In the future should we strip mine other planets?

[Mr Slugger]

I've seen on the news the past few days about how they found a good supply of water on the moon. Which is good for space exploration because we have some resources on the moon that we can use to make a base. But of course heading into space brings up another question. Obviously here we are trying to stop strip mining because one it's ugly, and two the environmental damage it does. But what about on other planets. Especially if it comes back that there's no life on it. Should we just mine the crap out of the planet? I mean nothing lives there so who would mind? But on the other hand even though we can't survive in that environment it's still and environment. And there's been some scifi writers that have written about over mining the moon to a point where it just fractures and falls to earth. So to some extent could overmining a world cause problems for others, etc. But then again it could just be writers imagination

[Stormraven]

If it's a dead planet, I don't see why not.

[gremcint]

This isn't a dead planet and it doesn't stop us stripmining here.

[BroomJockey]

I think mining a planet for materials to be used on Earth would be horrifically inefficient. The only way it'd work is if it was a low-gravity/null-gravity mining operation for materials to be used in a similar gravity situation, without going in to a Earth-norm/high-G well first. Why? The amount of materials consumed in entering/breaking orbit is astronomical (pun intended). So, if we were making a base on the moon? Yeah. Go for it. Mine it for materials. Asteroids? Sure. Go for it, if it's to be used in space/on the moon/similar situation. Otherwise? Not worth the effort.

[joe hx]

For me, the potential for terraforming planets would trump strip mining. Of course, we might mine to build things on our terraformed planet.

[Flyndaran]

For me, the potential for terraforming planets would trump strip mining. Of course, we might mine to build things on our terraformed planet.

Terraforming really easy planets like mars would require centuries. Anything else would require millenniums. Do you really expect any company to avoid mining on the off chance it may adversely affect some super long term project?

[Mr Slugger]

Another thing. When I mean strip mine other planets/moons I'm talking take as much of everything we possibly can.
As far as breaking orbit. Right now it's inefficient, but the future it might now be as bad. I mean 100 years from now we could have fusion reactors that get us into space, zero g fields, or something like that. So I think for the sake of the debate transport should be a non issue, just should we do it.

[BroomJockey]

So I think for the sake of the debate transport should be a non issue, just should we do it.

With that stipulation? Yes, as long as it's a dead world. One plant, one single-celled organism, and we back the hell off. Dead, though? Break it open, suck it dry like candy.

[HYHYBT]

I wouldn't go quite that far; if you're talking about mining on a planetary scale, it's probably a good idea to make sure that moving that much mass won't throw orbits out of whack or anything. For instance, we *need* the moon to be about the size it is for life to continue on Earth, and changing the position or size of something further off but really big, like, say, Jupiter, would probably be a bad idea as well.

[BroomJockey]

If transport's not an issue, I'm going so far as to assume that it's asteroids and planets in other systems, but you do raise a fair point in relation to our system.

[Flyndaran]

If transport's not an issue, I'm going so far as to assume that it's asteroids and planets in other systems, but you do raise a fair point in relation to our system.

Transport will always be a massive issue as long as the laws of physics stay the same as they are today.

If humanity ever gets off this dirt ball, we will need to be self-sufficient in space. A few high price items may make it back to earth, but that will be mostly an ignorable issue.
It will always be more efficient to strain seawater for materials than get it from an asteroid and send it back to earth.

[BroomJockey]

Transport will always be a massive issue as long as the laws of physics stay the same as they are today.

Did you miss the part where Slugger said *not* to consider transportation as an issue? Because that's directly why I'd said that. If you look at my earlier post, I'd stated it would be a massive issue. Try to read the entire thread, please.

[Flyndaran]

Did you miss the part where Slugger said *not* to consider transportation as an issue? Because that's directly why I'd said that. If you look at my earlier post, I'd stated it would be a massive issue. Try to read the entire thread, please.

I wish I noticed all those ignore reality qualifiers that seem so prevalent in the forums lately.
I simply forgot previous posts when so many days separate the first from the last. No need to be snippy.

[jackfaire]

I don't think he was necessarily wanting to be snippy so much as to point out that while people are attempting to discuss the physics of it he posed it as an ethical question.

[Flyndaran]

I don't think he was necessarily wanting to be snippy so much as to point out that while people are attempting to discuss the physics of it he posed it as an ethical question.

What's the point of ethical questions that have nothing to do with reality?