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

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

[flamefront]

product of the solar wind trapped

So closer moons might then be even better sources?

[Willie Green]

I can only assume you'll support restrictive tariffs on Mars produced goods, to protect Earth-bound teamster profits.

You need to become more familiar with the issue.
My support of tariffs places me in opposition to the Teamsters...
Lowlife Teamsters favor trade because it keeps 'em busy at the ports, to the detriment of the rest of our nation.

[aruanan]

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.

And, unlike nuclear fission, an actual power producing fusion device has not yet been built. But, like nuclear fission, a fusion reactor would also produce nuclear by-products, some of them radioactive.

[Frank_Discussion]

Such cynicism! Take heart, my little nearly-massless friend!

"We spend $269 billion (Yes, that's billion with a b) per year, in the US alone, just on eating out."

That's the kind of data current market studies on space tourism point to, and they say over and over that if a mechanism existed, folks would embrace space tourism. Even on the most conservative evaluation, the profit is high and sustainable in space tourism.

The major hurdle at this point is that most capital sources can't see the forest for the tinfoil. But that's changing.

[aruanan]

No, we're poorer.

Son, you've got to learn to stop comparing what is with what you think ought to be or should have been. This is something that socialists do all the time. They compare the present, which is in most places of the world, even those that seem horrible to us, incomparably better than at almost any other time in history, with what they conceive to be the ultimate best of all possible worlds, but one that doesn't even exist, and then talk about how bad things are in comparison. Compare the real with the real instead of with the "ought to be" and you'll have a much easier time of it.

[Frank_Discussion]

Interesting question, I suspect the answer is "no". The Moon is stable and nearby, so it's logistically easier to deal with, than say Phobos/Deimos at Mars or an asteroid. Also, the Moon's stable rotation (little wobbling) gives it an "even coating" of solar wind products on the surface.

[Willie Green]

Public and Private from any country, not from some NWO-thingie. Where you got the latter impression, I'm not really sure.

Public/private IS a NWO-thingie.
It's a code phrase for government/corporate collusion.
It can be viewed as either fascist or communist/socialist, depending on context and who is utilizing the catch-phrase.

[Frank_Discussion]

WHAT?!?!?! Sorry, I'm new here, don't know the "Code Phrases" you're using. Yes, private business ownership is certainly fascist/communist/socialist. </sarcasm=High>

What the hell did I step in, what's on my shoe?

[dead]

You need to become more familiar with the issue. My support of tariffs places me in opposition to the Teamsters... Lowlife Teamsters favor trade because it keeps 'em busy at the ports, to the detriment of the rest of our nation.

You are the one in need of greater familiarity with the issue.

Each low-life union’s support or non-support of any particular tariff depends directly on the amount of money to be gained or lost by the corrupt socialist/mafia leadership in question.

The Teamsters support, to varying degrees, tariffs on certain textiles and tariffs on the US distribution of foreign films.

I could certainly have selected a more pro-tariff, corrupt, socialist union than the Teamsters, but what’s the difference? They’re all one big "family" if you know what I mean.

[Willie Green]

What the hell did I step in, what's on my shoe?

YOU'RE the one who injected PUBLIC into the discussion along with private.
I stipulated purely PRIVATE funding way back on reply #5.

I'm not opposed to public/private cooperation on large scale infrastructure construction that has widespread public benefit: transportation infrastructure, power generation, water supply/sewage treatment, etc. etc.

But the ROI on space exploration is far too intangible. IMHO, it should be strictly private and NASA should be defunded and privatized. Perhaps thay can obtain venture capital from the Discovery Channel, NOVA and the National Geographic Society.

[Frank_Discussion]

Holy Moly. That's what this is all about?

Private Company: No Stock Sold.
Public Company: Issues Stock to generate funding.

Neither of the above is a government or national organization. Get a grip, man.

As far as NASA goes, I think it should go back to cutting-edge development and science research, and exit out of international politics. They are still rather good at forging the technical path, but they keep wandering off to be some sort of diplomatic entity.

[Willie Green]

and tariffs on the US distribution of foreign films.

Foreign films?
Who the heck wants to watch foreign films?
Even foreigners don't watch foreign films.
Hollyweird cranks out nothing but trash anymore,
But even that has better cinematography and special effects than anything produced elsewhere.

[dead]

If I choose to spend my money on a film produced abroad (like "Lord of the Rings" or "Mad Max"), I'd prefer my money not go to the pro-tariff, socialist, leg-breakers in the teamsters.

Same goes for my moon-mined helium-3.

[dead]

(Folks watching this, am I communicating so badly, or does this guy always spoil for a fight?)

LOL! Have you not met Willie before?

Want to have some fun? – Say something bad about Buchanan.

[RightWhale]

I see you are a new poster to FR. I am pro-space development, as are you. I also think the government has to do something to make space development by private companies possible. In the meantime, I strongly favor having NASA resume manned exploration of outer space beyond low earth orbit. The Russian proposal to go to Mars in 2014 is an offer that ought to be accepted. It will be money well-spent.

[Constantine XIII]

Why not sell charter stock in a "Lunar Mining Co." like the British used the East India Co. to fund the colonization of India. Heck, we don't even have to "oppress" natives! ;o)

[Constantine XIII]

Nasa officially passed the 1:1 beaurocrat to scientist ratio a few years back. Is it any wonder that they can't find their butts with both hands and a spy satellite?

[Willie Green]

Holy Moly. That's what this is all about?

LOL! It is a rather silly misunderstanding.

I've become accustomed to advocating NASA defunding whenever these space exploration threads pop up.
It's interesting stuff, but I believe that NASA's glory days are long past, and the taxpayer is recieving diminishing returns on the funds expended. Whether its the crashed Martian rover or the billionaire Space Station tourist, NASA has lost its way. IMHO, the only remnant of NASA that should continue is that which performs a national security role. Turn the rest over to the private sector. Even the scientific/academic research can derive revenues from production of films and documentaries.

[operation clinton cleanup]

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".

If WE build it, THEY will come....

[operation clinton cleanup]

The chi-coms will take a covered wagon to the moon and stake thier claim while we try to build a limo and negotiate future contracts.