Is the moon the next fuel source ?

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am a fan of the project currently being considered which involves placing solar panels on the moon. the energy collected is supposed to be sent back to earth via microwaves and then processed into usable energy. The rate of energy collected by these solar panels is theorized to be about 10,000 times more than if the same panels were collecting energy from earth. This is due to the moon being closer to the sun. I read about this project a few years ago. They said it would take something like 50 years to fully bring it into reality though so who knows.

Maybe they can bring this idea with Helium 3 into reality sooner?

WTF? How can the moon be closer to the sun? It revolves around the Earth.

I think the moon would be able to collect more solar energy because it has no atmosphere but not because it is closer.

No, he's right, you're just confused. You see, the moon travels along the upper troposphere, where there's enough air remaining to give the moon that distinctive glow as it creates lots of friction moving through the air. The sun however is way up in the stratosphere, which is why it appears so small. The moon being twice as close to the sun compared to earth, it can absorb lots of sunshine. Heat created by air resistance can also be harnessed to heat up cold water that we would send to the moon, and then returned warm for bathing and so on.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: manowar821
Hey, I just had a mediocre idea! Would there be any possible way to harness the radiation traveling along the van allen belt?

nah.
You have to have something you can own.
All this research takes money and investors and countries want a big return.
The moon gives them that. They can own it like they do with oil.

Its just a question of who will own what.

In some cases, yes. But solar panels and wind power seem to be doing alright. Can't exactly own the wind or the sun. At least not yet.

I think it'd be easier to harness solar power, as we already have that kind of technology available. I don't know exactly what kind of radiation is present in the van Allen belts, but I don't think that we've got the technology available to capture it efficiently.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I was watching the nasa channel and they were discussing how the moon is loaded with helium3 . There is little to none of it on the earth, but the moon is said to have millions of tons of the stuff. They want it because it would allow clean fusion power with no waste.
Nasa said that just two shuttle loads of he-3 could power the entire usa for one year.

They made a comment that its not cooincedence that japan, china, russia , usa all are planning moon landings in the next 5 years and possible mining in the next 10-20 years..

My questions is who decides what belongs to who ?
Is it just whoever gets there first ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Well, since the United States was there first I say it belongs to us.

Well, our flag is there.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: clamum
I took his statement as meaning the moon travels along the upper troposphere, meaning it travels less than 15 km up from Earth.

I guess I don't understand how the moon is closer to the Sun than the Earth. At times I would think it is since it revolves around the Earth, but all the time? Guess I'm just missing something.

I think his statement about the Moon glowing due to atmospheric friction was intended to be sarcastic.
I really really hope it was, or else our science education is worse than I though.

Goddamnit. Gotta stop at Wal-Mart after work to get some new batteries for my sarcasm detector.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I was watching the nasa channel and they were discussing how the moon is loaded with helium3 . There is little to none of it on the earth, but the moon is said to have millions of tons of the stuff. They want it because it would allow clean fusion power with no waste.
Nasa said that just two shuttle loads of he-3 could power the entire usa for one year.

They made a comment that its not cooincedence that japan, china, russia , usa all are planning moon landings in the next 5 years and possible mining in the next 10-20 years..

My questions is who decides what belongs to who ?
Is it just whoever gets there first ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Well, since the United States was there first I say it belongs to us.

Well, our flag is there.

Hehe, I love Eddie!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I was watching the nasa channel and they were discussing how the moon is loaded with helium3 . There is little to none of it on the earth, but the moon is said to have millions of tons of the stuff. They want it because it would allow clean fusion power with no waste.
Nasa said that just two shuttle loads of he-3 could power the entire usa for one year.

They made a comment that its not cooincedence that japan, china, russia , usa all are planning moon landings in the next 5 years and possible mining in the next 10-20 years..

My questions is who decides what belongs to who ?
Is it just whoever gets there first ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Well, since the United States was there first I say it belongs to us.

Well, our flag is there.

Nobody can "own" or "conquer" the moon because the proper resources to support human life indefinitely do not exist on the moon. How are you going defend it once you "conquer" it? The only way you could do it was to put a network of missile launchers or some other kind of remotely controlled defense system with long range sensors in a grid all over the moon's surface. And then you'd have to control it from Earth. . .gee that doesn't leave any opportunity to have your signals scrambled or your system hijacked. . .You could theoretically build a small moon base / bio-dome kind of thing maybe. . .but how many troops could it really support at a time and for how long? How would they be fed and supplied long term without constantly launching stuff up there to them from earth? I just think it'd be an incredibly trying and taxing burden to try and "own" the moon try and keep it all for yourself. A battle over the moon would be so incredibly stupid and wasteful of our stupid and wasteful species. Just think of all the resources we'd waste in such a fight. . .The only real and feasible way of harnessing the resources of the moon is to act together as 1 united planet. There's more than enough to go around for everybody if this H3 thing really does amount to something.

PS - that link was funny LOL

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody can "own" or "conquer" the moon because the proper resources to support human life indefinitely do not exist on the moon. How are you going defend it once you "conquer" it? The only way you could do it was to put a network of missile launchers or some other kind of remotely controlled defense system with long range sensors in a grid all over the moon's surface. And then you'd have to control it from Earth. . .gee that doesn't leave any opportunity to have your signals scrambled or your system hijacked. . .You could theoretically build a small moon base / bio-dome kind of thing maybe. . .but how many troops could it really support at a time and for how long? How would they be fed and supplied long term without constantly launching stuff up there to them from earth? I just think it'd be an incredibly trying and taxing burden to try and "own" the moon try and keep it all for yourself. A battle over the moon would be so incredibly stupid and wasteful of our stupid and wasteful species. Just think of all the resources we'd waste in such a fight. . .The only real and feasible way of harnessing the resources of the moon is to act together as 1 united planet. There's more than enough to go around for everybody if this H3 thing really does amount to something.

PS - that link was funny LOL

You could always just work to restrict access of other countries to its resources then, such as by sabotaging or destroying their launching facilities, or by shooting down anything that was launched. Options: fighters on Earth, or interceptor satellites orbiting Earth, or perhaps even some kind of robotic defense system on the Moon. There wouldn't need to be a vast system of launchers on the Moon, just a few with missiles capable of reaching nearly any point on its surface. Mining ship lands on the side opposite the launcher, hey, no problem, the mining ship will be there for a long time, more than long enough for a missile to travel the distance and destroy it.

All of this just depends on how greedy the various nations are going to get. I would love to see a future era of cooperation in obtaining valuable resources, but I think such an undertaking is over a century away, probably more. Until then, greed shall be our willing companion as we travel onward.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Whichever oil company contributes the most money to Lunar politicians owns the moon, just like here on earth.

Wow. You are a moron.

Who do you think drills for publicly owned oil on public land? It sure as hell isn't the government.

 

[Alistar7]

Using Salt Water as Fuel

 

[TXHokie]

Since we've gone up there and marked our territory back in the 60's, we get first dibs. When can I have Mr. Fusion as an power source option on my car?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody can "own" or "conquer" the moon because the proper resources to support human life indefinitely do not exist on the moon. How are you going defend it once you "conquer" it? The only way you could do it was to put a network of missile launchers or some other kind of remotely controlled defense system with long range sensors in a grid all over the moon's surface. And then you'd have to control it from Earth. . .gee that doesn't leave any opportunity to have your signals scrambled or your system hijacked. . .You could theoretically build a small moon base / bio-dome kind of thing maybe. . .but how many troops could it really support at a time and for how long? How would they be fed and supplied long term without constantly launching stuff up there to them from earth? I just think it'd be an incredibly trying and taxing burden to try and "own" the moon try and keep it all for yourself. A battle over the moon would be so incredibly stupid and wasteful of our stupid and wasteful species. Just think of all the resources we'd waste in such a fight. . .The only real and feasible way of harnessing the resources of the moon is to act together as 1 united planet. There's more than enough to go around for everybody if this H3 thing really does amount to something.

PS - that link was funny LOL

You could always just work to restrict access of other countries to its resources then, such as by sabotaging or destroying their launching facilities, or by shooting down anything that was launched. Options: fighters on Earth, or interceptor satellites orbiting Earth, or perhaps even some kind of robotic defense system on the Moon. There wouldn't need to be a vast system of launchers on the Moon, just a few with missiles capable of reaching nearly any point on its surface. Mining ship lands on the side opposite the launcher, hey, no problem, the mining ship will be there for a long time, more than long enough for a missile to travel the distance and destroy it.

All of this just depends on how greedy the various nations are going to get. I would love to see a future era of cooperation in obtaining valuable resources, but I think such an undertaking is over a century away, probably more. Until then, greed shall be our willing companion as we travel onward.

What. . .so like a "if I can't have it you can't either" type of thing? That's just asinine destruction for the sake of destruction (but I wouldn't put it past us humans). Then NOBODY profits and the human race as a species suffers from continuing to be beholden to dirty old fossil fuels. . .The oil companies get richer as we waste and squander more of our own precious resources we do still have on a pointless war over the moon. I would just assume let China or Russia have it than fight over it. Hell China is putting out probably just as much pollution as the US is now. Any improvement anywhere is a net gain for all of us on earth. It's the only home we all have. And conquering and holding the moon would simply be an impossibly problematic logistical nightmare.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
What. . .so like a "if I can't have it you can't either" type of thing? That's just asinine destruction for the sake of destruction (but I wouldn't put it past us humans). Then NOBODY profits and the human race as a species suffers from continuing to be beholden to dirty old fossil fuels. . .The oil companies get richer as we waste and squander more of our own precious resources we do still have on a pointless war over the moon. I would just assume let China or Russia have it than fight over it. Hell China is putting out probably just as much pollution as the US is now. Any improvement anywhere is a net gain for all of us on earth. It's the only home we all have. And conquering and holding the moon would simply be an impossibly problematic logistical nightmare.

Not quite that bad, at least not initially. For example, let's say the US, Russia, and China all have space programs to get to the Moon. The US sees this, and decides to sabotage Russia's and China's launching systems, delaying them by several months, giving us the edge. If it escalates, we bomb their launching systems, while ramping up security around ours. That leaves us as the only ones with access to the Moon.
That would then leave Russia and China able to retaliate by shooting down our rockets, or by attempting to destroy our launchers.

Inevitably, all sides would keep trying to rebuild and get there to stake a claim first. There would be no real way of completely denying access. It's like three people trying to reach for a bunch of grapes, but they just keep swatting each other's hands away. Unfortunately, all the hand-swatting means that no hands are available to actually retrieve the grapes.

So yes, holding the Moon would be an impossible logistics nightmare. Continually denying access to it would therefore be the only viable alternative. (Or we could all just cooperate for the sake of benefiting all of humanity. Excuse me while I laugh hysterically and sadly at the fleeting possibility of that.)

 

[Alistar7]

The moon already belongs to this guy.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The moon already belongs to this guy.

Yes but we have a defense !
http://www.nonstick.com/wpics/daffydu.jpg

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The moon already belongs to this guy.

Yes but we have a defense !
http://www.nonstick.com/wpics/daffydu.jpg

We could always just bomb Acme's headquarters. They seem to be a major supplier of a variety of conventional and highly advanced weaponry, as well as the only supplier for the Looney Tunes realm. Destroy Acme, and the Looney economy may well collapse, leaving us free to roll our tanks right onto the Moon.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am a fan of the project currently being considered which involves placing solar panels on the moon. the energy collected is supposed to be sent back to earth via microwaves and then processed into usable energy. The rate of energy collected by these solar panels is theorized to be about 10,000 times more than if the same panels were collecting energy from earth. This is due to the moon being closer to the sun. I read about this project a few years ago. They said it would take something like 50 years to fully bring it into reality though so who knows.

Maybe they can bring this idea with Helium 3 into reality sooner?

WTF? How can the moon be closer to the sun? It revolves around the Earth.

I think the moon would be able to collect more solar energy because it has no atmosphere but not because it is closer.

Well, the moon is closer to the sun but just not by a lot. Don't ask me more than that. This is just what I read. At the time that I read it, NASA supported the project and that article. I am sure I could dig it up on Google but I am lazy.

Do you know what a lunar eclipse is? Its when the shadow of the earth crosses the moon. Think about that one for a minute, the moon is in the earths shadow... how can that happen if its closer to the sun???

The moon orbits the earth, meaning it circles it, in the same way the earth orbits the sun. Which means the moon is actually switching back and forth from closer and further away every 15 days (it has a ~30 day orbit)

Do you know what a Solar eclipse is? Its the opposite of the llunar eclipse, its when the Earth is in the moons shadow. Or from our perspective, the moon blocks the sun.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Something tells me that the energy cost of mining this stuff on THE FREAKING MOON will be a wee bit more than the energy output we'll get back

I remember reading about these new beam projectors or something that could deliver power wirelessly. Put one on the moon and another on Earth, then beam the power back?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
I don't have a source to back it up, but I think I've read that there is an international treaty where most nations have agreed that the moon will never belong to any particular nation.

Treaties can be rewritten, or outright violated, if the price is right.

Yeah, who were the fools who signed treaties with the US anyway? You'd think they'd have learned from watching the Native Americans...

Originally posted by: Jeff7
The concern there is the effects of microwave beams piercing the atmosphere. It'd also be a bit funny watching birds and such fly through the beams. Instantly microwaved. The beams would have a constant air of fresh BBQ smell around them.
Then there's also the worry of a mistargeted beam.

Don't worry, we'll set up the microwave receiver in Iraq. If anyone comes out to protest it, oops! Bit of a misalignment there, sorry about that...didn't you read the No Trespassing signs?

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: sdifox
Feasibility aside, the only possible use would be a forward base for space exploration. Dropping it back to earth is just nuts. A giant solar panel farm in orbit is probably cheaper and more feasible than this moon doohickey.

Not really. Assuming they can manufacture Heat-shields at the moon base, All you need to do is make a re-entry capsule, fill it with whatever, and aim it at the appropriate trajectory with just enough thrust to get past the moon's gravity (which isn't much depending on the weight)

And then the computer system in charge of aiming the thing gains sentience and sues the earth for independence, with the threat of orbital bombardment. That was actually a pretty good book.

 

[FoBoT]

sounds like mega bull crap