Why Moon Mining Will DEFINITELY Be A Thing | Answers With Joe 

Eh, "pristine." It's an uninhabitable rock, strip mine it to the core, I say. It would be a waste to do anything else.

Pristine, as in completely covered in craters and sharp glassy particles. :D

Which may make us the last to see the Moon and the Earth. Then most species on Earth die, including us. And we'll have earned it.

I’m cool with that

See West Virginia coal miles? The Moon will be Sky Virginia.

just started watching that show lmao

Now hiring Beltalowda. No experience needed! Also hiring voice actor for Teddy the Detector.

Gonna go watch that again.

@@dreamcoyote You are serious ke?

@@HankHill11 it's surprisingly good...I watched, then re-watched it during the pandemic... which made it much easier to follow/keep up with. If you're still watching it, the last episode is a bit of a tear-jerker, kind of wtf? HtF did that just happen? type of ending.

That's from the artifact system of measurement, which includes the jumbo jet, The London bus, the Eifel tower & the Empire State Building a football pitch, a cricket pitch, the Titanic, QE2 or USS Enterprise. Not to be confused with the fauna measurement system which includes: Elephant, Giraffe, Blue Whale,

I was thinking that when I heard it very recently

@@paddor I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that. I'm just a dumb monkey 😉

@@skasteve6528 for measurement system, don't forget to add: banana, tennis court, quarter ($0.25 USD), nickel, dime, penny, dollar bill (USD), "arm's length",

"The size of Rhode Island."

They would have had to been fossilized on earth first and then blown into space. They wouldn’t fossilize once they are in space or on the moon.

@@alexandertaves2730 I am not about to claim surety of facts when I have no means to explore said facts firsthand. Personally I would love to dig my pressurized gloved hands into that beautiful lunar soil and discover for myself what truths it hides.

@@alexandertaves2730 even better then, that means it's the actual bone and not the fossil!

@@hamanakohamaneko7028 true, or a charred frozen chunk of tbone t-Rex! It would be much more useful to science as a preserved bone with tissue. I wish. That would be amazing.

would be kinda funny

"So, what's the problem Artemis?" "It appears to have a series of tunnels full of Nazis under it..."

Nice reference bro

What the hell were they thinking?!

@@Thedeepseanomad They weren't. That's the issue. No plans at all... Something I'm never going to forgive them is what they did to Finn. A freaking stormtrooper who could've been a Jedi? And they make him a comic relief? 🙄

The sequel trilogy did more psychological damage to my brain then the 1980’s Transformers movie

As Voltaire said, neither Star Wars nor Sequels nor much of a Trilogy.

Filoni and Favreau are….

No need to additionally comment when this speaks the lord's word

Look I have many issues with the sequels but THE KNIFE IS NOT ONE OF THEM. IT LITERALLY TELLS YOU ON THE KNIFE WHERE TO STAND FOR IT TO MAKE SENSE. IF GAVE YOU CO-ORDINATES. THAT WAS TGE WHOLE POINT OF C3PO LOSING HIS MEMORY. IT WAS LITERALLY A QUARTER OF THE FILM. DID NO ONE ACTUALLY WATCH THE FILM. THERE ARE LIKE A THOUSAND THINGS WRONG WITH THE FILM AND YOU CHOOSE TO PICK APART ONE OF THE ONLY PARTS OF THE PLOT THAT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE? ok there we go. Glad I got that off my chest

Goerg Rockall-Schmidt has a good rant about the trilogy.

@@benjabin6729 I always wince when the healing powers are mentioned. It's esoteric, but the force power to heal has been presented in canonical media (mostly the games). Heaven forbid the movie sets up a Chekov's Gun scene so that they can "fire" the gun later...

Wouldn't know, didn't watch. TLJ ended Star Wars for me.

Those are the best kind of teachers, the ones who are passionate about what they teach and can make the people they teach passionate about it too

@party pack the night sky, flying in an airplane, the horizon, the sun, the moon, and you know, basic science education that a 5 year old can understand

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oVJQoy9-nLg.html Door Monster P.S. Also Heinlein: The first astronauts on Mars were accorded all property rights, according to World Court. So many nations were ready to explode, this seemed the only neutral way out. However, when the astronauts died, then one person owned the moon. The baby born there. Michael. The Stranger in a Strange Land.

i think you are right on the money. also it will improve cooperation for that inevitible day when, aliens aside, that we find an asteroid or comet bearing down on the earth and we have to act fast.

@@meesalikeu I've often wondered at the feasibility of faking a comet being on a collision course with earth. Something where we have 30 years heads up or so to get people back into the space game.

If you got a few million dollars you can go to orbit 😒 sorry

the moon will be a challenge but it's something that will be necessary to progress as a species. we can't do anything major in space without infrastructure and we need the moon to begin building that infrastructure. I mean we can't just skip the moon and go to mars

I'd imagine Australia would still be a relevant partner in the sense that they offer a potentially useful launch/landing site, which they could prohibit the use of to strongarm those that don't follow the rules.

The Outback, is slightly more hospitable than the moon. Not by much tho. If you are an Ozzie... respect m8.

Australian governments have comprehensively failed to understand or care about the industries that we have had (and lost). The only way we'll see a space industry is if its fuelled by coal and owned by the Chinese.

@@kyneticist I now want to see a coal-fuelled spaceship crewed by a bunch of Aussie coal mining types from the outback who don't speak any Chinese (and let's be honest, barely speak English) being overseen by a bunch of Chinese supervisors who don't speak English. Sounds like a hoot. And everyone's absolutely titted on Fosters, of course. Fosters can sponsor the sitcom. This is definitely a sitcom.

@@ErwinPommel You hear that @Alfabusa? We have a plan.

Politically speaking this is pretty important, because it can set a precedence that forces the rest of the EU to follow. Wouldn't be the first time, so don't underestimate the small ones.

If I remember correctly I think I have heard there is a couple of space mining companie start-ups in Luxembourg (and might be a tax haven. Good chance I'm wrong on this one)

@@admiralwily1636 oh it's definitely a tax haven (it's GDP per capita is ridiculous). You're also correct in the first instance, I found this on wiki: In February 2016, the Government of Luxembourg announced that it would attempt to "jump-start an industrial sector to mine asteroid resources in space" by, among other things, creating a "legal framework" and regulatory incentives for companies involved in the industry. By June 2016, announced that it would "invest more than US$200 million in research, technology demonstration, and in the direct purchase of equity in companies relocating to Luxembourg." By April 2017, three space mining corporations had established headquarters established in Luxembourg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg

Aren't they part of the European Space Agency, I mean technically couldn't they launch a rocket over at Kourou Space Centre

The Banque of Luxembourg will most likely open up an office there so we can all set up a tax-free mailbox on the moon, out of sight (and out of site) from the Tax Bureau.

💀💀💀💀

That sir is called incest.

You could if you went at night.

@@skasteve6528 right? Yeah I must not be paying attention to your non-SpaceX space news. Because as far as I know we have satellite orbiting the sun right now taking measurements and readings and studying our friendly neighborhood Star. Just stick mom on the next transport and she can go out there and keep it company. Easy Peezy. But yeah the whole notion of what someone else pointed out, that being the view from earth of a settlement or a city on the moon. I can't wait!

Well, if you try a Jupiter gravity assist, and because of your mother in law's destination, you probably don't need any life support, or a capsule, I think we probably can, it is just one hijacked falcon 9 away! ;)

Yes, look at the Moon with your scope when half full at the terminator. The craters are amazing.

Well, there will come a time when we look up at the moon, to see the city lights twinkling back down at us, so you might wanna’ get some snaps? Before it changes forever?

@@ashroskell That's an interesting concept. The lights would only be visible on the portion currently in shadow. However, due to the expense and danger of living on the Moon, it is unlikely that there will ever be more than small outposts there, so visible city lights may never happen.

But you will be able to see Lake Armstrong and Tyco City. At least that's according to Will Riker.

INDEED

i NEED to see this in my lifetime😫

@@havardrodsand Sorry, but you should pull back that NEED. Any of the first permanent Moon bases will be at the poles and not visible from Earth. We have to see if permanent bases are viable first. Growth will likely be very slow if at all. Doubtful anyone alive today will see city lights up there. It took the USA over 100 years to reach 2000 people, and that was in a land with A LOT more to offer than the Moon.

It would get drowned in by the solar light reflections.

This is gonna go so much worse than people are even thinking of.

but it doesn't even shine :(

@@ValentineC137 oh it shines (it's why the moon is so bright). It just doesn't sparkle.

@@literalsarcasm1830 unless you classify asphalt as shiny, then no it actually isn’t. The highlands (the brighter part of the Moon) has an albedo of 11-18% while older asphalt has an albedo of 10-15% or even as high as 20-25% depending on if you want to trust Google or citated papers on the subject. Albedo being the amount of light it relfects.

@@ValentineC137 asphalt has a libido ? Scary

@@ValentineC137 r/whoosh

Makes AotC look like an Oscar contender.

What is that from? I didn't understand the reference.

Its Star wars. I'm more of a trekkie so not sure exactly which film it was but thats definitely Star Wars bs

Don’t worry joe it keeps me up at night too knowing Disney looked at that film and said “yeah this will please the long time fans of one of the greatest movie franchises to ever be conceived.”

Nor should any Force wielder. They are an affront to the very concept of the Force and should be destroyed. For the Empire!

It wasn't horseback riding.... it was space-horse riding on top of a space battleship during a battle in which the bad guys ships can't move but the good guys can for some reason because no one told them the rules of the planet.

what movie is that?

@@ryanhebron4287 Star Wars the Rise of Skywalker. AKA episode 9. They clearly had no vision when writing that story and just hobbled together "what looks cool".

@@Skylancer727 if felt like jj abrams forgot he was supposed to direct a movie and not a diss track to rian johnson

@@matheussanthiago9685 well to be fair rian johnson deserves worse than a diss track for sabotaging the trilogy

🤣

True that ;0)

@Daniel Anuchan When the city was in the lunar day we wouldn't be able to see it from the Earth, except with a telescope. During the lunar night, we probably wouldn't be able to see it in the Earth day. During the Earth night, if they were as crap about light pollution as we are, we might be able to see a tiny speck of light with naked eye, and probably with binoculars. But I doubt that any lunar colonies will get that big.

@Daniel Anuchan no but you could probably see Elon musks head of he ever break's low earth orbit.

The Islamic Crescent moon symbol?

Do you realise that the reason everyone became disinterested in the Lunar Landings was the Vietnam War. I mean, the USA was dropping bombs and Americans were dying in a foreign war they couldn't win. That seemed infinitely more important.

I’ve heard similar complaints of how much media attention was focussed on Branson and Bezos with their respective suborbital jaunts. And I would agree… Branson & Bezos got far too much attention for their stunts.

@@CarFreeSegnitz I certainly think they did. They didn't go into space, they just rebuilt something that was already at that height in the early '60s. It's as if they rebuilt the wheel and then told us to be excited about it.

@@backalleycqc4790 I partially disagree...People were also getting bored after the first landing and were questioning the cost and effort. There is always going to be people more focused on socio-political issues than any scientific-engineering one. I distinctly remember a female politician on TV back then saying how we have to solve current socio-economic problems just like we solved landing on the moon.Even as a little kid, I knew this was an "apple and oranges" comparison. Engineers approach challenges with clear goals and end-points, whereas Politicians only survive by forever moving the Goal-Posts.

@@lads.7715 i do have to give credit were crédito is due, while an enginer can solve a problem as long as it's not imposible by physics and we usually have a cobrar goal going forward, we know what we want to accomplish, politics it's a constant gamble were you don't even know what the "winning" conditions are and they never end

Yep, that's what they mean.

@@harvbegal6868 Kinda sounds like an opposite of that, actually.

@SuperWhisk Space is kind of big. There's not much you can find or do in one place that there isn't plenty of *space* to do someplace else also. It seems to me that all the phrase means is that nobody should interfere with anybody else's activities. It actually seems kind of redundant. Or at least extremely easy to comply with.

It means if we do not regulate it, we will wage war over it. ......as usual.....

@@arnom1885 yes cuz ppl r fkin immature

Call Me Bob Jimmy Webb was a huge fan of Robert Heinlein, and he contacted Heinlein's attorneys to see if Heinlein would mind if he used the title of his novel as the title of a song. Heinlein was delighted with the idea and gave it his approval. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” turned out to be a terrific song, and both Joe Cocker and Jimmy Webb himself did great versions of it.

I shall!

So cool to see another fan of Heinlien! One of my favorite authors

The starship troopers guy?

Read?

Solid goal.

And then there wouldn't be a single place on earth where you can't see civilisation. Kinda sad

The moon is ALREADY a light in the sky! If the natural beauty of the MOON that keeps us all ALIVE isn't good enough for you and you have to throw christmas lights all over it to think it's beautiful, is there anything natural you DO think is good enough!

Any structures on the surface would not last very long, there's no atmosphere to stop micro meteorites from hitting them, not to mention the pretty vast changes in temperature.

And those lights will spell out "Switch to Geico and save"

@@telectronix1368 micro meteorites are blown out of proportion and they arent imposible to defend against, a couple centimeter thick layer of regolit would be enough to stop 99.9% of all impacts so as long as you don't build huge glass dome cities nothing bad will happen (and you can build those inside craters were the geometry of the crater itself serves as a shield from direct impacts)

You may have a point, though to source a form of liquid that doesn't come from earth is a bit of a hindrance.

Good idea!, we could bury the sequel trilogy in moon concrete

Mooncrete™

MOXIE is already producing oxygen on Mars. There's hydrogen on the moon. Extract electrical power and you have water.

Y'ALL KNOW WE NEED THE MOON FOR RLY IMPORTANT "LIFE ON EARTH" SHIT RIGHT. YOU KNOW THE EARTH DIES IF WE FUCK UP THE MOON, RIGHT.

Hmmm, I wonder. What ever we remove we'll bring here, so wont it even out?

Even removing billions of tons of material would be insignificant compared to the total mass of the moon (around 7*10^22 kg).

Your fangs 🤣🤪

I may even have less hair during the full moons and silver bullets won't kill me anymore.

@@jkoeberlein1 The moons gravity pulls the tides up by competing with earths gravity. Earths gravity doesn’t pull upwards it pulls downwards. So it’s not a case of keeping the overall weight the same.

Always has been.

@@TanaisNL always will be

And judging from the hype, Helium-3 fusion will be possible the instance we master "regular" fusion.

I thought it was twenty years off

Fusion energy has been going on at the centre of our solar system for about 4.5 billion years and is likely to continue going for 5 billion more years.

just make it a resort with no tax, no marriage/paternity laws,legal drugs,prostitution,gambling. you're going to have a major city on the moon by 2050.

It's already one of the goals of Blue Origin, to industrialise space.

Yes, but in addition to making a few companies fantastically rich, it would also mean humanity has 10-100x more raw resources to utilize. Essentially that would cause the same increase in living standards as the last time that happened around the industrial revolution.

@daznzeus lol I wasn't trying to make it seem like he invented the idea , this just unlocked a memory of my dad. As a kid I remember him talking about this whenever someone brought up space. Just one of his quirks that made me nostalgic when I watched the vid, I didn’t mean anything by it

@daznzeus lol, gotcha. I figured I should clarify, but yeah i do see how it can come across as me boasting about my genius dad 😂😂😂

Try these cool, black stockings too!

I was a teenager at that time- heard that a lot….

Can't make me put one on, they be free!

@@JenFoxworth They must be very uncomfortable. Especially in the heat, Jen.

@@imlistening1137 Girls develop so young. Scares the boys.

Tunnel snakes rule!

Maybe if they hired halfway decent actors lol.

I don't even know what movie that is, but it sounds like Star-Trek, Raider's of the lost Arc, Stargate, and Dune had a love child.

@@walkingcontradiction223 Starwars: Rise of Skywalker.

@@Edramon53 Ahh, no wonder I watched episode I, and that was it... Still like IV-VI, but, no... Just no...

What movie?

@@CessnaPilot99 rise of Skywalker

@@thereseemstobeenanerror1219 calling that dumpster fire a movie is being far to generous. a cancerous polyp on the anus of society would be a more accurate descriptor.

@@TheFloorface LOL

Not until we invent a mini lightsaber so you can cut and toast at the same time.

@@walkingcontradiction223 Didn't Colin Furze already do something like that?

@@quinnbattaglia5189 I remember it from Futurama or something similar.

@@walkingcontradiction223 Though I'd argue a major benefit of "sliced bread" is not having to slice it yourself... so I feel like most people would still prefer to toast their pre-cut slices of bread than to cut their own slices of toast.

@@GrahamRomero Baguettes and similar aren't sliced, nor bread you bake yourself. That's why they have bread knives. I'm a rebel though so I put my bread in a blender.

Say in about twenty years then? 😁

Just 10 years out lol

@@stevepirie8130 no no no, in 10 years we say 10 more.

@@beastamer1990s only been 4 years away for the last 40 years!

that will never, ever, ever happen and most scientist agree. the solution is thorium reactors, you might want to look into that. fusion research will suck up enormous amounts of OUR money and will never, ever be a solution

There is a difference between being orbital, and being completely on-line. Starship, due to it's test often until it fails strategy, appears to be further ahead than it really is. The Starship we see today is really only a husk of it's intended state. The Prototypes are just that, there are no internal crew compartments, equipment bays, hell, they are only just now trying to design the large cargo doors that it will need to deploy payloads into orbit. It has a long way to go before it can be considered fully operational. Likely it will become more and more operational over a much longer gradient than most rocket platforms have traditionally in the past. The first version that lands on the moon, likely won't be much more complex than the current iterations, safe for some equipment to test the landing systems, and possibly refueling hardware. All the crew support, and large payload support stuff, it likely to take a lot more time.

@@BookmansBlues Very true, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Starship is more powerful, even in it's experimental form, and if it flies first, it will steal that thunder from the SLS which is what the OP was about

@@BookmansBlues - Yeah, thats true, but Starship isnt trying to suck money as hard as they can from the government like other companies. While there is an incentive for SpaceX to go Faster, there is a very big incentive for Government partners to Delay as much as possible. Dude, this rocket should be finished 10 YEARS AGO with 25% of the current cost. . Also, developing the Engine and the structure is the HARD PART, everything else is kind of easy, specially if you have hundreds of engineers knowing they are making history in real time. "its just a husk" - yeah, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER ROCKET, the only exception i can think is the space shuttle, everything else is just a fuel tank attached to a rocket engine. In my opinion, Starship is already 80% ready, its like copying a bunch of files, 3k files, but 80% of the total size is only by 10 files. . I bet SLS will have at least ONE more big delay and Starship will be almost ready when SLS finally leaves the ground, and with some luck, dont Explode in mid air.

@@BookmansBlues I would be careful about putting faith in Boeing or ULA at this point.

​@@brianfhunter Also Starship costs a tiny fraction of SLS, like 3 orders of magnitude less. And since it's fully reusable, it can fly far more frequently. Up to 3 times a day for one ship. And it's going to be mass produced. Apart from the similar size, Starship is in a completely different league. SLS is an F1 race car, while Starship is a pickup truck.

Agreed.

China will definitely "play to win".

Even India was going to sign but decided not.

That's because signing anything with USA is pretty much meaningless if you are on equal footing - USA never fulfills its obligations in the agreement and throughout the Cold War, and especially after it, it has broken pretty much every high level agreement. That is why no one considered on pair with USA wants to co-sign anything anymore. Simply, USA honors the deals it wants, when it wants - and that makes any signing pretty meaningless. It went to the point where USA's actions in the Cold War almost brought up nuclear war - famous being Cuban Crisis. USA and USSR agreed that they won't put nuclear weapons on each other's borders - because then you take out the other side's ability to retaliate (not enough time), so the whole balance goes away. USA placed nukes in Turkey, contrary to the agreement, and USSR then decided to restore the balance by placing nukes on Cuba. We all know how it all ended, but in many American minds it is seen as a hostile act of USSR. It wasn't, it was actually a response to a hostile act and breaking of a deal by USA. And when you have a nation that doesn't give a damn about the agreements and obligations (because it has force and thinks it can do what ever the hell it wants and no one can do anything about it), no one wants to sign anything with it. US troops committed countless war crimes in the last 20 years in the Middle East, no one even remotely important was brought to the international court for war crimes. Because USA does what USA wants - and if you don't like it, come and do something about it. If you can. Classic bully. That's why no one wants to play.

@@Wustenfuchs109 Sad but true.

You like to live near a bomb who spills toxic fumes ,🙂

@@Kannot2023 >>> _WHERE'S THE LOVE?!_

So cool! Seeing a launch in person is on my Bucket list! Well I want to see both a day and nighttime launch.

I went to Cocoa Beach a few years ago and saw the VAB over the horizon. That would be a cool place to be during a launch.

@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Nichols comment is made by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. There's nothing toxic about liquid oxygen. It does use methane, which is a greenhouse gas, but when the rocket exploded, the little bit of methane left in the tank burned up harmlessly just like a natural gas plant that lights the top of their stacks so that it burns instead of escaping into the atmosphere. He said it himself. It's a bomb. It exploded. It burned up all the methane before it could be a problem. There is a 5 mile excursion zone to keep people out of the blast. It's comment made by someone ignorant of the facts.

Baby lungs

Won't be that much. The moon isn't the only place where we can get those resources from. We've got two asteroid fields and possibly the Oort Cloud too (if it exists), which means we will have trillions upon trillions of tonnes to mine, which in turn means that their value will eventually drop to free. A materials value is primarily defined by rarity and how difficult it is to obtain. The rest is detail work to make it fit in better with the monetary system we run, but the RE resources we obtain outside the Earth, the rarer life itself becomes and at some point it will be naturally occurring materials like wood and leather that will be incredibly expensive, as we can definitely do smaller plants on colonized worlds, but entire forests are quite unlikely for at least a couple thousand years.

@@Arterexius Yes, but the most important part of what you said is the difficulty to obtain the metals. Until spaceflight itself becomes truly routine (not likely, imho), anything we have to go up and pull out of the vacuum of space is going to be astronomically expensive. Not to mention, mining is brutal work on Earth, and these miners will also have to be trained for spaceflight/working there specifically. That ain't cheap!

As has been mentioned in the video, rare earth elements are not actually rare ...

I have limited knowledge of concrete but I believe that it requires oxygen to remain stable. Making concrete structures on the moon before an oxygen atmosphere would likely be improbable.

The "moon in its pristine condition" is a frozen irradiated hell half the time and a burning, even *more* irradiated hell, the other half of the time. It's best use is a center for resource extraction and as an industrial park for heavy manufacturing. We need to get as much of those two acivities, as possible, *off this planet*.

Yeah but... Imagine someday you'll look up the sky and see the faint light of lunar citys. A constant reminder of what humanity can achive. It is beautiful in a way. On the other hand we are talking about changing another rock in the solar system forever aaand looking at what we are doing with the first one we should propably think about that again...

Pristine wasteland where nothing can live or grow.

@@Kremit_the_Forg Nope, no need to "think about that again." The more industry and resource extraction we can put on lifeless rocks, the less damage we do to the one rock that we know of that actually has life. Better yet, all that industry and resource extraction will eventually make it cost-effective to build places for people to live, first on those lifeless rocks (at which point, they stop being "lifeless"), and then in space habitats. And that means we can start drawing down the population on Earth, and sending people to live comfortable lives in space. The best possible plan is to turn Earth into a vast natural reserve, populated by a minimal number of people devoted to its care, while everyone else lives peaceful, comfortable and prosperous lives in habitats scattered widely, throughout the Solar System. I'd like to think we can get there, someday.

@@Kremit_the_Forg Yeah, if humans had to go through a 'performance review' based on out treatment of the earth, we wouldn't be getting to use other celestial bodies just yet.

And where the hell are our George-Jetson "hovercars", eh!? Eh!? As the youngest rep of the Gen-Xers (I was born in Sept. 69; hey, is that in the summer then? Never thought of that - "summer of 69"...), I speak for legions, & WE DEMAND: 1) Lightsabers, 2) hovercars, 3) fusion-powered Anything, 4) AI supercomputers with a predilection for naming everyone "Dave" (albeit in a soft, calming voice), & 5) Star Destroyers (pref with hyperdrives, but that's not a deal-breaker)! C'mon Humanity - Baby Boomers I'm looking at YOU - tick tock, alright!? On behalf of my generation I'm calling you to account...this REALLY better not end up being one of those "writing cheques we can't cash" nonsense, or by golly there'll be trouble!

@@tolentarpay5464 i hate to break it to you do but ur closer to a Boomer, Gen X didnt end til the late 70s at earliest

Only 6?

@@mycosys Gen X lasted until early eighties. They can't agree on the exact year that it ends, but it's most often somewhere between 1980 and 1983. 1965-1980 seems to be the most common years that people use.

n° 1 - the tone down from ep 5 to 6 I mean, how there they go from ''I'm your father/ cut off limb/han frozen in carbonite/ and leia force sensitive'' 5 min before black screen to ''silly teddy bears beat stormtroppers with rocks and sticks now''

The tech. developed for space have made all of our lives better. The possibility of mining in space would also benefit all of us.

Technically 99 percent of the tax dollars goes to working Americans. I think it's better than giving it to bums who take advantage of the welfare system..

A lot of the public will be against it for years, until the first benefits begin to accrue. Even if we don't crack fusion by the time a moon base is set up, there could still be processes beneficial to Earth - low-G manufacturing comes to mind.

Many imagine Apollo cost America nearly 100% of its budget. NASA’s funding was at its richest at around 5%, at that it was a staggeringly huge project. Today NASA’s budget hovers around 0.5% of the US budget. While America spends roughly $20 billion through NASA it spends over $700 billion on the military.

@@Bryan-Hensley, I'd need to see the data for that one. Also, a definition of "working" would be required. City, State, Federal bureaucracies are filled with "do nothing jobs". -Technically "working" on paper, but not in practice. But I do agree. The welfare system needs to be re-examined. On many occasions, I've had women at the grocery store try to "sell" me their EBT Card. : "This EBT card has $80 on it, I'll sell it to you for $40." : Why would I pay you $40 to get my tax dollars back? It would be interesting to see how many welfare recipients "lose" their EBT cards, and need a new one.

Mining the moon seems like a terrible idea to me. I can’t believe that there’s serious discussion about this. What happens if we destroy our moon and that’s the end of the world as we know it.

@@ok.ok.5735 why would a moon mine cause more damage to earth than an earth mine?

Who will own the Moon?????

@@ok.ok.5735 mining the moon will enable us access to further space.

The human race will starve to death prior to that.

if only, the damn satelite is to blame for some of our floods.... but it wont happen, theres to much of it.

''and know it's shinier''

The moon's surface is slightly less reflective than an asphalt road, whatever we do there, we'll make it more shiny!

I'll probably be out by Neptune by the time that's an issue.

But only 10 years to first chuckle

I'll show you the way to the Thor(ium)

I had it blocked from conscious thought then he mentioned the injured snake.

Wasn't that snake scene in The Rise of Skywalker?

Read it on the Internet , so it must be trueeee 😂

@@straightupgamer354 literally has to be

@@wordupninja hahahah

Cheese slices, because obviously it's flat

We can mine cheese from the moon!

Moon Lawn™

Agreed

I'd never even heard of the movie before this video. I guess I'm going to have to search it out now.

@@GandolphTheGreyBeard ‘Moon’ and ‘Source Code’ were both directed by Duncan Jones (David Bowie’s son)... ...unfortunately everything he’s made since has been a disappointment.

Underrated is the wrong term. Obscure maybe? Most people who know about it think it's fantastic.

@@Rocketsong Yeah, maybe. But obscure things tend to also become underrated things in the grand scheme of things. By the way, how a movie is "rated" is a subjective thing. Maybe I think this movie is better than all the people who think this movie is great.

That part of the mining is which I find problematic. For all that other stuff? Yes. Helium 3? I am not so sure. It is very energy intensive process, which means you'll need very expensive infrastructure up there to mine the regolith and then refine it. Also, Helium 3 rich areas are around the equator on the far side - that's as far from the proposed Lunar bases as you can get on the Moon - meaning thousands of kilometers away. And then you need to consider that, while the price of 1g of He3 might be high now, the moment you start mining it in large quantities, the price will drop like a rock. The rules of supply and demand. So you can't really count on that huge price. Further, He3 is a third generation fusion fuel. The first, and the most energetic, are deuterium and tritium reactions, both of which can be found on Earth for a fraction of a cost. Especially deuterium - oceans themselves contain enough for countless millennia of power generation. So it is another nail in the He3 mining coffin. It would be very hard to justify mining He3 for a huge cost when you can get the fuel down here for a fraction of the cost. And further still, once you get the fusion going, He3 is actually PRODUCED in fusion reactors as a result of deuterium fusion. So, that means that folks having a fusion reactor and access to an ocean, can have all the power they want, including that 3rd gen fuel cycle, without ever stepping a foot on the Moon. So I highly doubt that Helium 3 mining would be a huge deal - for Earth. Helium 3 has one advantage though - it is a form of aneutronic fusion, meaning that in reaction, you don't release extra neutrons, meaning that a reactor using He3 as a fuel would need less radiation shielding. For Earth it does not matter, because the price of extra shielding is nothing compared to the cost of shipping He3 from the Moon. But for some future fusion powered spacecraft, it might be advantageous as it means less mass to haul around the system. All that being said, if/when we master fusion, Helium 3 might be mined on the Moon to power some future spacecraft. But there is no economic reasoning to ship it to Earth, at least in my opinion after the extensive research into the subject.

@@Wustenfuchs109 This guy is on point.

@@Wustenfuchs109 Wow, great insight, thanks for that! Agreed. I only think that the moon will maybe be used if we ever did need a fuel source for future space craft perhaps. I can see it being used as a type of service/fuel station one day. I just really hope they don't, as the moon's gravitational force is the only thing I ever worry about haha. Your intensive research has really paid off.. and on a great subject as well 😄

@@Wustenfuchs109 but but funny voices

@@Wustenfuchs109 not to mention, Tritium can be produced in vast quantities in conventional nuclear reactors, and tritium then decays into Helium-3. This is already being done in one reactor due to the decreased supply from nuclear warheads, but can be done in any commercial reactor.

Silver is great at the price. But the best conductor is gold. That's why they use it in computer chips. It's just too expensive to put in stuff that's not super high-priced, even in microgram amounts. Gold paint or foil notwithstanding. It's a luxury item. Jewelry? Duh! Why is your phone so pricey?

@@lukasmakarios4998 gold is not a better conductor. It just doesn't oxidize. I'm an electrician, gold is NOT a better conductor.. silver is way better, the best actually. In fact just GOOGLE the best metal for conducting electricity and .... Silver will pop up..

@@lukasmakarios4998 Nope. Silver is a better conductor than gold. But it tarnishes. Gold is used because it doesn't corrode. They put gold plating on nearly every audio, video, power, and board edge connector for this reason. The amount of gold used in a phone isn't even worth the price of recovering it during recycling (at least on the small scale). They're "pricey" because they're incredibly complex machines and the processes used to manufacture them are insanely expensive. Also, marketing costs, exorbitant executive pay, and high profit margins.

you want the truth.??..watch viper tv.. sumerian tablets.. then,,tell me aliens dont exist..

But, it's a dry heat.

Said it way more intelligently than I would have.

That argument also doesn't make any sense in the first place. Mining on the moon means LESS mining on earth, it's literally part of the solution to fixing our planet.

But its a pristine gray sunblasted radioactive wasteland covered in the rest of the stuff you said! Though, in all honesty I really wish that when I looked up into the sky I could see a city on the moon. It would have some dumb obvious name like Luna or some shit, but I want the future dammit.

Mining the moon? What would the effects be and how widespread? Changing the nass of the moon by removing material could affect the tides here on earth which could affect the weather here on earth. We're already seeing the affects of climate change here on earth. What would happen her on earth if people start dismantling it.

Lolz, maybe with fusion energy we can get James Webb up and running!

We've actually been doing fusion for years now, it's just that we can't figure out how to get more energy than we put in

Hope you expand that

That is sad. Joe does a very good job at research and presentation, but he is not a scientist. He substitutes opinion and optimism in places where actual data and facts are unclear or unknown because it is popular and grows his channel. I notice very few people in the comments call him out on this.

@@Val_Emrys But we are going to make the moon uninhabitable. Call Greenpeace

@@bindingcurve Said no Greenpeace person ever. But ok, just make up crap...because...

@@Val_Emrys Listen to Joe. He was concerned about moon dust floating around due to industry on the surface that would make the moon uninhabitable. ;)