Nasa plans to visit moon again sometime between 2014 and 2020?

[JEDI]

i mean back then they had 1khz computers.

why the shift from the moon to just earth's orbit in the 1980's + 90's?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Because they want to attempt a real landing this time as opposed to the Hollywood ones of the early 70's.

(Dig out your sarcasm meters, ladies and gents).

 

[Stunt]

There's no profit in moon missions, earth orbit tends to be for science experiments and launch satilites...which are money makers.

Found an article a little while ago about fusion material on the moon, i'll see if i can find it.

 

[K1052]

There is only one commercially valuable material on the moon worth the expense and we will not be in a position to mine or use it in the near future.

Mars is much more interesting.

 

[Stunt]

Source 1
Source 2

Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, withvirtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel ofthe 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.

Society is straining to keep pace withenergy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world populationswells toward 12 billion. The moonjust may be the answer.

"Helium 3 fusion energy may be thekey to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Source 1
Source 2

Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, withvirtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel ofthe 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.

Society is straining to keep pace withenergy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world populationswells toward 12 billion. The moonjust may be the answer.

"Helium 3 fusion energy may be thekey to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

:Q :Q :Q

 

[K1052]

Also, IIRC, the ignition temp is much higher for a Deuterium-Helium 3 reaction than a Deuterium-Tritium reacton.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: K1052
Also, IIRC, the ignition temp is much higher for a Deuterium-Helium 3 reaction than a Deuterium-Tritium reacton.

Cool. What was the extraction issue you mentioned earlier?

Originally posted by: K1052
There is only one commercially valuable material on the moon worth the expense and we will not be in a position to mine or use it in the near future.

Or do you mean it will just take time for the infrastructure?
One shuttle payload isn't all that difficult, theoretically

 

[umbrella39]

My guess and it is only a guess, but there is an asteroid/comet on a collision course with earth 20-50 years from now and we need somewhere to colonize and continue the race. Mars is too far away and ATPAT to be a consideration. Maybe in 100 years but not in the near future.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052
Also, IIRC, the ignition temp is much higher for a Deuterium-Helium 3 reaction than a Deuterium-Tritium reacton.

Cool. What was the extraction issue you mentioned earlier?

Originally posted by: K1052
There is only one commercially valuable material on the moon worth the expense and we will not be in a position to mine or use it in the near future.

Or do you mean it will just take time for the infrastructure?
One shuttle payload isn't all that difficult, theoretically

From what I understand the recovery process involves heating large amount of the lunar soil to liberate the Helium 3. It will be somthing akin in scale to strip mining on earth then baking the material in special ovens. Not an easy undertaking considering no industrial project of any scale has been attempted in space as of yet.

Since we are still woriking on D-T fusion and a are not yet close to making that economically viable, there should be no rush to get the Helium 3. Further manned and unmanned exploration to Mars will have the side benefit of advancing our space technology quite a bit and will use that advantage when the time comes to mine the Helium 3.

Edit:

The main advantages to using D-H3 as a power source is that no fast neutons are given off in the process unlike the D-T reaction. This would aleviate the need for reactor shielding. D-H3 will also yield more energy than a D-T reaction.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: JEDI
i mean back then they had 1khz computers.

why the shift from the moon to just earth's orbit in the 1980's + 90's?

We were and still are too busy fighting stupid wars, killing our young men and women, to be concerned with something like space.

 

[MonkeyK]

Hopefully we will have a better source of energy by then. We kind of depend on the gravitational effect of the moon's mass.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Hopefully we will have a better source of energy by then. We kind of depend on the gravitational effect of the moon's mass.

25 tons (2.3 x 10^4 kg) a year is nothing compared to the moon's mass of 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms

Hell, all 1million tons is nothing.

1,000,000 vs. 77,200,000,000,000,000,000 tons
= 0.0000000000013% of the moon's mass.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Source 1
Source 2

Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, withvirtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel ofthe 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.

Society is straining to keep pace withenergy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world populationswells toward 12 billion. The moonjust may be the answer.

"Helium 3 fusion energy may be thekey to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

Very interesting stuff. I've never heard of this until now.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Hopefully we will have a better source of energy by then. We kind of depend on the gravitational effect of the moon's mass.

25 tons (2.3 x 10^4 kg) a year is nothing compared to the moon's mass of 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms

Hell, all 1million tons is nothing.

1,000,000 vs. 77,200,000,000,000,000,000 tons
= 0.0000000000013% of the moon's mass.

Doh! Good point (emphasized more by the fact that you left out some 0's in the moons mass)

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Hopefully we will have a better source of energy by then. We kind of depend on the gravitational effect of the moon's mass.

25 tons (2.3 x 10^4 kg) a year is nothing compared to the moon's mass of 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms

Hell, all 1million tons is nothing.

1,000,000 vs. 77,200,000,000,000,000,000 tons
= 0.0000000000013% of the moon's mass.

Doh! Good point (emphasized more by the fact that you left out some 0's in the moons mass)

I don't thinkso, the first mass was kg, second was tons. ~1000 difference when converting.

 

[sunzt]

If Nasa wants to do anything significant with Mars in terms of colonization or habitization, they will first need to experiment with it on the Moon. However, in order to experiment with Moon habitization I believe it is best to start off with LEO projects such as the ISS.

These such LEO projects will serve as a port for future missions to habitize the Moon.

 

[conjur]

You mean since the 1970s?

 

[2Xtreme21]

The question is, do we have the technology to utilize the helium we extract?

 

[RedCOMET]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The question is, do we have the technology to utilize the helium we extract?

I think the better question is, do we havd the money to build said technolgy (if it existed).

 

[piasabird]

The Moon may make an ideal staging point. It has a low gravity so it is easier to reach escape velocity is not as high so it will not take too much fuel to take off from that point. It might even be possible to take off with some kind of magnetic propulsion system or some other kind of system. The moon might also make a nice observatory with no atmosphere. There may be many of the materials there needed to do construction. A careful study of the moon may reveal some interesting data or some elements we do not know about.

 

[Tsunami982]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Moon may make an ideal staging point. It has a low gravity so it is easier to reach escape velocity is not as high so it will not take too much fuel to take off from that point. It might even be possible to take off with some kind of magnetic propulsion system or some other kind of system. The moon might also make a nice observatory with no atmosphere. There may be many of the materials there needed to do construction. A careful study of the moon may reveal some interesting data or some elements we do not know about.

exactly. we havent been to the moon in the last couple decades because there really wasnt any reason to (cost is extremely high). now that we have our eyes on mars, establishing a moon base is almost essential.

 

[tommywishbone]

I hate H3. It cause degradation of tritium and lowers the yield of three stage nuclear bombs.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Hopefully we will have a better source of energy by then. We kind of depend on the gravitational effect of the moon's mass.

25 tons (2.3 x 10^4 kg) a year is nothing compared to the moon's mass of 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms

Hell, all 1million tons is nothing.

1,000,000 vs. 77,200,000,000,000,000,000 tons
= 0.0000000000013% of the moon's mass.

Due to solar wind, dust, Comet asteroid bombardment, the mass of the moon is increasing with time anyway....

I think there are greater problems with the H3 recovery than the mass-loss of the moon

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Tsunami982

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Moon may make an ideal staging point. It has a low gravity so it is easier to reach escape velocity is not as high so it will not take too much fuel to take off from that point. It might even be possible to take off with some kind of magnetic propulsion system or some other kind of system. The moon might also make a nice observatory with no atmosphere. There may be many of the materials there needed to do construction. A careful study of the moon may reveal some interesting data or some elements we do not know about.

exactly. we havent been to the moon in the last couple decades because there really wasnt any reason to (cost is extremely high). now that we have our eyes on mars, establishing a moon base is almost essential.

Well, that idea has only one problem - to have a net gain as compared to starting from earth your idea would require the building of the probes, rockets, fuel - basically everything on the moon with moon resources.
While that might be possible some day - it wont be our nor our childrens lifetime...