So, you think environmentalists will object to digging craters in the Moon, but they’ll have no problem with launching nuclear thermal rockets???

> Therefore the approach that John Lewis (I got it from his Mining the Sky) proposed is a much better one for all of us.

John Lewis did NOT propose that it was possible to mine the Moon or Neptune with current launch costs, Dennis.

“Mining the Sky” contains numerous references to the need to reduce launch costs, as does Lewis’s “Space Resources.”

He doesn’t just ignore economics and chant “launch costs are an issue.”

> MIke Duke has been doing a lot of work in this area at, of all places, JSC. In the development
> of the solar system it will be a mixture of humans and robots. Today on the earth this is also
> the norm in manufacturing.

That’s just what we’ve been telling you, Dennis. Human spaceflight does not mean we won’t be taking machines with us. It doesn’t mean you can’t do your science experiments. That idea is a canard invented by the “unmanned space” lobby.

I did include a picture of that as the consequence of trying to mine enough Helium 3 to power the earth and that missions to Neptune would provide far more He3 than the Moon ever would. Also this would help to provide a market for nuclear thermal propulsion. I pointed out that there would be a lot of opposition to this type of mining and that it would be better to do it other ways, ways that truly open up a vastly larger resource and open the entire solar system to development. Oh by the way there is enough He3 on Neptune to power our civilization at a much higher rate of energy usage than today. Therefore the approach that John Lewis (I got it from his Mining the Sky) proposed is a much better one for all of us.

Actually these days the computer is an embedded system that is autonomous and the GPS provides the tracking and navigation for that embedded computer.

MIke Duke has been doing a lot of work in this area at, of all places, JSC. In the development of the solar system it will be a mixture of humans and robots. Today on the earth this is also the norm in manufacturing.

Dennis

Funny. I remember trying to explain to Dennis Wingo why open-pit mining was preferable to tunnel mining.

As usual, the great Wingo told me I know nothing. Open-pit mining was Politically Incorrect because it would “deface the Moon.:”

He even pointed to a cartoon, which he wanted to include in his book, as proof that strip mining would “ruin” the Moon.

> I have been to several conferences on this and even the trucks that carry the materials out are driven by computer and GPS.

What they didn’t tell you was that there’s a human operating that computer and GPS.

Thanks for these posts, Dennis. They provide clear insight into the anti-human spaceflight mentaility at MSFC.

The mining on the Moon will be akin to open pit mining on the earth which is almost completely automated. I have been to several conferences on this and even the trucks that carry the materials out are driven by computer and GPS.

Ed completely underestimates the difficulties of obtaining the water, especially in dilute form, on the lunar surface. That comes from working too long at Microsoft.

Dennis

I rest my case.

(However, that was an interesting description of modern mining techniques. Thanks for posting it.)

— Donald

That’s why NASA did remote sensing prior to Apollo, Dennis. And *during* Apollo. (There’s no reason why manned spacecraft can’t do remote sensing.)

No one is saying there shouldn’t be remote sensing, Dennis. That’s another red herring. Buting sending humans to the Moon won’t make it impossible to do remote sensing. It will make it easier.

NASA has much more remote-sensing data on the Moon today than it did when Apollo 11 landed. Saying we need to collect data for another 12 years before humans can go to the Moon is nonsense.

Peace, Dennis. I don’t remember saying you had a clue but if I did, I apologize.

Humans will not operate in 20-30 Kelvin, Dennis. They’ll use heaters, which may not be as sexy as cryogenic robots, but will probably be a lot cheaper.

A few weeks ago, you were saying ESAS was a crock of $@#/ and everything should done privately. Now, you’re back to saying NASA’s $@#/ doesn’t stink. It’s funny how you vacillate back and forth.

As usual you are simply wrong. To say that we have any clue about how to effectively operate in 20-30 degree kelvin environment just illustrates your disconnect from the reality of the engineering challanges of equaipment design for that purpose.

Dennis

The vast majority of coal mined underground is by the long-wall method that is almost completely automated.

Here is a reference.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy_fungames/energyant_trips/coalvisit.html

This is from the website

Fully 80% of the mine’s output comes from the use of the long wall mining technique. In long wall mining a block of coal 850 feet wide and over 2 miles long is cut. This is done by cutting two parallel 2 to 2½ mile long tunnels, about 850 feet apart into the coal seam. These two tunnels are then connected by a third tunnel at the back of the block. All of this is done by conventional mining methods and this is where the remaining 20% of the mine’s output comes from. It is at this point, once the two parallel tunnels have been connected that the actual long wall mining begins. The long wall mining machinery is then brought into this third tunnel at the back of the block of coal. The long wall mining machinery has three main parts to it: the shearer, the conveyor and the ‘armor plating’. The armor plating provides the roof support so that the miners can have a relatively ‘safe’ place to work under.

**********

I agree with you that humans are valuable in-situ. However, the productivity of those astronauts will be multipled several times by an effective campaign of remote sensing.

Dennis

> Also, MSFC is using the lander as a precursor design to the LSAM.

Interesting spin, Dennis. Actually, what Horowitz did was to take the program away from NASA Ames and give it to MSFC, using the “lander as a precursor design” as an excise. This shortly after the new Ames director said he wanted to find a way to let private enterprise do a lunar missions (which, on alternate days of the way, you say you support).

> If you think that it is easier for a human to work in 20-30 degree kelvin weather than a robot? You
> really need to think about materials properties

People thought about materials properties 40 years ago, Dennis. You just keep repeating the same anti-manned space arguments we’ve heard for 40 years.

> Heck, here on the earth machines do 95% of the mining work now.

Yes, just as computers do 95% of the work of flying an F-16 or 777. There’s a big difference between 95% and 100%, Dennis. Here on Earth, we automate those processes that make sense to automate. The choice is not really “humans vs machines,” it’s humans *and* machines, working together, vs. trying to remove every last human just so you can spend more money on robots.

> Where have I advocated the perfect transportation system?

Read anything you’ve written for the last 10 years, Dennis. You consistently argue that we need to wait for NASA to develop some perfect technology (scramjets, nuclear engines, laser propulsion) instead of building reusable vehicles with the technology we have now.