Andrew Smith, author of Moondust: In Search of the men who fell to Earth, recently published a polemic in the British newspaper The Guardian, entitled The looting of the Moon, that argued against the economic development of the Moon. Apparently, the idea of mining Helium 3, an isotope found on the moon, but not on Earth (at least in nature) disturbs Mr. Smith from an environmental standpoint. Even a cursory examination of the question leads us to ask why.Many scientists say helium 3 would be very useful as a fuel for future fusion power plants. Helium 3 is burned cleanly and with little or no radioactive waste. When the technology to build fusion reactors as it has developed, along with the ability to extract and transport helium-3 from the lunar surface, a source of clean, limitless dreams would availableOther economic development of the Moon include mining materials build space-based solar power stations, which face of the sun's energy collected receivers on Earth. The prospect of any of Helium 3 fusion driven or space solar power or a combination of both fossil fuel substitution should motivate people to express their concern environmentNot Earth to Andrew Smith. It is unclear as to why you feel this way. But he is clear about what you want to happen in the last paragraph of his polemic. "Sister of the land has played a role in learning to value our environment: the extraordinary to think that the next hop for the environmental movement could be a campaign to stop state-sponsored mining companies chomping at the glorious intimacy a quarter of a million miles from our home devastated. "Extraordinary fact. There is not even a caribou (or life of any kind) on the Moon to serve as an excuse to keep the lunar virgin. When the moon is economically developed, not a species will be endangered as a result. No species living on the moon or be there, but what humans stay.Not will when we return to the moon may actually be said to be a virgin. Formed after millions of years ago, the Moon has been bombing meteorites, asteroids and comets that have left craters and other scars on its surface. The idea of mining the moon for Helium 3, or the materials to build space-based solar power plants in any way impair the aesthetic beauty of the Moon is a single view of what beauty aesthetics. One can be forgiven for suspecting that the real motives of environmentalists, if they oppose the mining of the moon, the extraction of oil in Alaska, or the construction of wind farms in Nantucket, mean less love for the environment and more hostility from the technology itself. Modern politics has been driven, in part, not only by an irrational fear of technological advances, but the antipathy towards business, driven by popular culture, making a profit from new technologies. It would be a pity that the economic development of the Moon, which has the potential to address the problems of energy and the environment on Earth, could be blocked by political protest caused by irrational fears. The attitude expressed by Smith probably shared by many others. It is suggested that the work of education of the benefits of economic development of the moon and space, in general, be a long and arduous. Source: Andrew Smith sacking of the Moon The Guardian
