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

The Economic Development of the Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 07, 10:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Mark R. Whittington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

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..._the_moon.html

  #2  
Old November 5th 07, 02:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joseph Nebus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

"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?

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #3  
Old November 5th 07, 03:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

(Joseph Nebus) wrote:

:"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
ower-generating reaction using the stuff?
:

The point isn't "it's easier to make a sustainable and
power-generating reaction". It's actually somewhat more difficult
than D-T fusion. The point is that a fusion reactor using it wouldn't
spray out neutrons like a D-T reactor would.

This is basic physics and has been known for a long time.


--
"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
  #4  
Old November 5th 07, 04:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joseph Nebus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

Fred J. McCall writes:

(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
ower-generating reaction using the stuff?


The point isn't "it's easier to make a sustainable and
power-generating reaction". It's actually somewhat more difficult
than D-T fusion. The point is that a fusion reactor using it wouldn't
spray out neutrons like a D-T reactor would.


This is basic physics and has been known for a long time.


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?

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #5  
Old November 5th 07, 04:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

(Joseph Nebus) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall writes:
:
(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
:ower-generating reaction using the stuff?
:
:The point isn't "it's easier to make a sustainable and
:power-generating reaction". It's actually somewhat more difficult
:than D-T fusion. The point is that a fusion reactor using it wouldn't
:spray out neutrons like a D-T reactor would.
:
:This is basic physics and has been known for a long time.
:
:
: So, it would be a fusion reactor with an easier operational
:cycle. Less need for handling and replacing irradiated parts of the
:reactor.
:

Correct.

:
:My point is, can we actually use helium-3 for fusion ...
:

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.

:
:... 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?
:

I don't know a lot of people talking about going after asteroids for
copper. The usual list of high-value materials is iron, magnesium,
nickel, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, and platinum. Copper is way down
the list. A 1 km asteroid is worth well over a trillion dollars, just
counting the elements I listed.

If you want to troll, you really need to get better informed on the
topic.


--
"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
  #6  
Old November 5th 07, 06:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
James Nicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

In article ,
Joseph Nebus wrote:
Fred J. McCall writes:

(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
ower-generating reaction using the stuff?


The point isn't "it's easier to make a sustainable and
power-generating reaction". It's actually somewhat more difficult
than D-T fusion. The point is that a fusion reactor using it wouldn't
spray out neutrons like a D-T reactor would.


This is basic physics and has been known for a long time.


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.

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. That's somewhat less attractive to the space fans
because 11B is fairly common on Earth.

On the plus side, the cheaper energy is, the less difficult
interplanetary travel is likely to look. Also, a 11B fusion rocket
could in theory have an exhaust velocity of up to ~12,000 km/s.



--
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)
  #8  
Old November 5th 07, 07:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

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.

That's somewhat less attractive to the space fans
because 11B is fairly common on Earth.


I think those space fans haven't really thought it through. Or, they're
still stuck in the tokamak meme, which is pretty useless for space
travel...

On the plus side, the cheaper energy is, the less difficult
interplanetary travel is likely to look. Also, a 11B fusion rocket
could in theory have an exhaust velocity of up to ~12,000 km/s.


Right. Dr. Bussard estimated that one could get about 1000X the thrust
for the same ISp, or 1000X the ISp for the same thrust, as chemical
rockets. Or any combination in between, of course. Such a fusion
rocket would bust the solar system wide open, and make our best rockets
today seem like horse-drawn carriages.

The Mars fans should be entirely behind this. Currently, it's stretches
credibility to contemplate a mission to Mars with anything like today's
rockets. It's a long, long trip, and a lot can go wrong in that much
time. But in a fusion rocket, you could reach Mars in days rather than
months, and you wouldn't have to wait for windows of opportunity,
either.

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/
  #9  
Old November 5th 07, 11:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 492
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

On 5 Nov, 15:49, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Joseph Nebus) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall writes:
(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
:ower-generating reaction using the stuff?
:
:The point isn't "it's easier to make a sustainable and
:power-generating reaction". It's actually somewhat more difficult
:than D-T fusion. The point is that a fusion reactor using it wouldn't
:spray out neutrons like a D-T reactor would.
:
:This is basic physics and has been known for a long time.
:
:
: So, it would be a fusion reactor with an easier operational
:cycle. Less need for handling and replacing irradiated parts of the
:reactor.
:

Correct.

:
:My point is, can we actually use helium-3 for fusion ...
:

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.

:
:... 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?
:

I don't know a lot of people talking about going after asteroids for
copper. The usual list of high-value materials is iron, magnesium,
nickel, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, and platinum. Copper is way down
the list. A 1 km asteroid is worth well over a trillion dollars, just
counting the elements I listed.

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.




  #10  
Old November 6th 07, 12:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default The Economic Development of the Moon

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.

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


--
"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
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 01:01 AM
A brief history of Japanese economic development and parallels with the China of today [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 February 23rd 05 09:56 PM
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development vthokie Policy 62 March 30th 04 04:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.