Skip to comments.
Moon a great power source (lunar helium-3 mining in 10 years?)
Sydney Morning Herald ^
| July 11 2002
| By Richard Macey
Posted on 07/10/2002 12:26:15 PM PDT by dead
"A business scenario can be put together that could have us back on the moon within 10
to 15 years" ... Dr Schmitt on Earth, and below on the moon in 1972. Photo: Steven Siewert
Within 15 years people could be mining the moon for a safe and clean nuclear fuel that could phase out fossil-burning power stations, the last man to step onto the lunar surface said yesterday.
Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who with Gene Cernan made the final moon landing aboard Apollo 17 in December 1972, also predicted lunar tourists could eventually follow.
In Sydney yesterday the geologist and only scientist among the 12 Apollo moonwalkers predicted the next lunar explorers would be funded by international investors rather than taxpayers.
Their goal would be an isotope called helium-3, rare on Earth but found in abundance on the moon. It could be used to develop a clean, safe and limitless fuel for nuclear fusion power stations. Unlike atom-splitting fission technology, fusion - the source of the sun's energy - generates power by squeezing atoms together.
"If we are going to see a continued rise in the population of the Earth to 10 or 12 billion people by 2050 and if we also expect to see an improvement in people's standard of living, it's going to take a factor of eight increase in our energy supply."
Helium-3 could provide much of that energy.
"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.
He conceded the 1967 international Outer Space Treaty "does prohibit the claiming and the exercising of sovereignty over any lunar territory. However, it does permit the use of its resources".
Lunar miners could be required to make their quarry available to all nations "for the benefit of humankind", with part of the profits being used to help all countries switch from fossil to fusion fuel.
Dr Schmitt described Apollo 17's landing site, the Taurus-Littrow valley, as perfect for tourism.
"It's a valley deeper than the Grand Canyon. The mountains on either side rise 2100 metres above the valley floor and are brilliantly illuminated by a sun brighter than any Australian sun. The hardest thing to get used to is a brilliant sun in a black sky.
"The steep mountains would inevitably attract thrill seekers. Someone, some day is going to try to ski them with some teflon coated skis."
Unlike other moonwalkers - all test pilots - he had not been affected by seeing the Earth hanging in the lunar sky. He was more interested in moon rocks.
While on the moon, Cernan told him to take time to admire the Earth. "I said to Gene, 'Look, when you have seen one Earth, you have seen them all'."
Yesterday Dr Schmitt addressed the Australian Institute of Physics biennial congress. This weekend he will attend the 2002 Australian Mars Exploration Conference, also in Sydney.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: Cincinatus
LOL! Choo-choos.
21
posted on
07/10/2002 1:07:47 PM PDT
by
dead
To: Cincinatus
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!!!!Of course. I can guarantee that mass transit will benefit Hundreds of millions more passengers than some space shuttle ever will.
To: Right Wing Professor
Let's see if we can fill in the missing pieces. From a previous
article on space.com -
"Helium 3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
- we get the source of the excitement going on here. ...
To: Chemist_Geek
I know someone who can help!
24
posted on
07/10/2002 1:14:58 PM PDT
by
keithtoo
To: Right Wing Professor
... who has been written about
here:
Gerald Kulcinski, director of the University of Wisconsin's Fusion Technology Institute, is already halfway there. Kulcinski is in charge of an "inertial electrostatic confinement device," an experimental low-power reactor that has successfully performed continuous deuterium-helium-3 fusion - a process that produces less waste than the standard deuterium-tritium fusion reaction.
How does that fit in your calculations for binding energy?
To: Frank_Discussion
The profitablity of Earth export only develops after other needs and markets in space are met.Exports???
The U.S. has been running trade deficits for decades.
It's bad enough listening to BS propaganda about increasing exports to other nations when the only thing that happens is that we get flooded with imports.
Now you think the people are dumb enough to believe that you're gonna "export" to Martians???
Bah!!!
To: flamefront
Thanks. I guess that answers some questions. It really isn't that great a fuel in terms of energetics, it just doesn't produce neutrons.
Me, I'd focus on making it work first, and worry about how to make it safer later. Henry Ford didn't delay production of the Model T to await the development of side-impact airbags or ABS.
To: 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."
Here's something that might appeal to you:
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~neep533/LEC25/18slide.html
To: dead
Hey, I'm all for private exploration of space but HE-3 has yet to be used in fusion at an economical rate. Boron-Hydrogen fusion also looks promising but the real fuel for space will be based on fission. Americium-242m is 100 times as powerful as plutonium and reactors can be configured to produce it even now. What would really be interesting is to find an economical way to produce muons.
29
posted on
07/10/2002 1:25:07 PM PDT
by
techcor
To: Willie Green
I can only assume you'll support restrictive tariffs on Mars produced goods, to protect Earth-bound teamster profits.
When they break your leg in space, nobody can hear you scream. 8-)
30
posted on
07/10/2002 1:28:38 PM PDT
by
dead
To: Frank_Discussion
I have to laugh at the appeal to politically correct environmentalism in mentioning no greenhouse gases.
How long before we hear the the whinings of the enviro-wackos about the 'pristine' moon environment?
It is going to take nuclear war before we clear away those objections.
To: Willie Green
I can guarantee that mass transit will benefit Hundreds of millions more passengers than some space shuttle ever will.Yeah, the "hundreds of millions" that you want to force into your cattle-cars. I guess that it depends on the meaning of the word "benefit" doesn't it?
To: Willie Green
OOOH... Flame hot, burns poor Frank... Me now slink away from unprovoked attack... NOT!
Seriously, Willie, that's how frontiers are funded, and that is most certainly what outer space is: A Frontier.
"The U.S. has been running trade deficits..." Actually I understand and somewhat agree with you here, except for one thing: I'm *not* talking about another NASA junket to the Moon, rather private enterprise. Public and private companies running up to the moon, exports and imports dictated by their business needs. Not some single nation's economic policy.
"Now you think the people are dumb enough to believe that you're gonna "export" to Martians???"
Um, first, "dumb" was kinda uncalled for. I was merely elaborating on some issues you brought up, sheesh. Second, Mars would indeed be a market, but certainly not the first served. Near-Earth and Lunar Tourism/Settlement is a prime market to start with, supplying goods to maintain operations of hard goods in space, etc. And the markets exist for such tourism.
"Bah!!!" Back at ya, buddy!
To: dead
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
by Robert Heinlein
To: flamefront
"I have to laugh at the appeal to politically correct environmentalism in mentioning no greenhouse gases."
The PC virus at work again...
"How long before we hear the the whinings of the enviro-wackos about the 'pristine' moon environment?"
Too Late. A fellow by the name of Rick Stiener is already on the warpath on this one... Big, big, dorkus.
"It is going to take nuclear war before we clear away those objections."
Ah, maybe not. Well, at least I hope not.
To: flamefront
Not ALL environmentalism is politically correct: I'd call the the habitat and wildlife management programs of outfits like "Ducks Unlimited" good solid environmentalism.
And the wackos have ALREADY whined about us messing with the pristine lunar environment. . . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/689180/posts
36
posted on
07/10/2002 1:45:37 PM PDT
by
Salgak
To: Frank_Discussion
Public and private companies running up to the moon, exports and imports dictated by their business needs. Not some single nation's economic policy.Lemme guess: your vision of the future is that the United Nations will be renamed The United Federation of Planets and the need for money will become obsolete.
I'll go along with that ONLY if ya introduce me to that 7-of-9 babe.
She's the only one I can think of who's sexier than Maglev!
(Although the Vulcan babe on the new Enterprise series is pretty dang HOT!)
To: techcor
Because of side or secondary reactions (e.g., the D in the D3He fuel reacting with other D instead of 3He) some fuel cycles have more radioactivity associated with them than others. Clearly the most attractive fuel cycle, in terms of radioactivity produced are those using the 3He fuel cycle. It is almost certain that the p11B cycle will not work in Maxwellian plasmas (i. e., Tokamaks, Mirrors, ICF, etc.) because of the bremsstrahlung associated with high Z elements in a hot plasma. It may be possible to run 11B in an IEF device.I have a can of bremsstrahlung and a bucket of durchgriff in my garage but I still have to pay Florida Power to run my A/C.
38
posted on
07/10/2002 1:54:18 PM PDT
by
ijcr
To: Question_Assumptions
Vast numbers of people are microscopically better off for that, except that we all have less to aspire to. While I agree with the spirit of your comments completely, and thank you for the quotation, I'd like to quibble about one small point. We're not even "microscopically better off". No, we're poorer. The pocket calculator - and a great many other technologies we enjoy - came from research that originated with the space program.
We could - should - have been well into space by now, with several space stations, a permanent lunar presence, and (perhaps) an orbital station located at Mars. But what do we have instead? Decaying, crime infested, stinking tenements. Generations of welfare fueled parasites. A world filled with those who would walk a league to get a handout, and not take a step to improve their own situation. One might be excused if one wept for what might have been - and isn't. And may never be.
Will we bestir ourselves? Do we have the vision? I wonder. Others have mentioned "international investors"; but who might these visionaries be? The social elite seem more motivated by the approval generated when they send money to some miserable third world toilet, than they do by the chance to touch the stars.
Getting well into space would cost hundreds of billions. We spend $269 billion (Yes, that's billion with a b) per year, in the US alone, just on eating out. This per the Wall Street Journal of July 9th. I hate to imagine how much we've spent to reach the sad depths of underachievement our very expensive schools represent. Or how much money we've sent to other countries that dispise us. But our space program languishes on scraps.
Bah! Humbug!
39
posted on
07/10/2002 2:01:54 PM PDT
by
neutrino
To: Willie Green
Um, no. (Folks watching this, am I communicating so badly, or does this guy always spoil for a fight?)
My feelings on things:
UN: The Vine that should wither, the sooner the better.
Free Enterprise is for everybody, in all the world. Go forth and prosper, make the world a better space through doing something, not though whining. (Doing something usually starts with self-interest, the basis of free enterprise)
I said: "Public and private companies running up to the moon, exports and imports dictated by their business needs. Not some single nation's economic policy."
This means: Public and Private from any country, not from some NWO-thingie. Where you got the latter impression, I'm not really sure.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson