Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 150 posts

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#91

Post by kjkjadksj »

jwells89 wrote: post #48
jerf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Age of Exploration has ended so long ago that we have all collectively forgotten how it works. Almost every square meter of land on Earth is covered by one group or another of People with Guns. The only ones that aren't are ones so deeply undesirable that nobody cares. But it actually works in a fairly intuitive manner. People who get to the Moon can do as they like there. Anyone who wants to stop them is invited…

That unavoidable independence that comes with long-term human settlements (especially in places further than the Moon) is interesting to me, if only because historically interesting things happen when significant numbers of people establish a system outside of currently established systems, something that’s not been practically possible on Earth for quite some time.

I wonder where the first space based pirate enclave will be found? Maybe even the moon.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#92

Post by Supermancho »

inglor_cz wrote: post #73
h0l0cube wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…

"the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites" The far side of the Moon is bigger than Russia. I have my doubts about such a categorical claim as "only three sites are suitable for telescopes". On Earth, we build observatories in mountainous terrain regularly.

Maybe a telescope has to rise above the harsh and damaging lunar dust. After construction of anything on the moon, I'm concerned about the 20 micron, glass-like, dust. Lunar dust is not weathered, like Earth dust. Once you are out of the lunar "atmosphere", the dust remains in low orbit for a long time.

Just put the telescope in space. It's a lot easier, despite the difficulty.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#93

Post by cmrdporcupine »

KyleBerezin wrote: post #40
edgyquant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a libertarian thing. Society has to balance more than just the wants or concerns of scientists and they have no more right than anyone else to dictate what we do with the moon.

Its a joke. It sounds like a normal libertarian argument, but on the moon. If you want a more serious answer though, we have multiple treaties and moratoriums on what is, and is not allowed in space and on the moon. They were agreed upon because we have mutual interests, and want to preserve humanities future of spaceflight and research. - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.…

These kinds of threads are entertaining to me, to see how various strands of libertarian/techno-capitalist are confronted with explaining how apparently-immutable-and-eternal property rights originate. The ones where they basically admit it comes down to "who has the most guns" are the best.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#94

Post by tw04 »

apsec112 wrote: post #64
tw04 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon. Have you stopped to think what happens to the earth if the moon were just outright gone? Because that's ultimately what the debate is about. If anything valuable is found there, you can be assured someone will strip mine it until every last piece of value is removed, and the non-valuab…

- the Moon is extremely large; if you mined the entire Moon and covered the Earth's surface with the material, including oceans, it would form a layer about thirty miles thick - most of the Moon is made up of the same stuff as the Earth's crust (silica, alumina, etc) and has very little value, compared to the energy needed to get it off the Moon - if humans remove material from the Moon, the rest of it doesn't "float…

>- the Moon is extremely large; if you mined the entire Moon and covered the Earth's surface with the material, including oceans, it would form a layer about thirty miles thick

I'm aware of how large the moon is.

>- most of the Moon is made up of the same stuff as the Earth's crust (silica, alumina, etc) and has very little value, compared to the energy needed to get it off the Moon

CURRENTLY has very little value. Just like CURRENTLY there's very little value to water in most of the world. In 500 years, without some fairly significant changes to the way we're treating the earth, that will be a VERY different story.

>- if humans remove material from the Moon, the rest of it doesn't "float off into the universe", it just stays in orbit unless it is actively pushed, which would take an insane amount of energy

That's the point... what exactly do you think is going to happen to earth in that scenario?

>something like the entire world's electricity consumption for a billion years

What was the entire world's electricity consumption 500 years ago?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#95

Post by tw04 »

dotnet00 wrote: post #80
firtoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they invested too much into greed and not nearly enough into self preservation?

Removing significant percentages of the Moon's mass is a whole different ballgame from climate change on Earth, where even now people will debate if it'sreally anthropogenic. There would be an immediately noticeable harm with the genuine ability to make Earth entirely uninhabitable, and unlike with climate change, where the mechanisms at work aren't directly relatable, with an orbit change, the mechanisms are pretty…

>There would be an immediately noticeable harm with the genuine ability to make Earth entirely uninhabitable, and unlike with climate change, where the mechanisms at work aren't directly relatable, with an orbit change, the mechanisms are pretty relatable to everyone, in the form of seasons and their total disruption.

There is immediate noticeable harm to oil spills, and yet you still have people arguing that we should run pipelines next to rivers because it's easier and cheaper. I think you grossly overestimate some folks ability to have a rational discussion when they've got a financial incentive not to.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#96

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

BasilPH wrote: post #29

I can highly recommend "A City on Mars"[^0], which I recently read. The authors go into fascinating detail about what it takes to build planetary settlements, and they not only focus on the engineering questions but make a point to talk about the legal aspects of space settlement as well. [^0]: https://www.acityonmars.com/

[dead]

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#97

Post by ben_w »

h0l0cube wrote: post #68
d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…

> > But because of the far side’s mountainous terrain, scientists say the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites—and one in particular is rich in helium-3, which space mining companies have identified as a key element in quantum computers and fusion energy.

A while ago, I saw a page that did the maths, and it worked out that the abundance of He3 was so low (at best 50 parts per billion), that even if we assumed a perfect fusion reactor (which we don't have) and noted the energy density of fusion fuel, it made slightly more sense to separate the metal and oxygen in the lunar regolith, catapult the resulting metal ingots to earth, and then generate energy from magnetically decelerating them (and even more if the ingots were shaped into liquid oxygen tanks). Likewise, one could get more energy from burning that metal as if it were coal than from fusion of the He3 in the same volume of regolith, because the particle density of He3 is so low.

I have not been able to find a link to that page since reading it, so unless someone here can remember where it is, I may have to re-do the maths and blog about it myself.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#98

Post by kjkjadksj »

yedava wrote: post #69
jerf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Age of Exploration has ended so long ago that we have all collectively forgotten how it works. Almost every square meter of land on Earth is covered by one group or another of People with Guns. The only ones that aren't are ones so deeply undesirable that nobody cares. But it actually works in a fairly intuitive manner. People who get to the Moon can do as they like there. Anyone who wants to stop them is invited…

Presumably those who get to own the Moon will have people here on Earth who they love or care about. Following the "this is just how it is" logic, what's stopping a barrel of gun from being pointed at those people?

Eventually lunar entities might decide they don’t want to just offshore all resources to subsidize earth based companies, and seek or fight for independence from their colonial overlord on earth. There’s plenty of precedent for that on earth, even in the modern era.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#99

Post by kjkjadksj »

jerf wrote: post #87
yedava wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably those who get to own the Moon will have people here on Earth who they love or care about. Following the "this is just how it is" logic, what's stopping a barrel of gun from being pointed at those people?

That doesn't come up until space is truly independent of Earth, resource wise. That will be long enough that by the time it happens, they may not have any connections to Earth. Plus, back on Earth, you have all the normal limitations of the gun barrel. If Nigeria doesn't like what Brazil is doing in space, Nigeria is still going to find it challenging to threaten the Brazilians doing space work with guns. And to the…

There are countries today that are still very much dependent on global trade who have still gotten or fought for their independence.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#100

Post by nirav72 »

KyleBerezin wrote: post #40
edgyquant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a libertarian thing. Society has to balance more than just the wants or concerns of scientists and they have no more right than anyone else to dictate what we do with the moon.

Its a joke. It sounds like a normal libertarian argument, but on the moon. If you want a more serious answer though, we have multiple treaties and moratoriums on what is, and is not allowed in space and on the moon. They were agreed upon because we have mutual interests, and want to preserve humanities future of spaceflight and research. - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.…

Are these treaties binding? I know there can be other repercussions for signatories for violating treaties. But usually there are no clear rules on what the repercussions should be. Also , since signatories are nation-states, not sure how individuals could be held accountable for any violations by the international community. Such as private corporations
Post reply on HN