Moon has enough energy source to power Earth for thousands of years? Helium 3!!??

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eli
Well, like others have said.. even if we could get it here, what are you going to do with it?

I think we need some technology advances, particularly in fusion reactor area, to make it worth it...

Plus, I don't think we can just go up there and start mining... It would take a lot of money, resources and time to setup a moon base.. plus the possibility for loss of life, etc..

We have this strange idea that we're soOoOoOo advanced.. but 100 years is nothing in the scheme of things. 😉

While getting something from the earth to the moon is difficult, getting something from the moon to the earth is quite easy. It's because of the relative gravity wells. The moon has (relative to earth) a rather small gravity well and sits at the top of earth's gravity well. Just pitch something off the moon just hard enough to escape the moon's pull and it will fall straight to earth.

Now the mining, and the moon base, and the certainty of loss of life.... that's a different story. The cost would be enormous.


edit: or 100 years is a lot.... 100 years ago, you would have ridden your horse to work 😉

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
See the problem with his whole monopoly idea is that it's illegal.

First come, first served.

No you don't understand, it is illegal under the Outer Space Treaty that was ratified with the USSR in the late 80's. This whole thing was to prevent land claims and harvestation of materials on other planets/stars by individual countries and that other lunar bodies are the property of EVERYONE. ThisAs well it sought to prevent the development of lunar based nuclear launch pads on other lunar bodies.

It's not a matter of first come first served, it's actually illegal and there is nothing you can say about it.

The USA is not a signatory to the moon treaty. Never has been. There is only one flag planted on that planet, wanna guess who's it is?

Actually it's not the moon treaty dumbass, it's the outer space treaty and it was the United States that initiated it.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why does everyone neglect geothermal energy? Let's spend one trillion dollars and create one giant geothermal plant. It would last as long as the earth itself and it would be 100% free after the initial investment. It would create ZERO pollution.

Why do people always forget about the most obvious answers?

got any links to support this? i am genuinely (sp?) interested

 

[KMurphy]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I first read about helium 3 a few years ago, how it's the missing link that will allow us to create fusion reactors. It has been known for a long time that the moon is full of it. THe problem is, how do you strip mine the moon?

Step 1 is to reach the moon (accomplished)
Step 2 is to put a base there

 

[gsellis]

With an ocean full of 2H and 3H, who needs 3He?

Anyway, solar PowerSats would be cheaper and easier.

 

[matt426malm]

Extremely good article on the subject all reactions are explained cons and pros.

In short the D - He3 reaction is far cleaner in terms of neutrons given off and their energies. The direct reaction produces no neutrons, however.

"While the principle reaction 3He(d,p)a is aneutronic, neutron production via the side reaction d(d,n)3He and the secondary reaction d(t,n)a is unavoidable. The neutrons produced mainly have lower energy [2.45 MeV neutrons from d(d,n)3He reactions as opposed to 14 MeV neutrons from d(t,n)a reactions] so that material damage is reduced relative to the DT fuel cycle."source / more info

The reaction generates a little more power as h2-h3. It reduces the problem of replacing sheilding damaged by extra high-energy neutrons.

He3 doesn't exist on the earth in extractable quantities but it is on the moon in fairly high quantities.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
See the problem with his whole monopoly idea is that it's illegal.

First come, first served.

No you don't understand, it is illegal under the Outer Space Treaty that was ratified with the USSR in the late 80's. This whole thing was to prevent land claims and harvestation of materials on other planets/stars by individual countries and that other lunar bodies are the property of EVERYONE. ThisAs well it sought to prevent the development of lunar based nuclear launch pads on other lunar bodies.

It's not a matter of first come first served, it's actually illegal and there is nothing you can say about it.

The USA is not a signatory to the moon treaty. Never has been. There is only one flag planted on that planet, wanna guess who's it is?

Actually it's not the moon treaty dumbass, it's the outer space treaty and it was the United States that initiated it.

Oooo, lets have some fun:

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html Is a listing of the terms of the outerspace treaty proposed in 1966.
[*]the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
[*]outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
[*]outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
[*]States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
[*]the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
[*]astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
[*]States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
[*]States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
[*]States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

In your idiotic inability to read and comprehend you interpret that the terms of this document exlude land claims and mineral harvesting. The only provisions of the treaty that addresses the moon and other celestial bodies are the items bolded above. See in your stupidity you think that the items referencing outer space refer to the celestial bodies in outer space but you are in fact VERY VERY wrong.

The "Outer Space Treaty" is the governing United Nations document for international, state-sponsored space activities. Nearly all of the UN member nations have ratified this treaty. Another treaty, the "Moon Treaty," has also been opened for signature by the United Nations.

However, due to its provisions prohibiting the ownership of natural real estate in space, the treaty was virtually ignored by the world community. Only nine countries have ratified it and just five others have signed it. The cold shoulders it received from the primary spacefaring nations have all but sealed its fate as an irrelevant document in the larger scheme of space development.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-02c.html

Next time you call someone else an idiot you better fvcking know what you are talking about.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Mak0602
theres one downside to this great discover, the world will begin to use even more power.

I'd probably get pretty fat with my robotic everything.

 

[SunnyD]

Hahahahehehehaha...

Time to break out a copy of the Microsoft game Allegiance and watch the trailer a few times. Oh wait, they have it on their website - games.microsoft.com/allegiance. The earth was destroyed in the process of "extracting" He3.