got a VERY high energy/mass ratio, it's almost impossible to find on earth, and would be fairly cheap to mine on the moon and launch back to earth (with rovers doing all the work). As it is now, He3 is $100-$2000/liter, and 1 liter is roughly 0.13g, so 1kg is worth at least $770k/kg (current rocket earth launch cost is about $5-15k/kg). According to the wiki, 20 tons should be enough to meet US power demands of 1.14 * 10^15 Wh. At the current price of 5 cents/kWh, it means that in the future, assuming rates hold, it could be cost effective at 2.5mil/kg. Think about that, even if it costs 500 times more to launch from the moon than earth, it's still cost effective. (Source is mostly numbers on the wiki with a bit of math applied [wikipedia.org] )

The other one is due to the moons gravity, if we ever find a good way to use stuff on the moon for fuel, it will probably be cheaper to fuel stuff from the moon simply because getting earth orbit is so much cheaper from the moon.

The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhaps.. (3, Interesting)

Otaku-GenX (3414253) | about 4 months ago | (#45745735)

The UN isn't the best group all the time, but they are the largest international and best organized and most accepted international organization to do this. The moon is one of the best sources for Helium 3 IIRC.

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745803)

Good idea. Why not the Moon after the UN did such a great job divvying up Palestine and managing any subsequent conflicts over the land/resources there.

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about 4 months ago | (#45745851)

The UN can't even manage things on earth.

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746023)

Ah, but if Robotech has taught me anything it's that once you give the UN a space fleet, it can accomplish wonders... with the aid of reverse-engineered alien supertech that randomly crashes on an island near Japan.

And if Robotech has taught me two things, 75% of intelligent life in the universe is genetically compatible with humans already, and the last 25% is self-mutating towards that goal.

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#45746145)

The moon should be easier. They wouldn't have to worry about getting tickets for double parking. No cops. Drunk driving? No problemo?

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745999)

Yes lets appoint an unelected organization with a history of institutional corruption the rulers of the moon.. makes perfect sense.

Re:The moon should be controlled by the UN, perhap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746021)

First come first serve i say.

Everyone is so concerned with civility but in reality mankind is still an evolving species driven by the basics of survival. Its more important to put bodies in space than it is to waste time arguing over which bodies to put there.

Moot point (3, Insightful)

qbast (1265706) | about 4 months ago | (#45745761)

What's there left to discuss? If you want who is moon's owner, just check whose flag is planted on it.

Re:Moot point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745849)

Y'mean like how the Spanish, Dutch, French and British Empire currently rule the Americas?

It's one thing to get there first, it's another thing to keep it.

Re:Moot point (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#45745887)

What's there left to discuss? If you want who is moon's owner, just check whose flag is planted on it.

It's apparently a white flag. Does that mean that the nation that put it there is surrendering?

How is this a big deal? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#45745765)

There's already a framework for establishing claims and exercising rights on those claims, and for resolving disputes over those claims.

Enforcement will always be the problem - since currently, and in the future, there's really no way to enforce the rules eleventy million miles away, it's going to come down to either put up or shut up, as it should.

Destabalized orbit? (0)

cgiannelli (2740647) | about 4 months ago | (#45745767)

I'm no scientist here, but the moon's mass I believe would be critical to it's stability in orbit. As we take mass away, and bring it to Earth, I would speculate the moon may eventually lose the momentum keeping it from crashing back into Earth. Granted we all may be long dead by then, but it's worth a thought.

Re: Destabalized orbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745797)

We couldn't move enough.

Re:Destabalized orbit? (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 4 months ago | (#45745993)

I'm no scientist here, ....

Same here.
I would think that less moon mass would do one of two things:

1.) like you said, pull Luna into Earth eventually

2.) or the moon's reduced mass WEAKENS the gravitational attraction and it drifts away (what my 1st thought was)

Astrophysics is just an interest and informal hobby (I'm a 'NASA brat'), but my knowledge on the subject is strictly amateur.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can constructively comment on this and help us both out! ;-)

I was under the impression there were already treaties in place to prevent nationalizing the moon by any nation?

Re:Destabalized orbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746151)

> 2.) or the moon's reduced mass WEAKENS the gravitational attraction and it drifts away (what my 1st thought was)

Actually, with a smaller mass, the earth's gravity will pull the moon harder, eventually causing an impact.

Re:Destabalized orbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746053)

You are a moron.

He who gets there fustest with the mostest (3, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | about 4 months ago | (#45745781)

Some badguy once said that the way to win a battle was "He who gets there fustest with the mostest". That typically works pretty well for most human endeavors. We should want a scramble to get to the moon. Human innovation, powered by greed, has typically been the best catalyst for moving forward. I fail to see why this would be any different.

The UN would undoubtedly screw it up, as would any other controlling agency. So for the time being, leave it uncontrolled. It causes no harm and may do good.

lets work on getting folks THERE first (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 4 months ago | (#45745817)

a rough idea would be

1 land a Bot Crew to setup Moon Base Alpha (something big enough for say 24 folks)
2 when the bots have everything tested start sending people
3 the first group then builds MB Beta (big enough for 120 people)
4 after everything is tested and stable we start sending Managers
5 MB Gamma gets built
6 Congress critters get sent up (enough people should be there to "count")

Worry about which nation on Dah MudBall gets which moon rocks after we can have a conference ON THE MOON

Re:lets work on getting folks THERE first (3, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#45746083)

Nice plan, but I'd add two final steps:

7. After the Congress critters are sent up there, we send lawyers and other politicians.
8. Recall any science folks sent there to set up the place and let them run the whole setup into the ground in an isolated fashion.

Optional step 9: Broadcast the whole thing as a great new reality show: Politicians and Lawyers On The Moon!

Re:lets work on getting folks THERE first (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#45746163)

The problem with mining the moon, and space travel in general, is a pure physics problem. One that isn't easily solved. The reason that we haven't advanced space travel much in the past 30 years is because it's actually not really solvable without some huge leap in technology, such as anti-gravity drives or space elevators, which are all science fiction at the moment.

The problem is this. Since there's little-to-no air for spacecraft to put against as we leave the atmosphere, the only way we can accelerate (or resists accelerating back towards the earth), as we reach the upper atmosphere is to eject mass out the back of the spacecraft at high speed. Due to Newton's third law, pushing mass out the back of a spacecraft creates a reactive force propelling the spacecraft forward. You can't have an electric spacecraft like you can an electric car because there's no road for the spacecraft to push against. For every gram of cargo you want to put into space, you have to have enough fuel to propel that mass into space, also, remembering that the fuel itself has mass, which itself must be propelled a certain distance until it is expelled.

Missile Base (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about 4 months ago | (#45745835)

Whoever gets the moon get's a very nice place to station lasers and missiles pointed at earth. It's of strategic military importance. The best place to have a star wars program is from a satellite. The moon is the biggest ass satellite of them all.

If you don't give me 1M dollars I will blow up DC (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45745885)

also The moon unit will be divided into two divisions: Moon Unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa.

Re:Missile Base (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about 4 months ago | (#45745979)

At the Pentagon, in 30 years:

"Oh, shit, the Chinese just launched a rocket at Justin Bieber's mansion!"

"What's the origin?"

"The Moon."

"Oh, ok. I'm going fishing this weekend, so I have to run. Let's just deal with this Monday."

Re:Missile Base (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#45746161)

At the Pentagon, in 30 years: "Oh, shit, the Chinese just launched a rocket at Justin Bieber's mansion!"

Optimist!

Re:Missile Base (2)

nojayuk (567177) | about 4 months ago | (#45746059)

Work out how much delta-v it takes to get a missile from the Moon's surface to somewhere, anywhere on Earth then compare that with the effort needed to fire a cruise missile from somewhere on the Earth to its target on Earth and then get back to me. After that we can discuss the pricetag and annual operating costs.

Lasers over a distance of 400,000km followed by 50km of atmospheric defocussing, right...

Absolute guess here but are you American by any chance? Any time I read militaristic stupidity and a belief that anything in space must have a military application then the odds are they're kill-crazy Americans.

Re:Missile Base (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746109)

Except at any given time, there is 50% of Earth that you can't attack/defend

Don't Worry About the Moon's Resourses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745873)

Let the invisible hand sort things out. It is a whole lot more efficient, and less intrusive, than government.

What about Dennis Hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745875)

He already owns the moon (according to him at least)

Moon Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745925)

I would like to see a company sell advertising on the moon. They could use a moon bulldozer to scrape a pattern in to the lunar mare to produce a coca cola ad.

How to avoid a scramble? (4, Insightful)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 4 months ago | (#45745951)

First place the moon far away.
Next introduce a large gravity well around earth. Then make sure there is a vacuum on the moon and the only source of power is the sun.

That will avoid a scramble for a long time.

millions starve as we ponder fictional future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745957)

without tears & innocence we will not get very far? handful of crown royal nazi psychos trashing our planet (causing the need to discover a new one) &/or populations sucks our spirits dry & deletes our genuine physical & spiritual allys all billions of us unchosens

I got dibs on the dark side... (1)

Maltheus (248271) | about 4 months ago | (#45745959)

...that's where all the good stuff is.

Re:I got dibs on the dark side... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 4 months ago | (#45746133)

I think Pink Floyd beat you to it long ago....

"I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon." [snippet of lyrics]

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746005)

I'd be more worried about what emptying the moon from so much material (has to be a lot to even be worth the effort, logic) would do to earth. We all know how much is influenced by the moons gravity - could seriously mess up some things

Sorry, don't by the 50 years (3, Informative)

sunking2 (521698) | about 4 months ago | (#45746007)

The shuttle cost $10k/lb to bring things 200 miles up to the ISS. SpaceX knocks that considerably. Now lets talk about going to the moon, being able to actually mine something, and bring it back. There is nothing that values in the $1M+/lb to go and get. It's not cost effective and will be much more than 50 years until it is and there is any sort of land grab because of it. Until then the Moon is huge, and the players so limited there will be no butting heads.

Nuke it from orbit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746033)

Its the only way to be sure.

tutorials (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746043)

http://www.tutorials128.blogspot.com/

Lol there is a treaty so no problem? (0)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45746117)

Treaty's work as well as you have guns to enforce them. That is the classic mistake of assuming somehow the rule of law enforces itself, ultimately it takes the rule of the gun to do so. The moon is potentially a very strategic position, the closest high ground that's capable of withstanding an attack while easy to launch kinetic weapons from.

the US is not a contender (0)

peter303 (12292) | about 4 months ago | (#45746169)

NASA was starved into irrelevance long ago. Both policitcal sides find reasons to starve it further. "Takes away from social programs" 'Increases the deficit"

What about Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45746193)

What about Antarctica?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...