WHY ? Go to the MOON ?

LadyLuna, Good points all. I'm sure that the ecological considerations of 'mining' the moon will be seriously weighed before any action is taken. That's one of the great things of living in a free society where freedom of speech exists. Especially be thankful the attitudes that existed in the 1960's and the early days of NASA still are not operative. I remember a proposal at the time to use unmanned lunar probes to place seismographs on the moon to be followed by the detonation of a nuclear device. The idea was to explore the geology of the moon based on the reverberations of the shock waves. I'm not kidding. Only public outcry stopped this. Mining of the moon will similarily be closely examined for the reasons you bring up, I'm sure. So, keep the critiques coming. You are performing a public service.

I absolutely agree with you, LadyLuna! But I omitted these thoughts from the discussion because I wanted to concentrate on the mining exploration technique itself. The very stability of the moon could be changed due to mass manipulation. Worse case scenario would be to lose the moon's orbit. Without it, the Earth will receive more impacts from the beyond or worse yet, due to insufficient mass, a large asteroid could impact and shatter the moon and send the fragments hurtling to Earth. But I do feel that this is another discussion in its own right.

The real problem is the return trip. Apollo moon missions brought back only a very small amount of moon rocks because the payloads of current spacecraft can just barely get to the moon and back. Why don't they go with robotic craft that harvests the isotope and return without a human aboard? This increases the usable freight payload. That would be my approach.

So, how long before we could get any of this stuff from the moon to earth? How? Answer this and automatically get a job at NASA!

Some models and scientists were saying it'd be 20+ years before humanity had a chance of effectively harvesting resources from Luna. Some estimates clock the endeavor at 2025-2035 and beyond. Others say 2020. Some more conservative estimates place it at 2050-2060. In order to harvest it, it would definitely take a moonbase for on site and hands on observation of the lunar crust and geosphere. The process would have to involve either manned or automated extraction processes. In fact, you do have a point with your initial example Red. Satellites currently run on solar power some with moving parts. Advances in robotics are also continuing and it would be effective to have a solar/hydrogen/antimatter/nuclear or other high-end or efficient hybrid powered megamachine or a ship that can deploy automated and (at least)semi-self sufficient fleet of mining robots. And overall, it almost seems like there will have to be manned missions and cooperation to get some starting materials from the moon. Then space agencies can use those materials for refortifying, significantly improving spacecraft and lunar extraction equipment.

Cause we can use the moon space to live?play?develop and so on……

Good points indeed. I got to thinking about this while in the shower last night. Space frame design has long been utilized in various applications for weight savings. So how 'bout building a series of "train cars" that fold neatly into one another and encapsulate them into a light-weight, re-usable rocket. Using very light-weight super alloys, it would be possible to launch scores of them in one rocket. Once deployed, to make them containers, use a light-weight super strength material similar to canvas to line the cars as well as cover the top when fully loaded. For launching purposes, borrow the idea from Burt Rattan (or the X-15 project - same thing) and launch the rocket from beneath a high flying jet. This will save a considerable amount of fuel and time. As for fuel for Lunar and rocket operations, how 'bout H2O2? A non-polluting, viable energy fuel source. But how about adding at the rear of the rocket a device that captures the H2 and O2 exhaust, recombines the broken molecules back into H2O2? This may not take much energy to do in space - or at least it should be engineered as so. Now we have a renewable fuel process. The lunar equipment will also be fitted with such a device to provide continuous fuel for the mining operations. And if there is ever a contamination issue, just dump a load of fuel on it! Instantly sterilized. As to the re-entry problem, treat the atmosphere just like a pool of water. Want a clean dive? Go straight in. There is a 5 mile area for correction of landing angle available, so re-entry shouldn't be that big a problem. The re-usable rocket should be able to haul from 2 - 5 cars within its cargo bay. Once in the atmosphere, either wings can be deployed for a glider landing or parachutes for a water landing. Offload the cargo, reload rocket and go back for more. Yes, it's simplistic. But often it is the best answer to a problem. And yes, I take long showers.

Yes, as far as we have delved into it, H202 provides a weak reaction. But I am reminded of what was said just 20 years ago about diesel powered cars. Now look at Audi's R10. Every molecule has atoms and we know that splitting atoms releases huge amounts of energy. And we have recently discovered it does not always (or maybe ever more) require huge amounts of energy to split them. And just like microchips evolved into nanochips, I suspect that given a dedicated effort, H202 can be brought to the forefront as a POWERFUL alternative fuel source. I will track down a video I saw weeks ago about how this one guy has learned to use H20 as fuel. His machine does whatever conversion such that water powers a torch hot enough to burn through steel plate, yet the nozzle of the torch stays cool enough to leave his hand on it while the flame is burning. Then he angles the flame down the plate to show the exhaust from the combustion. It is water vapor. You will see the droplet form right in front of your eyes! He currently is powering a car with his technology. So I got to thinking, why limit ones self to just one molecule of oxygen? Hence my idea of H202 as a fuel source. Once I find the vid, I will post the link here.

The payload problem: 1. gravity 2. the atmosphere. You can actually bounce off the atmosphere on re-entry and heading out with any sizeable craft to go pick up the goodies on the moon requires huge amounts of fuel to break free of earth's gravity. That is why we have not done anything spectacular so far.

Hello Friendship, Yes, China did blow up an older model orbiting satellite. Just enter "China blows up a satellite" into your search engine and you'll access many different sources for the story. In the USA, this was HUGE news for about 18 hours. Funny, I know. One would think this would be major news, yet it was barely a snippet.

Where did you read that China blowed up a satellite in space? I haven't read it yet.

Yes, I was /facepalm over that report. It was here today and gone almost instantly. But of course, that doesn't serve the "agenda" so it won't be "news" at least not that long. -_-