11 ms·

I hope I never see the day when a casual glance at a full moon reveals a large dust cloud from active moon mining obscuring part of the details that I've become

I hope I never see the day when a casual glance at a full moon reveals a large dust cloud from active moon mining obscuring part of the details that I've become familiar with over my lifetime. I'm not sure the moon needs those type of scars. Maybe they'll find a way to use an N99 filter dome over their operations. The progress of man seems so naturally tuned towards destructive outcomes. We bounce from one fucked up scenario to another, each one an attempt to put a band-aid on a gaping wound left by our failure to consider how our technological progress seems to leave us with ever more urgent issues to address to insure our own survival and that of our descendants. Maybe we're the virus that is learning how to defeat the planet's immune system and ultimately kill it.

colanderman 5y ago
I don't know why people are having such a visceral negative reaction to your post. The near face of the Moon has been since the dawn of humanity the single natural formation visible to and enjoyed by every (sighted) human who has ever existed. Preserving it for future humans seems not only natural, but imperative.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  Fine, put everything on the farside.
  - colanderman 5y ago
    Sounds good to me.
- politician 5y ago
  Absolutely! Let’s make sure to have enough machinery on the Moon to repair impacts from meteorites, too!
  - colanderman 5y ago
    Your needless sarcasm belies the fact that you either missed or are ignoring that the OP's concern was about large persistent dust clouds obscuring major features. Not pockmarks. You've been here ten years, so I would think you're familiar with HN guidelines [1], but please remember: > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - politician 5y ago
      There's a group of folks here that believe we should eliminate all exploration for the sake of ambiguous and vague goals of "preservation". They pop up in every discussion of the future, demanding explanations for why people of whom they have no affiliation should use resources of which they have no ownership for purposes over which they have no reasonable control. Consider directing your volunteer HN moderation at that absurdity.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
roamerz 5y ago
Sorry pal we not a virus we are life. When you see that dust cloud on the moon marvel at the technology required to pull that off rather than the visual indicators that you find disturbing. I love going to Death Valley and seeing the remnants of old gold mines and other activities of past. They are scars to some maybe but not to all.
- colanderman 5y ago
  I read somewhere that during the Industrial Age, there were people who loved the sight of a smog-choked city as an indicator of progress. I for one am glad that sentiment no longer prevails.
  - roamerz 5y ago
    Got me on that one though I was outside yesterday morning and the smell of wood smoke was very nice. That’s from a guy who has lived through many recent and past smoke filled summers that have been helped along (fueled) by those who wanted to stop progress by halting responsible logging. Their tool? The Spotted Owl. Sorry to see how well that is working out for them.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    There are people who see skyscrapers and car-clogged streets as a sign of progress today.
- doodlebugging 5y ago
  OP here (actually the top of this thread, not OP on the post). Thanks for commenting pal. I've had lots of time to marvel at technology in my nearly 40 year oil and gas career. A lot of the work that I did when I started in the exploration end of that industry has now been used, even decades later, to drive exploitation in areas that I came to know and appreciate for their raw beauty and isolation. The rock cycle teaches us geoscientists (I'm a geophysicist) that time changes everything and not even the rocks are forever. In the grand scheme of things looking down through time it appears that a case could be made for humans being only the latest one of a series of afflictions that earth has endured in the past. No doubt earth is resilient enough to survive and establish a new equilibrium should we manage to deplete enough resources here that we can no longer survive as a species, and like rats escaping a flood, hop on any interstellar flotsam available in a bid to save ourselves from our own technologically-induced suicide.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Dust clouds won’t happen on the moon due to lack of an atmosphere. You can get a localized dust plume, but not fine particles drifting away for thousands of miles in the manner of, say, the California fires.
- doodlebugging 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. I actually considered this with the understanding that any dust clouds would be localized and persistent due to the lower gravity on the moon. The finest fraction of moon dust will remain suspended longer than here on earth and the absence of wind will localize the effects. This suspended dust will over time, blur our view from earth of the areas being actively exploited for minerals, oxygen, etc. I don't see the practicality of conducting mining operations under a dome to localize and control dust so the machinery being employed will be outside any containment and when you do this on a massive scale to potentially support interplanetary travel you will raise a cloud of dust that will take a long time to settle. I am opposed to this. Since we are two different people with different life's experiences, you don't have to be. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the visibility of any possible dust cloud. First, you have to take into account size. The smallest feature on the moon that can be seen with the naked eye is ~ 300km in diameter. IF aesthetics are your main concerns, plumes smaller than this should be no problem. 2nd, I don't agree that dust will remain suspended longer. Dust on earth is suspended in the atmosphere, which the moon lacks. On the moon, dust follows a parabolic trajectory, like a thrown rock on earth. Last, lunar dust is the same color as the lunar surface. like a white cloud on a white background, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate. I personally think a dust cloud on the moon would be cool, but this is beside the point.
    - doodlebugging 5y ago
      I understand your viewpoint. I disagree that dust from mining on the moon would be cool and that the dust would be mostly invisible. Once mining begins, if the processing is successful and their objectives are met, the operations will most likely scale up and that is when the ability to spot these changes from earth will become easier. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
The surface of the moon is just a bunch of pockmarks left over from a millennia of collisions with other space objects. Is that really something worthy of preservation?
- colanderman 5y ago
  The moon and its near-side features are the single visual landmark shared by literally all of humanity which has ever existed. Many would call it sacred. We preserve all sorts of rocks on Earth which are similarly majestic/significant/sacred, despite being formed by random geological processes. Why not the visual façade of the moon?
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    The lunar surface is constantly changing due to collisions. So, what are we preserving exactly? https://www.space.com/34372-new-moon-craters-appearing-faster-than-thought.html https://www.space.com/34372-new-moon-craters-appearing-faste...
    - colanderman 5y ago
      Trees constantly change. Why preserve a forest? (Not to mention, OP was talking about large obscuring dust clouds. Not pockmarks.)
      - scoopertrooper 5y ago
        Nobody is talking about chopping down the moon. I think OP doesn't realise how big the moon is. Those asteroid impacts kick up massive plumes of smoke, but we don't really notice it because the Moon is pretty freakin big.
        doodlebugging 5y ago
        OP here. Actually not OP, just top of this thread. I'm actually a geophysicist. I do have a pretty good idea not only of how large the moon is, but of where it is in relation to earth, it's age, common rock types found there, origin theories, its effect on earth, its cultural usage down through time, etc. In my own work I have used knowledge of tidal effects to help me correct seismic data to optimize subsurface resolution so that companies could determine whether there was a resource there that could be economically exploited. I appreciate you taking the time to read my original post and to comment. This is exactly the sort of discussion I figured it would generate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 5y ago
You seem to assume any of this would be visible from earth. Why is that?
ilyagr 5y ago
Agent Smith would agree. https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ Longer version: https://youtu.be/JrBdYmStZJ4 https://youtu.be/JrBdYmStZJ4

colanderman 5y ago

I don't know why people are having such a visceral negative reaction to your post. The near face of the Moon has been since the dawn of humanity the single natural formation visible to and enjoyed by every (sighted) human who has ever existed. Preserving it for future humans seems not only natural, but imperative.

wombatpm 5y ago
Fine, put everything on the farside.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Sounds good to me.
politician 5y ago
Absolutely! Let’s make sure to have enough machinery on the Moon to repair impacts from meteorites, too!
- colanderman 5y ago
  Your needless sarcasm belies the fact that you either missed or are ignoring that the OP's concern was about large persistent dust clouds obscuring major features. Not pockmarks. You've been here ten years, so I would think you're familiar with HN guidelines [1], but please remember: > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - politician 5y ago
    There's a group of folks here that believe we should eliminate all exploration for the sake of ambiguous and vague goals of "preservation". They pop up in every discussion of the future, demanding explanations for why people of whom they have no affiliation should use resources of which they have no ownership for purposes over which they have no reasonable control. Consider directing your volunteer HN moderation at that absurdity.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

roamerz 5y ago

Sorry pal we not a virus we are life. When you see that dust cloud on the moon marvel at the technology required to pull that off rather than the visual indicators that you find disturbing. I love going to Death Valley and seeing the remnants of old gold mines and other activities of past. They are scars to some maybe but not to all.

colanderman 5y ago
I read somewhere that during the Industrial Age, there were people who loved the sight of a smog-choked city as an indicator of progress. I for one am glad that sentiment no longer prevails.
- roamerz 5y ago
  Got me on that one though I was outside yesterday morning and the smell of wood smoke was very nice. That’s from a guy who has lived through many recent and past smoke filled summers that have been helped along (fueled) by those who wanted to stop progress by halting responsible logging. Their tool? The Spotted Owl. Sorry to see how well that is working out for them.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  There are people who see skyscrapers and car-clogged streets as a sign of progress today.
doodlebugging 5y ago
OP here (actually the top of this thread, not OP on the post). Thanks for commenting pal. I've had lots of time to marvel at technology in my nearly 40 year oil and gas career. A lot of the work that I did when I started in the exploration end of that industry has now been used, even decades later, to drive exploitation in areas that I came to know and appreciate for their raw beauty and isolation. The rock cycle teaches us geoscientists (I'm a geophysicist) that time changes everything and not even the rocks are forever. In the grand scheme of things looking down through time it appears that a case could be made for humans being only the latest one of a series of afflictions that earth has endured in the past. No doubt earth is resilient enough to survive and establish a new equilibrium should we manage to deplete enough resources here that we can no longer survive as a species, and like rats escaping a flood, hop on any interstellar flotsam available in a bid to save ourselves from our own technologically-induced suicide.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Dust clouds won’t happen on the moon due to lack of an atmosphere. You can get a localized dust plume, but not fine particles drifting away for thousands of miles in the manner of, say, the California fires.

doodlebugging 5y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. I actually considered this with the understanding that any dust clouds would be localized and persistent due to the lower gravity on the moon. The finest fraction of moon dust will remain suspended longer than here on earth and the absence of wind will localize the effects. This suspended dust will over time, blur our view from earth of the areas being actively exploited for minerals, oxygen, etc. I don't see the practicality of conducting mining operations under a dome to localize and control dust so the machinery being employed will be outside any containment and when you do this on a massive scale to potentially support interplanetary travel you will raise a cloud of dust that will take a long time to settle. I am opposed to this. Since we are two different people with different life's experiences, you don't have to be. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the visibility of any possible dust cloud. First, you have to take into account size. The smallest feature on the moon that can be seen with the naked eye is ~ 300km in diameter. IF aesthetics are your main concerns, plumes smaller than this should be no problem. 2nd, I don't agree that dust will remain suspended longer. Dust on earth is suspended in the atmosphere, which the moon lacks. On the moon, dust follows a parabolic trajectory, like a thrown rock on earth. Last, lunar dust is the same color as the lunar surface. like a white cloud on a white background, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate. I personally think a dust cloud on the moon would be cool, but this is beside the point.
  - doodlebugging 5y ago
    I understand your viewpoint. I disagree that dust from mining on the moon would be cool and that the dust would be mostly invisible. Once mining begins, if the processing is successful and their objectives are met, the operations will most likely scale up and that is when the ability to spot these changes from earth will become easier. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

The surface of the moon is just a bunch of pockmarks left over from a millennia of collisions with other space objects. Is that really something worthy of preservation?

colanderman 5y ago
The moon and its near-side features are the single visual landmark shared by literally all of humanity which has ever existed. Many would call it sacred. We preserve all sorts of rocks on Earth which are similarly majestic/significant/sacred, despite being formed by random geological processes. Why not the visual façade of the moon?
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  The lunar surface is constantly changing due to collisions. So, what are we preserving exactly? https://www.space.com/34372-new-moon-craters-appearing-faster-than-thought.html https://www.space.com/34372-new-moon-craters-appearing-faste...
  - colanderman 5y ago
    Trees constantly change. Why preserve a forest? (Not to mention, OP was talking about large obscuring dust clouds. Not pockmarks.)
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      Nobody is talking about chopping down the moon. I think OP doesn't realise how big the moon is. Those asteroid impacts kick up massive plumes of smoke, but we don't really notice it because the Moon is pretty freakin big.
      - doodlebugging 5y ago
        OP here. Actually not OP, just top of this thread. I'm actually a geophysicist. I do have a pretty good idea not only of how large the moon is, but of where it is in relation to earth, it's age, common rock types found there, origin theories, its effect on earth, its cultural usage down through time, etc. In my own work I have used knowledge of tidal effects to help me correct seismic data to optimize subsurface resolution so that companies could determine whether there was a resource there that could be economically exploited. I appreciate you taking the time to read my original post and to comment. This is exactly the sort of discussion I figured it would generate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 5y ago

You seem to assume any of this would be visible from earth. Why is that?

ilyagr 5y ago

Agent Smith would agree. https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ Longer version: https://youtu.be/JrBdYmStZJ4 https://youtu.be/JrBdYmStZJ4