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

"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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

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.

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)

(James Nicoll) wrote:
:
: 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.
:

I'll simply note that 11B fusion is much harder than even He3-He3
fusion, requiring energies an order of magnitude higher than D-T
fusion and confinement energies 500 times higher. Bremsstrahlung
losses will also be significantly higher with 11B fusion. The sole
advantage it has over He3 fusion is that research can be done on it
more easily due to the relatively common fuel.

While not strictly aneutronic (~3% of energy produced is in neutrons),
D-He3 fusion is much more technically likely, given far lower ignition
and sustainment temperatures required. However, until transport costs
come down getting the fuel is far too expensive.


--
"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:

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/

"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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----