Moon mining

[jj]

3) elements that it has become economically, socially or environmentally unviable to extract from the earth in sufficient quantity for industry.

That's an interesting statement, because what's made mining some metals on earth difficult is that during the refining process, other metals (mercury, lead, other heavies) are isolated, and they can't be released back into the environment. What do you do with an entire 10 acre pond full of lead and thallium when you're done extracting the copper?

Not a simple answer, that. For what are somewhat obvious reasons, nobody wants the pond full of soluable heavy metal compounds.

On the moon, with no weather, you could pile them up in case they become useful some day.

 

[Larspeart]

I was under the impression that the moon was made up of mostly worthless materials that are of little industrial value (like basalt). Am I wrong?

 

[xouper]

Larspeart: I was under the impression that the moon was made up of mostly worthless materials that are of little industrial value (like basalt). Am I wrong?

Gerald K. O'Neill seems to think so, according to the references I cited earlier in this thread.

 

[patnray]

Wasn't in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" that Heinlein proposed supplying refined minerals from the moon using a magnetic cannon?

 

[hgc]

Perhaps strip mining of cheese could be profitable.

Imagine the cheese vacations!

 

[Jon_in_london]

We need to engineer an organism that lives in salt water that segregates gold.

Better to have one that eats garbage and pisses beer.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Wasn't in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" that Heinlein proposed supplying refined minerals from the moon using a magnetic cannon?

They were actually shipping grain to earth. They supplied unrefined rocks at terminal velocity when they went to war with the earth.

 

[epepke]

My exhaustive research into the topic has revealed that samples of moonrock contained many minerals/ores/etc useful or valuable on earth including aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, oxygen, silicon, and titanium.

Is it likely that mining of the moon could ever prove worthwhile / cost effective?

Foo on delivering it to Earth!

The US spends $10,000 to send a pound of solder into LEO. I want to run the Lunar Orbital Solder, Girder, Tin Roof, and Lead Radiation Shielding company. 5000 Liters Regolith-Baked Oxygen Free with Every $1,000,000 Order.

 

[jj]

Better to have one that eats garbage and pisses beer.

Have you ever encountered "Old Frothingslosh" beer in Pittsburg, Jon?

 

[aerocontrols]

So the page I made just isn't funny.


How depressing.

 

[Cecil]

It's not the scarcity of cheese that is the problem, so much as the Cheese Gap


This gap is dangerous.

MattJ

Ahahaha, that's hilarious.

 

[aerocontrols]

Ahahaha, that's hilarious.

Thanks, now I feel a little bit better.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, people have already comented on transport, environment, econmy, etc. But there´s one issue that has just been slightly touched- the concentration of the elements, in other words, the ore deposits (lets not get in to the technicals of the definition of the "ore deposit" term here, lets use this as a concentration of minerals that potencially can become economic viable for mining).

My question is:
Do we have evidence for the presence of ore deposits on the Moon?

Why am I asking this? For the reasons that follow-

(1) The rock samples fro the Moon, if my memory does not fail (what happens quite often, I admit), were pretty ordinary rocks when studied from the ore geology point-of-view. There were silicates with Fe, Mg, Ca, etc., but the concentration of these elements and the type of minerals found were not indicative of the presence of ore deposits.
The minerals (feldspars, pyroxenes and amphiboles) that compose the samples are not the best thing to procces. It takes a lot of energy to extract the metals and the oxigen from pyroxenes, and this has to be taken in to account, specially when you remember that the concentration of these metals was not exactly promissing.

(2) Ore deposits are formed by geological phenomena that concentrate one or more elements at a given place. The Moon, when it comes to geology, is pretty dead. Its potential for ore deposits seem very small to me. No plate tectonics (and the whole plethora of phenomena that create ore deposits- volcanism, hydrothermalism, etc), sedimentary processes are restricted to fall of ejecta from meteor impacts. Geological activity on the Moon was restricted to the periods immediatly after its formation (the lunar highlands -the white areas- are the remants of this period) and giant flood basalts (the maria- the dark areas) generated by huge meteor impacts. No continuous long-term geological activity such as those necessary to create ore deposits. Its not the place a rock hound would look for ore. It may have metals, but they are scattered with low concentration. I would not put my money on the Moon Mining Co...

(3) Want metals? Look for them at the asteroids. Depending on the type of meteor, they will be on metallic state, little precessing needed. Low gravity,and if you can mine on the Moon, you can also mine on an asteroid. Its more distant? Nothing an ion drive can not handle, specially if we are talking about unmanned operations.

 

[ingoa]

It is probably much more reasonable to mine landfills and garbage dumps. (No joke)

Elements aren't used up. As long as you don't put it in a nuclear reactor it doesn't change. You might end up with rust, but the iron is still there. It is just a matter of energy to get the pure stuff back. At Earth our garbage is probably much more enriched with valuable elements than any place on the Moon. And of course it is much easier to get.

 

[ingoa]

It is probably much more reasonable to mine landfills and garbage dumps. (No joke)

Elements aren't used up. As long as you don't put it in a nuclear reactor it doesn't change. You might end up with rust, but the iron is still there. It is just a matter of energy to get the pure stuff back. At Earth our garbage is probably much more enriched with valuable elements than any place on the Moon. And of course it is much easier to get.

 

[bjornart]

Hmm, yes. But gold is one of the easier metals to extract from the crust since it is, for all intents and purposes, completely inert.

Also, the current value of gold is artificially high. A look at the stats show that national reserves of gold equal close to 16 years of mining at the current rate of production. On the other hand 4/5 of the total gold made available each year goes to production of jewelry and who knows what people will do when gold becomes cheaper.

 

[epepke]

Well, people have already comented on transport, environment, econmy, etc. But there´s one issue that has just been slightly touched- the concentration of the elements, in other words, the ore deposits (lets not get in to the technicals of the definition of the "ore deposit" term here, lets use this as a concentration of minerals that potencially can become economic viable for mining).

My question is:
Do we have evidence for the presence of ore deposits on the Moon?

Nope, no evidence of ore deposits. We'll leave the smelters and the Bessemer converters at home.

We'll just have to make do with five billion years worth of huge impacted chunks of unoxidized iron and other metals that are still near the surface.

 

[Graham]

Well, people have already comented on transport, environment, econmy, etc. But there´s one issue that has just been slightly touched- the concentration of the elements, in other words, the ore deposits (lets not get in to the technicals of the definition of the "ore deposit" term here, lets use this as a concentration of minerals that potencially can become economic viable for mining).

My question is:
Do we have evidence for the presence of ore deposits on the Moon?

Here's an interesting passage I came across while googling:

In the late 1960's, the first satellites to orbit the moon in preparation for manned landings always seemed to veer off their predicted course ... until scientists realized that mineral deposits under the surface of the moon were causing fluctuations in gravity from place to place, and resulting in unpredicted changes to the satellites' orbits. These 'mascons', or mass concentrations, under the surface of the moon, were later mapped by using the changes in the satellites' orbits.

Link

The answer would appear to be yes, some evidence at least.

If you're going by the samples of mooon rock brought back, please consider the size of the moon (which, although small compared to earth is still massive by most normal standards) and the quantity of rock brought back (tiny by the same standards).

Graham

 

[Correa Neto]

I´m a bit skeptical about lunar ore deposits... I am not saying there are none, I am saying that the evidence I know point to a small probability of existence of large (OK, vague term) ore deposits. OK again, the definition of "ore" and "waste" is fluid, whats considered ore today may have been considered waste yesterday.

epepke,
Not to mention the problems of getting the smelters working with no oxigen...
The fact is that I can´t remember where here on Earth, except for structures such as Sudbury (whose origin as a meteor impact is disputed), we are mining meteors or the products of their impacts. Sure, Sudbury produced a lot of valuable ore. I have never dug really deep into impact structure geology, but it seems that the asteroids are usually transformed in small pieces, and usually there is no big chunk remaining. However, I may be wrong. If that is typicall case, a mining operation, say for Fe and Ni, would involve strip mining of impact ejecta around selected craters (those formed by impact of metallic meteorites) or of the lunar regolith, assuming it is rich enough in some places. We would look for small (mm- to cm-sized) particles, among lunar rock fragments and tektites Concentration methods could be magnetic separation, but specially designed centrifugues and cyclones could also work. Anyway, I tremble when thinking about the waste/ore ratio...

Graham,
The mascons can be interpreted as basaltic floods and/or dense igneous rocks of similar composition on the subsurface. They are not necessarily evidence for ore deposits. Many (if not most) gravity highs on Earth are related to intrusions. Sure, there may be (and quite often there are) ore deposits close to and genetically tied to these intrusions (Sudbury- for some an impact structure, a layered igneous intrusion for others- and Bushveld are the examples that come in to mind that would be relevant to the case inquestion). But the key point is for how long have the tectonic and igneous processes been active. The longer a planet or moon is geologically active, the greater are the chances of ore deposits have been formed. As a matter of fact, I would preffer to put my money on the Io Mining Corp.

As for the samples, sure, they are not a definitive evidence for the inexistence of ore deposits on the Moon (it can be taken as sampling problems elevated at an absurd level). However, nowdays we have data on the mineral composition of the Moon´s crust. And we know that they are quite average rock types for the place. Some years ago, people used these same samples to say that mining the Moon is possible. They proposed to extract oxigen from silicates, for example. It can be done? Yes. My question is: Is it viable? I have my share of doubts. Yes, colonists could use this as an oxigen source. But are there other more cost-effective methods? Maybe its cheaper to soft-land small comets on the Moon to get oxigen plus several other elements such as H, C, N, etc.

I belive evidence point that, as ingoa wrote, our junkyards and mine waste deposits (not to mention polluted areas) are more economically viable in the foreseeable future.

 

[epepke]

Not to mention the problems of getting the smelters working with no oxigen...

Iron smelters, at least, are reducing, so a lack of oxygen isn't a problem. The Bessemer converter would be a real trick, though.

The fact is that I can´t remember where here on Earth, except for structures such as Sudbury (whose origin as a meteor impact is disputed), we are mining meteors or the products of their impacts.

Now, this is getting a bit silly. You argue about mining on the moon based on the idea that it isn't like the Earth. But now all of a sudden you're talking about the Moon based on what hasn't been done on the Earth?

As you said, there's no plate tectonics on the Moon, so there's nothing to subsume what does fall on the Moon. Most meteoric iron on the Earth has long since dropped down to the core. (I remind you that the core of the Earth is mostly iron.)

Sure, Sudbury produced a lot of valuable ore. I have never dug really deep into impact structure geology, but it seems that the asteroids are usually transformed in small pieces, and usually there is no big chunk remaining. However, I may be wrong.

There are a few. One's in Arizona, as I recall. A very small crater by Moon standards, but still, a big chunk of iron in the center. Not enough to build a million cars a day, but certainly enough for a couple of spacecraft. Even if only one in a hundred crater sites were like that, it would still be plenty.

As I think I said, it wouldn't be much as a suppliment for Earth mining. But as a source of materials for spacecraft, on a place nearby with so little gravity that you can boost two people into orbit in something only a little larger than a Volkswagen, including fuel, you can't beat it.