The Economic Development of the Moon

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
(James Nicoll) wrote:

So, it would be a fusion reactor with an easier operational
cycle. Less need for handling and replacing irradiated parts of the
reactor. My point is, can we actually use helium-3 for fusion or is talk
about how great mining the Moon for the stuff roughly like talk about how
we could mine the asteroids for copper, except that we actually know how
to turn copper into a useful product?

Well, I think the fact that we don't currently have commercial
fusion of any flavour is something of a hint as to the answer to your
question.

Right. People invested in tokamak fusion generally dig 3He, since it is
the easiest aneutronic fusion reaction -- p-B11 is probably a
non-starter with those beasts.

Of course, if you are going to go to the bother of developing
3He fusion, you might as well try for a truly aneutronic reaction and
develop 11B fusion.

Right, especially with something like polywell fusion, where fuel ion
velocity scales (exponentially, IIRC) with the radius of the machine --
and we're only talking about machines on the order of 2 m in radius
anyway. So if it works at all, it's almost guaranteed that it'll work
for p-B11, though you may have to build it a bit bigger.

With all due respect to Bussard, how often did his ideas
produce useful hardware?

Now, if you want a power source that pretty much has to
come from space, Centauri Dreams is about to do a series on
harvesting antimatter:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1564

I will admit that if I understood the papers here,

http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/1107Jackson.html

it's a very diffuse resource.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

(James Nicoll) wrote:
:
: Now, if you want a power source that pretty much has to
:come from space, Centauri Dreams is about to do a series on
:harvesting antimatter:
:

Wouldn't it be easier to just manufacture the stuff here on Earth?


--
"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

In article ,
(James Nicoll) wrote:

Right, especially with something like polywell fusion, where fuel ion
velocity scales (exponentially, IIRC) with the radius of the machine --
and we're only talking about machines on the order of 2 m in radius
anyway. So if it works at all, it's almost guaranteed that it'll work
for p-B11, though you may have to build it a bit bigger.

With all due respect to Bussard, how often did his ideas
produce useful hardware?

I'd say it's too early to tell, as some of them are still being worked
on, and others were not pursued far enough to really tell if they could
produce useful hardware or not. (In some cases, because they were
supplanted by better ideas, such as the polywell approach.)

Now, if you want a power source that pretty much has to
come from space, Centauri Dreams is about to do a series on
harvesting antimatter:
...
it's a very diffuse resource.

Heh, too true -- as it must be.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

In article .com,
Alex Terrell wrote:

I've seen that PGMs come top of the list, simply because they're
viable for return. Dennis Wingo in moonrush calculates that there are
a lot of intact, metallic asteroids on the surface of the moon. Once
there, these could be easily mined, with the bulk metals being used on
the moon and precious metals sent to Earth.

I've often thought that must be the case, but from what little research
I've done on it, it appears that current data isn't sufficient to tell
where these metallic deposits are. However, with the flurry of new
lunar orbiters either planned or in orbit, I hope that we may be able to
identify these soon.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"Joseph Nebus" wrote in message
...
"Mark R. Whittington" writes:

Andrew Smith, the author of Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to
Earth, recently published a polemic in the British newspaper The
Guardian, entitled Plundering the Moon, that argued against the
economic development of the Moon. Apparently the idea of mining Helium
3, an isotope found on the Moon but not on the Earth (at least in
nature) disturbs Mr. Smith from an environmentalist standpoint. Even a
cursory examination of the issue makes one wonder why.

You know, I'm curious. Has anyone demonstrated that helium-3
is in fact of any particular benefit in making a fusion reactor? Like,
have experiments borne out that it's easier to make a sustainable and
power-generating reaction using the stuff?


Remember when they were pitching the Space Station?
The 'promise of microgravity' and all the breathroughs
sure to come? Same thing with Helium 3, they were
getting heat to justify going back to the moon, and
they came up with Helium 3, to pitch the program.

In stock market cons, it's called the pump-and-dump.

Hype it with some vague future promises, then cash in quick
leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces who are typically
called bagholders [us].

The taxpayers and those that truly care about these issues
are left holding the bag, after the military and Lockheed et al
score large contracts that produce....nothing..of lasting value.

Apollo was a military race, so is the Vision.
It's a missile defense race between the
US and Chinese Communist Party.

It's 1960 all over again! [sadly]

I was hoping NASA was ready for the
21st century.


s





--
Joseph Nebus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On 5 Nov, 23:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

:On 5 Nov, 15:49, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
:
: That's a different question than the first one you asked. Since we
: currently can't use anything for fusion in a non-explosive way and get
: commercial quantities of power, we can't use He3 just like we can't
: use any other fusion fuel.
:
: However, the question is just when we *will* be able to use it, since
: mining the stuff isn't going to happen in the snap of a finger,
: either.
:
:
:The question is also whether it will be commercially viable to use it.
:The current Tokamak designs don't make me confident that it will ever
:be competitive with fission or solar.
:

Well, if your view is that fusion will never be possible commercially
there is indeed little point in planning to acquire the capability to
get fusion fuel. Of course, that same sort of thinking carried to its
logical extreme has us naked, living in the bush, and only acquiring
fire from lightning strikes.

Rather, living naked in the bush, having tried and failed to acquire
fire from bamboo for 3 generations, deciding that flint is a better
option.

Why fixated on tokamaks? There are lots of other confinement
approaches.

Agreed, and these look more commercially attractive IF the theory can
be made to work. IIRC from Bussard's paper, he advocated going beyond
He3 fusion to something higher using common materials with no neutron
radiation.

Alex Terrell wrote:

:On 5 Nov, 23:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Alex Terrell wrote:
:
: :On 5 Nov, 15:49, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
: :
: : That's a different question than the first one you asked. Since we
: : currently can't use anything for fusion in a non-explosive way and get
: : commercial quantities of power, we can't use He3 just like we can't
: : use any other fusion fuel.
: :
: : However, the question is just when we *will* be able to use it, since
: : mining the stuff isn't going to happen in the snap of a finger,
: : either.
: :
: :
: :The question is also whether it will be commercially viable to use it.
: :The current Tokamak designs don't make me confident that it will ever
: :be competitive with fission or solar.
: :
:
: Well, if your view is that fusion will never be possible commercially
: there is indeed little point in planning to acquire the capability to
: get fusion fuel. Of course, that same sort of thinking carried to its
: logical extreme has us naked, living in the bush, and only acquiring
: fire from lightning strikes.
:
:
:Rather, living naked in the bush, having tried and failed to acquire
:fire from bamboo for 3 generations, deciding that flint is a better
ption.
:

More like deciding that making fire is impossible so don't try it with
anything else.

:
:
: Why fixated on tokamaks? There are lots of other confinement
: approaches.
:
:
:Agreed, and these look more commercially attractive IF the theory can
:be made to work. IIRC from Bussard's paper, he advocated going beyond
:He3 fusion to something higher using common materials with no neutron
:radiation.
:

Perhaps, but this is also rather like wanting to skip propellers and
jump straight to supersonic jet aircraft. Boron fusion is a lot
harder than even He3-He3 fusion and an order of magnitude (at least)
more difficult than D-T or D-He3 fusion.


--
"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

In article .com,
Alex Terrell wrote:

Why fixated on tokamaks? There are lots of other confinement
approaches.

Agreed, and these look more commercially attractive IF the theory can
be made to work. IIRC from Bussard's paper, he advocated going beyond
He3 fusion to something higher using common materials with no neutron
radiation.

Yes, proton and boron-11. (To be fair, there will be a small amount of
neutrons produced from side reactions, but nothing like what you get
from fusing, say, deuterium.)

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Nov 4, 1:11 pm, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
Andrew Smith, the author of Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to
Earth, recently published a polemic in the British newspaper The
Guardian, entitled Plundering the Moon, that argued against the
economic development of the Moon. Apparently the idea of mining Helium
3, an isotope found on the Moon but not on the Earth (at least in
nature) disturbs Mr. Smith from an environmentalist standpoint. Even a
cursory examination of the issue makes one wonder why.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...nomic_developm...

The Economic Development of the Moon

Why not ask China, especially since they stand the best odds of
securing the moon's L1.
- Brad Guth -

Joseph Nebus wrote:
You know, I'm curious. Has anyone demonstrated that helium-3
is in fact of any particular benefit in making a fusion reactor? Like,
have experiments borne out that it's easier to make a sustainable and
power-generating reaction using the stuff?

Getting a reaction started is easier with Tritium, or Helium-3, than
with just plain Deuterium.

But Helium-3 has some major advantages of compactness for energy yield
that make it useful for sending out the first interstellar probes. So,
bringing it to Earth from the Moon for *routine* energy uses is...
wasteful, at least according to one author I've read.

I advocate the Thorium breeder as the *simplest* and most inexpensive
and straightforwards solution to our energy problems in the near to
medium term.

Of course, fusion power and solar power satellites avoid proliferation
concerns, and hydroelectricity as well as the warm, fuzzy sources of
wind and tidal power should be used where available as well, but we
need more energy sooner than either of those alternatives would
provide.

John Savard