Posted on 07/10/2002 12:26:15 PM PDT by dead
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.
So closer moons might then be even better sources?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same goes for my moon-mined helium-3.
(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.
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.
If WE build it, THEY will come....
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.