5 ms·

Silicon Valley start-up looking to mine the moon

37 points by cwan 16y ago

rhizome 16y ago
More on the redoubtable Naveen Jain: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain/posts http://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain/posts
cydonian_monk 16y ago
About time. All I can say is good luck, and that I hope to see lots of competition for these guys in the near future.
mekoka 16y ago
This raises many questions: - how speculative are they about the rare material they intend to find? - how are they going to mine and transport them? - how much is it going to cost? - will it be worth it in the end, compared to earth mining (which to this day still requires considerable manpower)? Until such questions are answered, I think it would be more appropriate to look at this more as robotic experiment, not a moon mining startup project.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  It's like oil exploration, there's a cost at which extraction makes sense. Since the price of the resource varies over time, the economics of extraction will as well. There's no firm "yes" or "no" to the "Is it worth doing?" question, there's only "worth it / not worth it right now." The much bigger obstacle will be political, breezy as the article is about ownership of lunar resources.
- ChuckMcM 16y ago
  Valid questions, but there are some 'known' unknowns which is to say you can't even start if you can't get some way to manipulate the moon on to the surface of the moon. There is a variety of material on the surface [1] which removes the need for excavation. Economically one would want to post process raw regolith into the desired materials to improve the profitability of sending mass back from the moon to earth. But what I like about these guys is that they're in kick down the door and get a search warrant later mode. There is a demonstrated capability in the Falcon9 project to get an earth/lunar/lunar-surface mission together. If you borrow the Merlin engine from SpaceX for your rover, autonomous landing in a gravity well with a power variable engine is a solved problem. [2] So most of the questions vis-a-vis "How do I get something on to the surface to mine?" is an engineering / cost problem rather than a 'create from whole cloth' problem. The 'knotty bits' in this particular endeavor are then three; a) Do we deliver a return capability to the surface (aka a return craft) or do we create it on the surface from materials we find there? b) What is the energy infrastructure, solar? nuclear? And do we build it on site or do we transport it? c) Of the prioritized targets (in terms of value per lifted ounce of the surface and into low earth orbit) what are the extraction techniques for each and their repeatability? That would be a helluva lot of fun to play with wouldn't it? Building a series of modules that could deploy on the lunar surface and provide a refinery capability. Presumably there is a scenario where you put a variety of payloads on the moon and a means to assemble into the infrastructure you need. [1] http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.05.050177.002313 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.05.0... [2] http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
- tzs 16y ago
  There are something like 20 minerals that are important to US industry (some are essential) for which the US has no usable internal sources and so relies on imports. For many of these, most of the world's supply is in assorted unstable third world countries (mostly in Africa), or the former Soviet Union, or China. These minerals are often called "strategic minerals". For instance, here's a map of where cobalt comes from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28mined%29.PNG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28.... (Cobalt is essential in making the alloys used in jet engines, so a loss of access to cobalt could serious harm the US militarily). Having an emergency backup plan for these minerals, such as moon mining, would be good even if it is expensive.
  - HelloBeautiful 16y ago
    There is such plan for every single strategic resource. Stuff like opening mines, that are currently unable to compete, because of low prices of Chinese, etc. products.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
killerdark 16y ago
That's it. I'm starting a new organisation called Greypeace, to protect the moon's ecological system. Our goal will be attacking these lunar rovers with inflatable rockets in order to raise public awareness. I'll post a link where you can donate money for this completely legit organisation shortly.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  And thus the meaning of "lunatic" came full circle.
- rmah 16y ago
  I know you're joking, but... When I was in college, I was hanging out with some guys who worked for Greenpeace. I asked them, "how would you feel about mining the moon for raw materials?" The response I got back was basically, "NO!", "THAT'S HORRIBLE!", "O.M.G. YOU'RE EVIL!" I tried to explain that the moon was a big, lifeless, ball of rock. But they were having none of it. They all thought we should leave the moon alone, pristine in its lifelessness. <shrug>
  - fleitz 16y ago
    That's basically the objective of the modern Greenpeace, elimination of human life from the planet. If you talk to the founder of Greenpeace he will basically tell you that his mission for Greenpeace was full filled and that most of what they do now is on the lunatic fringe.
    - rhizome 16y ago
      You mean like Michelle Bachmann?
  - patrickk 16y ago
    That "big, lifeless, ball of rock" partially controls the oceans' tides. I would be in favour of leaving it alone. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it should be done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Forces
pstack 16y ago
I'm no astronomer or physicist, but isn't the mass and weight of the moon sort of vital to maintaining stable life as it is now on Earth?
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  The moon is quite large. To move a measurable percentage from there to here (one large enough to affect things like tides) is well beyond our current capabilities. We'll be OK. :)
  - pstack 16y ago
    Oh, sure. I'm sure we used to say that about the bison, too. :)
cafard 16y ago
Nearly 40 years ago I heard the sometime astronaut and future senator Harrison Schmitt speak at the Colorado School of Mines. Nearly all I remember is that I learned that it was possible to sleep sitting up in uncomfortable plastic seats--Schmitt was not a good public speaker.Yet I remember him, in response to a question from the audience, distinguishing bodies of ores, which can economically be mined, and formations of minerals, which perhaps can, perhaps can't. Schmitt, then and suppose yet the only geologist who had been to the moon, did not seem to think we'd be mining there soon.
jaysonelliot 16y ago
There is no law clearly defining private property rights on the moon, but you can bet that it's not going to be as easy as just showing up and starting to dig. A couple key quotes: "The UN says that private expeditions count as national activities and are covered by the treaty, which has been signed by all the major players. Lawyers disagreed and a second agreement - the 1979 International Moon Treaty - was drawn up to explicitly ban private ownership of lunar real estate." -http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexploration.ideas http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexplorati... "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Some good articles on trying to use the moon for private gain: http://www.slate.com/id/2202888/ http://www.slate.com/id/2202888/ http://www.space.com/6210-owns-moon.html http://www.space.com/6210-owns-moon.html
- arctangent 16y ago
  Great post. But I can't help wonder how governments would stop an organisation that has sufficient technology to go and mine the moon. A well-capitalised moon mining operation could maintain a base in space and send energy to Earth via laser beam (or whatever similar scientific approach you favour). I'm sure that governments could confiscate earth-bound assets of such enterprises, but they will presumably retaliate by keeping all their assets in space. I think that exploitation of space (as an activity) will completely screw with our concepts of "nation" and "government". Once a private enterprise can go mine asteroids they're going to have far more capital (i.e. money) than any nation on Earth.
  - HelloBeautiful 16y ago
    >> Once a private enterprise can go mine asteroids they're going to have far more capital (i.e. money) than any nation on Earth. Private enterprises like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have had more money than any nation on Earth for more than a century.
Apocryphon 16y ago
Does this mean we're in a bubble now?
- fleitz 16y ago
  No the space bubble ended the day Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, we're currently rebuilding technology to get us back to 1969.
gsivil 16y ago
It is the anti-pioneering spirit in me telling me that this is rubbish?
michaelpinto 16y ago
Gerard K. O'Neill is smiling up in heaven at this — if you don't know him read his bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._ONeill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._ONeill
- reneherse 16y ago
  go here instead :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
  - michaelpinto 16y ago
    Thank you kind sir!
listrophy 16y ago
This is interesting. In my time designing lunar excavation equipment, much of our problems arose from the intended location: permanently shadowed regions of craters. We were intending to mine for water for propulsion, consumption, etc purposes. Basically, it's really hard to mine in those conditions. And when I say "conditions," I mean down to 50K. Lots of familiar materials just won't work at those temps. Mining, instead, for high-value minerals would presumably not require such extremely low temperatures. It would, however, still have to endure many of the other issues we faced: never-eroded (read: abrasive) regolith, the vacuum of space, reduced reactionary mass, etc. I wish them luck!
- cma 16y ago
  Couldn't you use mirrors from the surface? I would think you could easily double that temp in K considering the light from a mirror the size of a piece of paper puts out about 15W of heat.
anthonyb 16y ago
Mine the moon? That's a pretty stupid idea. Much better to aim for an asteroid - no property rights and no gravity well to escape afterwards. Net value of the rare earths in a 1 km asteroid was ~1 trillion dollars, from memory. There aren't any trojan asteroids in the earth-moon system according to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html, but there are quite a few close approachers which could potentially be redirected closer to Earth. btw, this is not a new idea, so there's no excuse for not knowing about this, especially if you're in the field: http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1982-harvesting.htm http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1982-harvesting.htm
- HelloBeautiful 16y ago
  Those close approaches are moving very fast. Plus who would wont some limited liability startup to redirect asteroids closer to Earth, probably using big thermonukes?
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Objects in orbit are also moving pretty fast. Slowing it down a bit so that it's captured by Earth's orbit wouldn't take that much energy. Also, mass drivers would be the preferred option, no nukes necessary. A 200 metre asteroid might make a pretty big hole, but then so would profitable quantities of ore coming back, or a rocket capable of getting to the moon in the first place. Nobody seems to be too worried about SpaceX accidentally crashing their moon-capable rockets into a city.
    - JshWright 16y ago
      Seriously? You're comparing a rocket with a self-destruct button to an uncontrolled projectile with several hundred times more mass?
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Several hundred? I think you're at least a couple of orders of magnitude out there... The point behind the rocket analogy was that rockets are inherently dangerous, uncontrolled projectiles. They explode, spin out of control, travel at hundreds or thousands of km/hr - but that's apparently ok. And it is, because there are safeguards in place. a) how are you getting the ore back to earth? Your choice is to either burn it back in on a rocket or splash down your hundred or thousand tons of platinum somewhere. Rockets are hideously expensive, which leaves you with... an uncontrolled projectile. b) mass drivers have a small amount of thrust, over a long period of time. It might take a couple of years to get it captured by earth - think slow orbit corrections over time rather than an uncontrolled asteroid missile. Once you get to that point, you'll have several more years to circularise the orbit. Hardly an uncontrolled projectile - Its path is easy to predict, and is incredibly unlikely to hit the earth. You'd need to burn a lot of energy to do so once it's in a stable orbit.
Typhon 16y ago
Sending stuff in space (above low earth orbit) is the costliest things ever. So far, only a handful of states managed to send things to the moon, and only two managed to bring something back from it. The last time it happened was thirty-five years ago. And when I say "bring something", I mean a hundred grams (less than 3.6 ounces). Only one organisation managed to send astronauts there and bring them back. There are plans to do it again, but you can bet space exploration will remain state controlled for a very long time.
hristov 16y ago
It's a scam. Just doing some basic arithmetics would show you that even if you find rare earth metals on the moon, there is no way you can get them to earth for anything near their cost on Earth. These guys probably just want to win the Google challenge and do some cool spaceship stuff and need a story to tell investors.
- daniel1980fl 16y ago
  well actually we dont know whats inside the moon soil, just like you can have some sort of "scanner" and scan earth below to determine where diamonds are located. AFAIK, there never been any digger machines located on the moon, so... :)

37 points by cwan 16y ago

More on the redoubtable Naveen Jain: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain/posts http://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain/posts

cydonian_monk 16y ago

About time. All I can say is good luck, and that I hope to see lots of competition for these guys in the near future.

mekoka 16y ago

This raises many questions: - how speculative are they about the rare material they intend to find? - how are they going to mine and transport them? - how much is it going to cost? - will it be worth it in the end, compared to earth mining (which to this day still requires considerable manpower)? Until such questions are answered, I think it would be more appropriate to look at this more as robotic experiment, not a moon mining startup project.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
It's like oil exploration, there's a cost at which extraction makes sense. Since the price of the resource varies over time, the economics of extraction will as well. There's no firm "yes" or "no" to the "Is it worth doing?" question, there's only "worth it / not worth it right now." The much bigger obstacle will be political, breezy as the article is about ownership of lunar resources.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
Valid questions, but there are some 'known' unknowns which is to say you can't even start if you can't get some way to manipulate the moon on to the surface of the moon. There is a variety of material on the surface [1] which removes the need for excavation. Economically one would want to post process raw regolith into the desired materials to improve the profitability of sending mass back from the moon to earth. But what I like about these guys is that they're in kick down the door and get a search warrant later mode. There is a demonstrated capability in the Falcon9 project to get an earth/lunar/lunar-surface mission together. If you borrow the Merlin engine from SpaceX for your rover, autonomous landing in a gravity well with a power variable engine is a solved problem. [2] So most of the questions vis-a-vis "How do I get something on to the surface to mine?" is an engineering / cost problem rather than a 'create from whole cloth' problem. The 'knotty bits' in this particular endeavor are then three; a) Do we deliver a return capability to the surface (aka a return craft) or do we create it on the surface from materials we find there? b) What is the energy infrastructure, solar? nuclear? And do we build it on site or do we transport it? c) Of the prioritized targets (in terms of value per lifted ounce of the surface and into low earth orbit) what are the extraction techniques for each and their repeatability? That would be a helluva lot of fun to play with wouldn't it? Building a series of modules that could deploy on the lunar surface and provide a refinery capability. Presumably there is a scenario where you put a variety of payloads on the moon and a means to assemble into the infrastructure you need. [1] http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.05.050177.002313 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.05.0... [2] http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
tzs 16y ago
There are something like 20 minerals that are important to US industry (some are essential) for which the US has no usable internal sources and so relies on imports. For many of these, most of the world's supply is in assorted unstable third world countries (mostly in Africa), or the former Soviet Union, or China. These minerals are often called "strategic minerals". For instance, here's a map of where cobalt comes from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28mined%29.PNG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/2005cobalt_%28.... (Cobalt is essential in making the alloys used in jet engines, so a loss of access to cobalt could serious harm the US militarily). Having an emergency backup plan for these minerals, such as moon mining, would be good even if it is expensive.
- HelloBeautiful 16y ago
  There is such plan for every single strategic resource. Stuff like opening mines, that are currently unable to compete, because of low prices of Chinese, etc. products.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

killerdark 16y ago

That's it. I'm starting a new organisation called Greypeace, to protect the moon's ecological system. Our goal will be attacking these lunar rovers with inflatable rockets in order to raise public awareness. I'll post a link where you can donate money for this completely legit organisation shortly.

kmfrk 16y ago
And thus the meaning of "lunatic" came full circle.
rmah 16y ago
I know you're joking, but... When I was in college, I was hanging out with some guys who worked for Greenpeace. I asked them, "how would you feel about mining the moon for raw materials?" The response I got back was basically, "NO!", "THAT'S HORRIBLE!", "O.M.G. YOU'RE EVIL!" I tried to explain that the moon was a big, lifeless, ball of rock. But they were having none of it. They all thought we should leave the moon alone, pristine in its lifelessness. <shrug>
- fleitz 16y ago
  That's basically the objective of the modern Greenpeace, elimination of human life from the planet. If you talk to the founder of Greenpeace he will basically tell you that his mission for Greenpeace was full filled and that most of what they do now is on the lunatic fringe.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    You mean like Michelle Bachmann?
- patrickk 16y ago
  That "big, lifeless, ball of rock" partially controls the oceans' tides. I would be in favour of leaving it alone. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it should be done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Forces

pstack 16y ago

I'm no astronomer or physicist, but isn't the mass and weight of the moon sort of vital to maintaining stable life as it is now on Earth?

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
The moon is quite large. To move a measurable percentage from there to here (one large enough to affect things like tides) is well beyond our current capabilities. We'll be OK. :)
- pstack 16y ago
  Oh, sure. I'm sure we used to say that about the bison, too. :)

cafard 16y ago

Nearly 40 years ago I heard the sometime astronaut and future senator Harrison Schmitt speak at the Colorado School of Mines. Nearly all I remember is that I learned that it was possible to sleep sitting up in uncomfortable plastic seats--Schmitt was not a good public speaker.Yet I remember him, in response to a question from the audience, distinguishing bodies of ores, which can economically be mined, and formations of minerals, which perhaps can, perhaps can't. Schmitt, then and suppose yet the only geologist who had been to the moon, did not seem to think we'd be mining there soon.

jaysonelliot 16y ago

There is no law clearly defining private property rights on the moon, but you can bet that it's not going to be as easy as just showing up and starting to dig. A couple key quotes: "The UN says that private expeditions count as national activities and are covered by the treaty, which has been signed by all the major players. Lawyers disagreed and a second agreement - the 1979 International Moon Treaty - was drawn up to explicitly ban private ownership of lunar real estate." -http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexploration.ideas http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/24/spaceexplorati... "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Some good articles on trying to use the moon for private gain: http://www.slate.com/id/2202888/ http://www.slate.com/id/2202888/ http://www.space.com/6210-owns-moon.html http://www.space.com/6210-owns-moon.html

arctangent 16y ago
Great post. But I can't help wonder how governments would stop an organisation that has sufficient technology to go and mine the moon. A well-capitalised moon mining operation could maintain a base in space and send energy to Earth via laser beam (or whatever similar scientific approach you favour). I'm sure that governments could confiscate earth-bound assets of such enterprises, but they will presumably retaliate by keeping all their assets in space. I think that exploitation of space (as an activity) will completely screw with our concepts of "nation" and "government". Once a private enterprise can go mine asteroids they're going to have far more capital (i.e. money) than any nation on Earth.
- HelloBeautiful 16y ago
  >> Once a private enterprise can go mine asteroids they're going to have far more capital (i.e. money) than any nation on Earth. Private enterprises like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have had more money than any nation on Earth for more than a century.

Apocryphon 16y ago

Does this mean we're in a bubble now?

fleitz 16y ago
No the space bubble ended the day Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, we're currently rebuilding technology to get us back to 1969.

gsivil 16y ago

It is the anti-pioneering spirit in me telling me that this is rubbish?

michaelpinto 16y ago

Gerard K. O'Neill is smiling up in heaven at this — if you don't know him read his bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._ONeill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._ONeill

reneherse 16y ago
go here instead :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
- michaelpinto 16y ago
  Thank you kind sir!

listrophy 16y ago

This is interesting. In my time designing lunar excavation equipment, much of our problems arose from the intended location: permanently shadowed regions of craters. We were intending to mine for water for propulsion, consumption, etc purposes. Basically, it's really hard to mine in those conditions. And when I say "conditions," I mean down to 50K. Lots of familiar materials just won't work at those temps. Mining, instead, for high-value minerals would presumably not require such extremely low temperatures. It would, however, still have to endure many of the other issues we faced: never-eroded (read: abrasive) regolith, the vacuum of space, reduced reactionary mass, etc. I wish them luck!

cma 16y ago
Couldn't you use mirrors from the surface? I would think you could easily double that temp in K considering the light from a mirror the size of a piece of paper puts out about 15W of heat.

anthonyb 16y ago

Mine the moon? That's a pretty stupid idea. Much better to aim for an asteroid - no property rights and no gravity well to escape afterwards. Net value of the rare earths in a 1 km asteroid was ~1 trillion dollars, from memory. There aren't any trojan asteroids in the earth-moon system according to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html, but there are quite a few close approachers which could potentially be redirected closer to Earth. btw, this is not a new idea, so there's no excuse for not knowing about this, especially if you're in the field: http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1982-harvesting.htm http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1982-harvesting.htm

HelloBeautiful 16y ago
Those close approaches are moving very fast. Plus who would wont some limited liability startup to redirect asteroids closer to Earth, probably using big thermonukes?
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Objects in orbit are also moving pretty fast. Slowing it down a bit so that it's captured by Earth's orbit wouldn't take that much energy. Also, mass drivers would be the preferred option, no nukes necessary. A 200 metre asteroid might make a pretty big hole, but then so would profitable quantities of ore coming back, or a rocket capable of getting to the moon in the first place. Nobody seems to be too worried about SpaceX accidentally crashing their moon-capable rockets into a city.
  - JshWright 16y ago
    Seriously? You're comparing a rocket with a self-destruct button to an uncontrolled projectile with several hundred times more mass?
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Several hundred? I think you're at least a couple of orders of magnitude out there... The point behind the rocket analogy was that rockets are inherently dangerous, uncontrolled projectiles. They explode, spin out of control, travel at hundreds or thousands of km/hr - but that's apparently ok. And it is, because there are safeguards in place. a) how are you getting the ore back to earth? Your choice is to either burn it back in on a rocket or splash down your hundred or thousand tons of platinum somewhere. Rockets are hideously expensive, which leaves you with... an uncontrolled projectile. b) mass drivers have a small amount of thrust, over a long period of time. It might take a couple of years to get it captured by earth - think slow orbit corrections over time rather than an uncontrolled asteroid missile. Once you get to that point, you'll have several more years to circularise the orbit. Hardly an uncontrolled projectile - Its path is easy to predict, and is incredibly unlikely to hit the earth. You'd need to burn a lot of energy to do so once it's in a stable orbit.

Typhon 16y ago

Sending stuff in space (above low earth orbit) is the costliest things ever. So far, only a handful of states managed to send things to the moon, and only two managed to bring something back from it. The last time it happened was thirty-five years ago. And when I say "bring something", I mean a hundred grams (less than 3.6 ounces). Only one organisation managed to send astronauts there and bring them back. There are plans to do it again, but you can bet space exploration will remain state controlled for a very long time.

hristov 16y ago

It's a scam. Just doing some basic arithmetics would show you that even if you find rare earth metals on the moon, there is no way you can get them to earth for anything near their cost on Earth. These guys probably just want to win the Google challenge and do some cool spaceship stuff and need a story to tell investors.

daniel1980fl 16y ago
well actually we dont know whats inside the moon soil, just like you can have some sort of "scanner" and scan earth below to determine where diamonds are located. AFAIK, there never been any digger machines located on the moon, so... :)