|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
"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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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 - |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Economic Development of the Moon
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The ONLY way to avoid the coming economic catastrophie | greysky | Misc | 1 | August 28th 07 11:39 AM |
Expert Warns of Economic 9/11 for U.S. | Phineas T Puddleduck | Misc | 0 | June 22nd 06 09:33 PM |
A model for the international development of the Moon? | Space Cadet | Policy | 3 | December 9th 05 12:01 AM |
A brief history of Japanese economic development and parallels with the China of today | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 23rd 05 08:56 PM |
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development | vthokie | Policy | 62 | March 30th 04 04:51 AM |