Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Heh, you'd think by taking mare regolith and covering the bright parts of it, you'd be doing them a favor.
|
I was meaning lunar astonomers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
However, lets be realistic. I am NOT talking about strip mining the surface here. That's not even practically possible to the extent that vast swaths of Lunar surface will be defaced, simply because its A) beyond the scope of modern technology even if we threw 100% effort into it, and B) not likely netting them anything useful anyway.
|
If we are talking about He3 mining (and I really like the cautionary note on this in the OP) then large scale mining is exacly what we are talking about. But your use of the word "deface" actually sets a useful limit. I can quite see an aesthetic limit on nearside mining that keeps it below visibility from earth, whether by naked eye or small telescope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
What I am talking about is if they do find something useful, turn them loose to get it. There's no water table to pollute, there's no atmosphere to choke, nor is there any native life to kill off.
|
There are lots of ways of potentially degrading the Moon that would need to be avoided. The lack of atmosphere is something to be preserved, essential as it is for many astronomical and industrial purposes. Large scale surface mobilisation of dust would also need to be avoided. Another issue would be lwidespread contamination of the surface, especially if associated with dust molbilisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
At worst, you end up with some localized devastation of the scenery, but you're talking about an astronomical body with several times the surface area of Eurasia.
|
To be pedantic, slightly smaller than Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Most of what human technology is capable of doing won't be evident from anything other than a dedicated Moonsat like Clementine for decades or centuries at best. If its largely underground, we may never see it.
|
Local devestation of the scenery is one thing. But large scale impacts are something else. Atmsopheric contamination may have potentially global reach Even the Apollo missions radically changed the composition and bulk of the lunar atmosphere..
ALso note that from a mining perspective, working underground is to be avoided, if possible. It is more complex, more expensive, and riskier. Also on the Moon its unlikely. The main resources are best extracted in the regolith - solar atoms, ilmenite, nickel-iron, oxygen, ices
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
So spare me, poets, you're precious man on the moon has a long life ahead of him, even if we do industrialize it. If your panties are going to bunch up that much, there's the other 45% of the Moon you never get to see because of tidal locking, so we can always go crazy on the farside.
|
Contempt for people with concerns is precisely the wrong way to go about it. You want to engage people, not alientate them. The fastest way to alienate a large segment of the population is to talk about lunar industrialisation in a way that looks purely in the short term and narrow economic focus. It will remind people of the worst of the 19th and 20th century. Industricl culture has moved beyond that, and trying to turn the clock back is counter productive.
IMHO of course. But I did spent over a decade in the mining industry, and allowing for multiple land use, stake holder consultation, rehabilitation, sustainability, and the triple bottom line have been part of mining in my country for several decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Heck, that might be worth doing, since it'll change the face of the New Moon phase as seen from Earth forever. To be able to look up at an otherwise dark patch in the sky, see a string of lights, and know we're out there, and out there to stay.
|
I have thought on this one, and it would be nice to see. But would it actually happen? how bright would the lights have to be? Could you see Earthly cities from the Moon with the naked eye, or a small telecope?
Jon