Moon a great power source (lunar helium-3 mining in 10 years?)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | July 11 2002 | By Richard Macey

[dead]

the next lunar explorers would be funded by international investors rather than taxpayers.

The only way to go (back).

[fuente]

Not much info on how this is supposed to work. Oh yea, fusion.... Uh, now when did we do that? Oh, never mind.

[dead]

We have certainly "done" fusion. We just haven't made it profitable, yet.

[Willie Green]

"A business scenario can be put together that could have us back on the moon within 10 to 15 years," said Dr Schmitt, putting the cost at about $A20 billion.

Fusion power has been "10 to 15 years away" for over 30 years now. I suspect it'll be another 30-50 years before its ready for commercial primetime. In the mean time, we should be focusing more on the newest advances in fission reactor design that are currently available. And let the private sector pursue the moon at their own leisure. (Nothing up there but a bunch of sterile rocks anyway.)

[Tijeras_Slim]

I'm not spending a dime on this until I get the flying car they promised. :)

[Gaston]

You say fusion, I say fission, let's call the whole thing off.

[Frank_Discussion]

When (not IF) fusion comes about as routine and widely available, Lunar He-3 will be a mega-resource, and renewable to boot. It's a product of the solar wind trapped on the moons surface in crannies and locked in the rocks and soil. Dr. Schmitt is spot on.

Private enterprise is working on this right now: Do a Google search for the Moon Society.

The Moon posesses Natural Resources, Astronomical sites on the far side, and of course, Tourism possibilities galore. And it is really not all that far away. The right business plan with a the right backers, hey, we're there!

[Chemist_Geek]

The only way to go (back).

It's time to set our sights high again.

[weikel]

Yes but it should be privatized.

[Paid4This]

Let's set our sights truly high and send a manned mission to Mars.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm missing something here. What do you fuse 3He with? The repulsion between two 3He nucleons is 4 times that between two deuterons or a deuteron and a triton, and the energy release per nucleon is less.

[Frank_Discussion]

"Fusion power has been "10 to 15 years away" for over 30 years now. I suspect it'll be another 30-50 years before its ready for commercial primetime. In the mean time, we should be focusing more on the newest advances in fission reactor design that are currently available."

I agree! The anti-nuke ninnies need to take a hike. I've seen contained fusion of a sort in front of me, though as a propulsion system, and when that particular system works out, the fusion power breakthrough really might come to pass soon thereafter. Obviously, don't hold your breath, but the technology may be closer than anyone thinks.

"And let the private sector pursue the moon at their own leisure."

I agree here, too!

"(Nothing up there but a bunch of sterile rocks anyway.)"

Ah! No so, Willie. Actually, there is quite a lot of oxygen and sundry useful metals. It's not sterile at all, as a matter of fact a small base with a manufacturing capability could expand itself pretty easily up there, and export metals to the home planet.

[Frank_Discussion]

There's absolutely no reason not to do both. Mars is prime for the search for life, and it has abundant water that is relatively easy to obtain. The Moon is commercially enticing, and more accessable as a private enterprise activity.

[cinFLA]

Fusion power has been "10 to 15 years away" for over 30 years now. I suspect it'll be another 30-50 years before its ready for commercial primetime.

Actually, it has always been 30-50 years away.

[Willie Green]

It's not sterile at all, as a matter of fact a small base with a manufacturing capability could expand itself pretty easily up there, and export metals to the home planet.

Not as easily as the home planet can already make use of its own metals.

[Question_Assumptions]

I'm not spending a dime on this until I get the flying car they promised. :)

From an interview with Science Fiction author Larry Niven at Space.com:

We should not have assumed that a political space station could be built. We'd have most of what we predicted of the conquest of space, if we hadn't ignored parasite control. The wealth (as in flying cars) predicted by Heinlein and his followers (including myself) was another matter. It all went to welfare programs.

Vast numbers of people are microscopically better off for that, except that we all have less to aspire to.

Here is where the predictions failed: We didn't take Cargo Cult mentality into account [that being] "if somebody has something I don't, he must have stolen it."

[Willie Green]

Actually, it has always been 30-50 years away.

A perfect illustration of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The time frame remains constant despite the passage of time.

[Cincinatus]

And let the private sector pursue the moon at their own leisure. (Nothing up there but a bunch of sterile rocks anyway.)

This from the guy who wants tons of government money, NOT for tax cuts like a real conservative, but for... (wait for it)....

Mass transit!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Frank_Discussion]

Quite True. However, it depends on what your goals are. As a resource site, it could be argued that the transport of raw materials that are needed for space missions is easier from the moon. The largest expenditure of energy getting to space is at launch, fighting Earth's gravity. It's much, much easier from the moon. If you build infrastructure on the Moon to service either its own expansion needs or missions beyond the Moon, resource export becomes attractive.

The profitablity of Earth export only develops after other needs and markets in space are met. That's why I listed base expansion first.