A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 5th 09, 01:37 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Paul F. Dietz[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

Reactors burning D-3He are likely to be heavier than ones burning D-T, not
lighter, since the reactivity of D-3He is many times less. This means a
larger reactor or stronger magnets are needed. And you still need just
about as much neutron shielding (to protect the magnets), even with D-3He.

Fission reactors would superior for use on the moon (and, very likely, on
Earth too).

Paul

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Sylvia Else wrote:

:Scotius wrote:
:
: Except that the moon is also filled with helium 3, which can
: be fused much more easily than hydrogen. Putting reactors up there
: would allow the astronauts an almost unlimited supply of energy.
: Certainly more than enough to move the material to get water, if they
: had to.
:
:Leaving aside that we don't have working fusion reactors, using any kind
f fuel, that have a net power output, you're still looking at the wrong
:aspect of the problem. Even if we had such a design, and built the
:reactor, it would be on Earth. Before it could be put to use on the
:Moon, it would have to be moved there. Nothing in the development path
:so far suggests that we're heading towards something of low mass. I
:shudder to think at the cost of launching it and landing it on the moon
:intact. Would it really be the cheapest way of providing astronauts with
:energy?
:

Well, that, of course, is the other part of the problem. We don't
know how massive the thing must be or how much of it could be
fabricated locally until we actually know what one of these things
looks like.

You're going to have to 'bootstrap' into something like fusion power.
I still think the best bet is solar furnaces and such, coupled with
heat engines and/or some sort of thermocouple power. Use that to
fabricate the massive parts of your fusion plant and only ship the
small, expensive (hopefully light) bits.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
15 answers to nonsense being spread by "creation science,""intelligent design," and "Expelled" Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 1 April 29th 08 01:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.