It strikes me that, as far as energy is concerned, there are better things one should be investing in. So I'm skeptical for that reason. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the moon, in the long-term, is economically useful.

Ian Crawford

Categorized in : Science

But to really get to the bottom of it, we need in-situ [on-the-spot] measurements from the surface at the lunar poles, it's first on my list [of necessary steps] … and when we have an answer to that, we can plan accordingly.

To explore the whole moon at the level of detail required, that's a big undertaking, but long term, we should be keeping an open mind to that.

If you're just interested in platinum group elements, you would probably go and mine the asteroids, on the other hand, if going to the moon for scavenging polar volatiles, rare earth elements … then the impact sites of crashed asteroids could offer an added bonus.

If the moon's resources are going to be helpful, they are going to be helpful beyond the surface of the moon itself.

It doesn't make sense, the whole helium-3 argument. by Ian Crawford

It doesn't make sense, the whole helium-3 argument.

It's a fossil fuel reserve. Like mining all the coal or mining all the oil, once you've mined it … it's gone.

It's possible that helium-3 and other solar-wind–implanted ions, like hydrogen, may be in a higher abundance in the cold regolith near the lunar poles. That would be an important measurement to make and would require a polar lander.

It's entirely possible that when we really explore the moon properly we will find higher concentrations of some of these materials … materials that are not resolvable by orbital remote sensing.