iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Diamandis

Peter Diamandis

Posted: September 27, 2009 04:24 PM

Gold Rush on the Moon

What's Your Reaction?

Last week brought us the exciting official news of water on the Moon. This news is scientifically critical and, more importantly, economically astounding. From a scientific point of view, we now know that the water is interlaced with the lunar soil in many locations, perhaps as remnants of comet collisions with the lunar surface.

From an economic point of view, water on the Moon is the equivalent of finding "gold in the hills of California." Translation: there is the potential for a California gold rush to hit the space community in the years ahead, and the teams building robotic exploration vehicles in the Google Lunar X PRIZE are constructing the shovels and picks on the leading edge of this potential boom.

So what's so interesting about water on the Moon? After all, it's in boundless supply on Earth. The value of water is its actual physical location on the Moon, a place that is very expensive to travel to. The utility of the water is both as a propellant for rockets and for the maintenance of human life in space. With sufficient water on the Moon, solar energy can be used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is, of course, critical for humans to breathe and the water important for us to drink. As it turns out, hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) together are also one of the most efficient propellants we know. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (some of the most powerful rocket engines in existence), for example, burn O2 and H2 to blast our astronauts off the Earth into orbit. You can think of water as the petroleum of spaceflight. Rather than oil that powers our cars, H2 and O2 power our rocketships.

Today's launch costs are, unfortunately, extremely expensive. On the average it costs something on the order of $20,000 per pound to get supplies into low-Earth orbit (where the International Space Station is located) and, optimistically, 10 times to 20 times that cost -- or approximately $400,000 per pound -- to land something on the Moon's surface.

So the cost of transporting water to the lunar surface, or oxygen, or hydrogen, is about $400,000 per pound or $25,000 per ounce -- about twenty-five times the price of gold today!

Revealing water in significant quantities on the Moon could truly be a turning point in space exploration. Who will set up the first water mining plants? Given low-cost availability of water, hydrogen and oxygen, what type of off-Earth economies and exploration will this enable? The question is not too dissimilar to those questions asked when oil was discovered buried deep under the Earth or under the oceans. We eventually designed the technology to mine and extract this precious resource. It's what we do as humans and entrepreneurs.

I'm excited for all of the teams building vehicles for the Google Lunar X PRIZE. This is a $30 million competition funded by Google and operated by the X PRIZE Foundation. We've offered up a large cash bounty for the first team to privately build and land a robot on the surface of the Moon that can travel and send back photos and video. Think of these vehicles as a low-cost 'prospector' looking for information and valuable data.

Thus far, over twenty teams from eleven nations have registered to compete. When they are successful they will demonstrate the ability to reliably travel to the lunar surface and explore for less than a tenth of the current costs envisioned by government programs. Everyone will benefit and these Google Lunar Teams will be on the cutting edge of a gold rush.

Stay tuned for the next chapter of the story of water on the Moon, which happens on October 9th of this year. On this day, a NASA mission called LCROSS will collide (catastrophically) into the Lunar South Pole with the hope of discovering large quantities of water. This LCROSS collision is targeted on one of the permanently shadowed craters. At the same time a lunar orbiting observing satellite will be taking photos and searching for H20 in the plume resulting from the collision.

If you've been wondering where the next gold rush is going to take place, look up at the night sky to our closest celestial neighbor. The next economic boom might just be a mere 240,000 miles away on the bella luna.

 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 56
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
COPerez
01:21 PM on 09/28/2009
There are probably industrial companies that could build the required robotics to effectively take advantage of this finding. Large "bulldozers" could scrape up the regolith, and attached "factories" could process the materials for not only water, but elemental Hydrogen, Oxygen, other trace gasses as well as important trace minerals and metals. The resultant materials could be stored until manned missions arrived to take advantage of them. They would arrive to a supply of drinking water, consumable gasses and raw materials. This could greatly cut back on the costs to send a small settlement. Alternately, they could be boosted into lunar or earth orbit out of a much smaller gravity well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
11:44 AM on 09/28/2009
What a surprise. Someone who is in business trying to promote manned space flight thinks finding a few drops of water on the moon will launch a gold rush. This news is interesting from a scientific standpoint because it may help us understand the creation and evolution of the solar system. However, using it to try and revive manned space exploration is a pipe dream. I challenge anyone to find ONE scientist who would say that manned space exploration can even break even, let alone exceed, the scientific return on investment of non-manned exploration. Such scientists are as rare as climate scientists who don't acknowledge global climate change. The reasons for doing manned exploration have nothing to do with science or real economic benefits they are 1) some people never grew up and think its just so cool (I have to admit at times I'm one of them) 2) The pentagon has a long term strategy for warfare in space and they needed manned space flight for that 3) Precisely because it IS so much more expensive the aerospace and defense industry loves manned space flight. They care about a different kind of return on investment, dollars in their bottom line, not science or technology transfer.
leftword
To deny reality is to embrace ignorance
01:41 PM on 09/30/2009
I'm familiar with the arguments and they all seem sensible, but consider this: If manned spaceflight to the Moon is so ridiculous, then why do the EU, Japan, China and India as well as the US all have plans to send people there? Possible answers:

1. About half the human race is nuts
2. The aliens are secretly making us do this
3. There's some hidden geopolitical agenda behind it all
4. It's all about national prestige
5. It's all about adventure
6. There are very real scientific --- and economic --- reasons to do so

Pick one. I choose #6 (although #1 may well be true).
11:33 AM on 09/28/2009
Let's ask Neil Armstrong what he thinks....Neil? Where are you?
jackstpaul
What am I supposed to write here?
05:29 AM on 09/28/2009
I wrote a song called "Who Owns the Moon?" about 16 years ago. In testimony to a legislative committee about health policy (my field), I referred to ownership of land on the moon to make a point.

Some company somewhere "sells" plots of land on the moon. One can buy one with designated coordinates as being their land, photos of that land, certificates of ownership, etc. Someone (a German man, I believe) bought some and then sent letters to NASA and the White House informing them that the given coordinates demarcated his land, and that he was open to negotiations to lease it to the US should we ever return to the moon or otherwise seek to use "his" land.
09:46 AM on 09/28/2009
These lunar land sales are fraud. The only real question is the impact of international space treaties and conventions. Some countries have signed and some have not. Some believe we need to start over again and draft a new treaty that takes into account both scientific and commercial interests. The world has been wrestling with this same issue in respect to the ocean floor and managed to come to a stable solution with respect to the continent of Antartica, but space is different and deserves a fresh look that takes into account all interest and technologies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ydrittmann
Vitter patronizes women.
01:05 AM on 09/28/2009
I think the Chinese would be crazy to let us get there first. It's up to them. I'll bet they want to go. Why would they finance this?
09:51 AM on 09/28/2009
There are two possible paths to accelerating the exploration and colonization of the Moon: (1) a new space race and (2) unleashing the commercial sector through grants of property rights (e.g. as in the settlement of the U.S. West). The idea that it will get done in some kind of kumbaya joint international effort is just nonsense. Look how long and costly it has been to get the international space station functioning and it is not even completed yet, is much less capable than originally hoped and may need to be decommissioned within a few years of completion. Do we want to repeate that stratgey on the Moon?
08:49 PM on 09/28/2009
The Chinese would be crazy to let us get their first? Why would that be exactly? Because there are so many incredible economic benefits from manned flight to the moon? Which are what exactly? A thimble full of water? The Chinese want to finance this because doing so will accelerate the trend where the US spends money it doesn't have and borrows ever more from the Chinese. I mean its miniscule compared to another iraq war but every bit helps bring about the collapse of the US empire leaving the field free for others such as the Chinese.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skantea
A Resource Based Economy
10:37 PM on 09/27/2009
So, if this means that the moon was actually a part of earth until a cataclysmic asteroid "chipped" it off, then the whole dinosaur extinction theory is solved.
Or is my time-line still off by a few billion years?

Creationist please refrain from answering.
10:58 PM on 09/27/2009
The current theory is that a Mars sized object sideswiped the Earth shearing possibly a third of it along with demolishing the impactor. The resulting dentritus formed a ring around our planet and from that the moon was formed.
09:35 PM on 09/27/2009
Wait, I thought they only found traces of water? As if it had once been there, but may not be there anymore? Did I miss something? I thought I remember someone saying an eye dropper full, which isn't really enough to sustain anything larger than microbes...which in itself would be an amazing advancement, but still not enough to make it practical to harvest any water that's there

Or is there more that I missed about the amount that's there?
09:46 PM on 09/27/2009
I believe it was the Clementine spacecraft that actually gave us indications of hydrogen which could have been water or hydroxyl.

Most plentiful at the poles where some craters are in darkness 100% of the time. A great boon for those who would like to see a lunar outpost.
09:59 PM on 09/27/2009
Time will tell I guess
09:56 PM on 09/27/2009
The recent findings seem to indicate that hydrogen from the sun is bonding with oxygen on the lunar surface to form trace amounts of H2O and HO. These findings also seem to indicate that some process, perhaps solar wind, is causing these atoms to migrate towards the poles. If this water has been accumulating in permanently shadowed craters near the poles for millions of years, there could be a lot of water available there!
09:57 PM on 09/27/2009
AH, ok, gotcha

Thanks
09:25 PM on 09/27/2009
I'm glad they're excited but the traces they found seem to be a LONG way from anything cost effective to mine. I'm waiting for an IPhone app that transmutes silicon atoms into H2 and O2 with a little atomic weight to burn in the bargain. Just a matter of time.
08:52 PM on 09/28/2009
You chose a very apt name.
08:47 PM on 09/27/2009
This is major. This is profound news. The fact that water is this much more prevalent than once thought means that future bases on the moon will be far more self sustaining for one. They'll also be able to play a much bigger support role in non-lunar missions; earth orbit, interplanetary, etc. Since the moon has a much lower gravitational pull than the earth, we could build (or at least fuel and/or refuel and replenish) future spacecraft there much cheaper and easier than shipping the fuel, food, water, air, etc. from earth.
This makes all of those so-far science-fiction dreams of exploring and colonizing the solar system and beyond so much more realistic.
This, on top of the discovery of helium-3 for potential nuclear fusion and uranium for nuclear fission. Not to mention the almost limitless potential for solar power on the moon.

Just think, we may actually live to see things Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, Roddenberry, etc., predicted but could only dream about living to see.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:27 PM on 09/27/2009
I sure hope to live long enough to see it, and as a fan of space exploration from it's beginning, it would be icing on the cake considering all the space exploration wonders I have been able to witness these last 50 of my 55 years.
I remember watching 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, and having no doubt we'd have colonies on the Moon just like the ones in the movie.
So, okay, maybe it will be 2021 or 2031, and maybe the colonies won't be as sophistcated as the ones in the film. But I'm eating my fruits and vegetables and exercising in hopes of sticking around long enough to see if that monolith really is buried under the lunar soil. ;)
08:58 PM on 09/28/2009
This is significant because of the implications to help us understand how the moon and the solar system were created. As far as self sustaining bases on the moon it means nothing. Its more or less equivalent to saying that future manned flights to the moon will no longer have to carry a one liter bottle of Evian because they can use the same amount of energy to extract it from the moon. Actually, that is probably way over stating it but for the sake of argument I'll give that much to you. It no more makes a significant difference on the cost effectiveness of manned space flight than discovering an extra gallon of water in the Sahara would to plans for creating air conditioned in door golf courses there.
08:40 PM on 09/27/2009
Great article Peter. Next Giant Leap is pitching at Space Investment Summit 7 on Wednesday. I have also chose to compare the recent lunar H2O discovery to the California gold rush.
But NGL won't be prospecting for water. Instead, we'll be offering lunar prospectors a Mobile Universal Lunar Exploration Service (MULES). "Mules" is capable of delivering our client's payload quickly into and out of polar craters. Every prospector needs a good Mule!

Mike
10:09 PM on 09/28/2009
What exactly of scientific or economic value do you expect to find on the moon? We have rocks and water on earth. I'm not denying that there is scientific value in exploring the moon. Only that there is a much greater scientific ROI using unmanned exploration.

And I'm not saying you necessarily won't be able to make money by manned exploration. I just want you to be honest with yourself and with us. If the Rethugs get back in power they will fund all kinds of pentagon wet dreams including space as "the ultimate high ground" (google it). The Pentagon is always a good source of $$ and manned exploration is needed to help the US dominate the world from space. That is until we blow it up or it all comes crashing down in economic and environmental catastrophe. But hey who cares? It will be a wild ride while it lasts.
08:25 PM on 09/27/2009
The expression "space is the place" has never been more critical that it is now. I hope the water detected helps to make that happen though I suspect that if we continue to use the military legacy of using ballistic missiles as route to low earth orbit it will be slow and expensive for some time to come. I wish instead we began to look more seriously at a two track approach to lift payloads; a taxi service for delicate payloads like people and apparatus and a high-g force route for fuel, water and durable components via an electormagnetic rail gun. I definitely think there's gold in them thar hills, or more accurately; iron, nickel, cobalt, platinum group metals, and rare earth elements in the asteroids that abound out there. A platform designed to utilize the intense solar of space and exploit the vast wealth of asteroids (and keep an eye open for potential impacters while we're at it) would be a better place from which to continue our exploration, develope the engineering and operational know-how that will prepare us for the future when we can take the pressure off the earth's resources. My other favorite space expression is, of course, "it's raining soup..." I wonder if the Chinese are hungrier than we are? The US should offer billions in prizes and un-leash private innovation, like yours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dynamohum
06:56 PM on 09/27/2009
Making an industrial project out of the moon's surface is absolutely STUPID. The moon is CRITICAL to life on Earth. Without it we would not have the tides and just that one thing would be GAME OVER for Earth. Digging into the surface of the moon drilling for water is absurd. The moon is a fragile body and should we disturb its balance it could quite literally spell DOOM for Planet Earth.
08:38 PM on 09/27/2009
The moon is fragile? It's not actually made of paper despite what you might have learned in school.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:47 PM on 09/27/2009
Do they even teach basic astronomy in school anymore? According to polls, 18% of people in this country still think the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I give Dynamohum credit for knowing the impotance of the Moon's presence to life on Earth, however. I doubt many people are aware of that fact.
08:40 PM on 09/27/2009
It's not like creating a human presence on the moon is in any way going to do away with the moon or something. Do you believe that that horrible "The Time Machine" movie remake was a documentary and that we could somehow really cause the moon to crack in half and fall from the sky?
Also, they wouldn't be literally drilling to collect water. The water collects on the surface on a molecular level from solar wind and comets. You know, outside sources. What would really happen is combing over the surface with robotic "sponges."

If life is to survive, it cannot remain on earth forever. For many reasons, practical, scientific and historical, creating a small base on the moon is the first step to exploring the solar system and beyond.
06:11 PM on 09/27/2009
Water on the moon would be very useful for commercial activities and settlement of the moon, but the notion of refueling on the moon to go on to Mars does not seem to add up. If it is "only" $20,000/lb to launch mass into LEO, but $400,000/lb to land on the Moon, surely it is cheaper to carry all your water from Earth to go directly to Mars.

Better yet, the only sensible thing to do would be launching water from the Moon to a fuel depot in low earth orbit, so that spacecraft launched from earth can refuel in orbit and then go on to Mars.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:58 PM on 09/27/2009
It's going to be really fascinating to see how they finally figure out how to get to Mars efficiently.
I'm 55, and unlikely to ever see such a mission in my lifetime, so all these Mars robotic orbiters and rovers have been thrilling for me to watch.
I'm betting they'll find fossil evidence of microbial life on Mars eventually, and maybe even life itself underneath the surface. That's where most of the life on Earth exists, and we now see that water is almost certainly present beneath the surface of Mars.
If one of those future rovers finds life on Mars, past or present, that will be the Mars "gold rush" for a manned mission to the planet. I envy those future folks who'll get to witness it.
jackstpaul
What am I supposed to write here?
05:20 AM on 09/28/2009
The error in your logic is this: You address the cost of 1 lb to LEO and the cost of 1 lb to the moon. The critical cost, however, when talking about getting to Mars is the cost of getting to Mars, which you didn't address. LEO? That cost is only relevant for LEO as final destination, which in a trip to Mars is Mars.

A trip to Mars isn't going to LEO, only passing through, and if the moon were involved, it would just be as a way station, or perhaps a more direct roel as lift-off site.

So: How much would it cost to get to Mars from Earth direct, how much for Earth>Moon (with already assembled and craft lift-off from Earth), how much for some version of Earth > Moon > Mars with some/all assembly on Moon and lift-off directly from the moon?

Or some variations on those.
06:52 AM on 09/28/2009
Earth to Moon or Mars is going to have to be different.
Spacecraft need to be larger especially going to Mars.
Good thing that there is real bathroom on the shuttle and spacestation
and there will have to be on or more on a mars spacecraft or moonbase and marsbase..
06:09 PM on 09/27/2009
This is just insane. How about we develop better technologies to bring water to the moon. It is beyond dangerous and absurd to start drilling for water on the moon or acting like it's some new territory to cultivate and exploit. The moon keeps the Earth in balance, and as such, it belongs to all life on Earth, period.
08:40 PM on 09/27/2009
It's not like creating a human presence on the moon is in any way going to do away with the moon or something. Do you believe that that horrible "The Time Machine" movie remake was a documentary and that we could somehow really cause the moon to crack in half and fall from the sky?
Also, they wouldn't be literally drilling to collect water. The water collects on the surface on a molecular level from solar wind and comets. You know, outside sources. What would really happen is combing over the surface with robotic "sponges."

If life is to survive, it cannot remain on earth forever. For many reasons, practical, scientific and historical, creating a small base on the moon is the first step to exploring the solar system and beyond.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:02 PM on 09/27/2009
The Moon has impact basins hundreds of miles across. It can take a punch far greater than anything man can inflict. Relax.
Kudos for realizing the importance of the Earth/Moon relationship, however. I doubt many people are aware of that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
05:40 PM on 09/27/2009
THE MOON BELONGS TO EVERYONE
~MOM~

Don't even THINK about 'going there'.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
handyallen
06:24 PM on 09/27/2009
please, the future is out there , and were going
09:06 PM on 09/27/2009
Well, I've spent my whole life wanting to travel to space. Also, wanting to see humankind go beyond earth orbit and the moon to new frontiers in the rest of the solar system and beyond. We're never going to get there without a base on the moon. I, too, hope it isn't divvied up greedily, but I DO hope someone, public and/or private (if need be) does pioneer the place so we eventually we can all literally 'go there,' and elsewhere.

It does belong to everyone. I'd like to see it be treated as international public lands, like one giant gray Yellowstone Park in the sky. Ideally, this is what will happen. We should be able to visit it and appreciate that beauty first hand, as well as the rest of the solar system. Collecting water from its surface that accumulates from solar wind and/or comets won't soil that beauty and wonder as far as I can tell. It'll just make it more accessible to the lot of us.