What is Digg?89 Comments
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43Whats the trouble China ,India and Russia have rights to it just like we do
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Russia is talking about cooperating with the US on the idea of a Lunar Base. The Moon Treaty in the article is a joke since so few countries have ratified it, and any country can withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. All it takes is a one year notice to withdraw and that country could attempt to claim sovereignty of celestial bodies. That's theoretical and it's unlikely that such a claim would be recognized.
The real problem is at the end of the article. We aren't to the point we fusion is productive, and it would be extremely expensive to bring the He3 back. - zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Forget the Chinese, Indians and Russians! What if the MARTIANS have their eye on it? Anyone bother to consider THAT horrific scenario? Huh? No, I didn't think so. Too busy with our petty infighting...
- luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14A good old fashioned Space Race would probably get us back there faster. So long as it doesn't cause any large scale catastrophes some competition could give us a much needed boost to take some calculated risks.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The moon is an abundant source of helium-3"
I think they mean "The moon MIGHT BE an abundant source of helium-3" because we sure as hell don't know for sure. - bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10what about the cheese?
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I don't buy it. The Helium 3 on the moon is evenly distributed across the surface, making it very hard to mine, and, like Wikipedia puts it "it is exceedingly scarce (ppb quantities mixed in with ppm quantities of He4), and likely is beneath the point of economic recovery".
The Helium 3 thing is at the present a red herring. That's not why anyone's going to the moon in this point in time.
Nor do I see how the moonbase in any way is a "steppingstone to Mars". The Mission to Mars spaceship, astronauts, or supplies WONT be built or sent from the Moon. It'll take 50-100 years and hundreds of sorties from Earth to get a moon base capable of building and launching its own spaceship. - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Need more vespene gas!
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9^^ Do we really want it in the hands of the capitalists either?
- ImIce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is my first digg.com comment, so I'll try not to piss everyone off.
To put it bluntly, most of the comments about this article are wildly ignorant. Ignorant about fusion, helium-3, geopolitics, legal regimes on the moon, the physics involved in retrieval, the cost-benefit ratios for 3He mining, etc.
This subject was a major portion of one of my theses. Based on the thousands of hours of research that required, I concluded:
- 3He fusion power is feasible within 20 years
- China is making rapid and deliberate fusion progress (as a result of their own research and their involvement with ITER)
- China, Russia, India, and ESA are all sending probes to the moon specifically to map 3He deposits (not exclusively, just specifically)
- China is developing a heavy launch program sufficient to enable manned lunar access
- The first nation (or proxy) to establish control over an area (by occupation) will have exclusive rights to "extract scientific samples" from that area, without any constraint on size, volume, or quantity
- China will probably not share energy resources they control (observe China's current behavior vis a vis oil and gas resources)
- 3He is, in fact, concentrated in specific maria on the near side of the moon, rather than evenly distributed across the surface
- We can identify (and have already begun to) those concentration areas because 3He accumulates preferentially in soils with low particulate size and high TiO2 concentrations
- The process for beneficiation of regolith and extraction of 3He will share many tools with in-situ resource utilization to extract breathable gas and rocket fuel
In short: this is for real, and the train is leaving the station. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7but...but...if we take all the helium off the moon, won't it fall down to earth?
- luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Except for, you know, the complete lack of gravity to work in, trajectories to plan out, orbits, and line of sight problems if it moves behind a planet or through some stray radiation. I think these things would be easier to foresee when their attached to a somewhat sizable celestial body.
Plus, one mistake or malfunctioning rocket on a satellite and it'll come crashing down to Earth or spinning out into space. At least on the Moon it'll stay on the Moon. - josh4rim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Having a moon base is very beneficial to space exploration and telescopes- no atmosphere.
- stuartcw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If someone was born on the moon would they be a lunatic?
- andykram, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Space pylons? Meh, I say we build a huge microwave receiver on Earth (Sim-city style of course) and just beam the energy back down after it's 'created'. Even better, we could accidentally misfire a few times and be rid of some of our enemies! See, two problems solved at once!
- raymore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Only reason why they say a "moonbase", is because from earth it takes 90% of any modern shuttle/rocket's fuel to get out of the atmosphere, whereas from the moon it is a tiny fraction of that. Thus meaning, we could slowly but steadily start storing fuel on the moon, the amount needed to reach mars, and then maybe, just maybe have a chance at another planet to live on.
- Modiga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ johndi "The real problem is at the end of the article. We aren't to the point we fusion is productive, and it would be extremely expensive to bring the He3 back."
Then we simply use the fuel on the moon to produce electricity and build space pylons between the moon and the Earth to send it here! - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Whats the trouble China ,India and Russia have rights to it just like we do"
That was exactly my first thought. We should have come a long by now in learning how to share. - bevans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@andykram
Not completely sci-fi either
http://www.physicscentral.com/news/2002/moon.html - frankzeg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The present plans for lunar exploration are, as you say, totally useless for going to Mars. This is because they are being led by a couple of very weird (Griffin and Horowitz) dudes who chose the present "ESAS" architecture on principally non-technical grounds. Anyone who knows anything about lunar architectures realizes that the Orion, Ares1 and LSAM are utterly useless for Mars exploration.
However there ARE architectures that can directly demonstrate the kinds of hardware and operational practices that are required for Mars. We DO NOT yet have the machines to do proper exploration of the moon much less stay on Mars for 500+ days with a one year round trip transit time. But they are within our grasp. You just have to ask the right people.
There are a lot of skills and technology that cry out to be demonstrated on the moon before we go to Mars. We need to have autonomous crews and autonomous machines working in synchrony- we don't have that yet. We need life support systems and cryogenic storage technologies that are beyond what we have now. I could go on and on. The moon is not a physical stepping stone to Mars- it is a technological stepping stone. If you cannot stay on the moon with a set crew for three years you have no business going to Mars. - WhereAmI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Its true that Fusion is not all that practical yet, but soon enough.
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is true. In order for a mining base/ trips to the moon to be cost effective, they would have to be mining the essence of god.
- AuKNiFe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385334222/bookzone09
Homer Hickam, a former NASA engineer wrote this fiction describing an adventure to exploit the He3 at Moon - sleepyness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Are you serious SamsLembas, cause I can't tell. Either way, you're pretty naive and retarded.
- visvivalaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Helium-3? Well, there's good news and bad news.
GOOD NEWS:
Fusion reactors as currently designed (which have been 20 years away from being commercially available for more than 20 years) fuse deuterium and produce heat (and lots of dangerous neutrons) which boils water which turns turbines which spins generators which makes electricity. Fusing He-3, on the other hand, produces almost no neutrons (much safer) and also produces charged particles as part of the reaction which means you can draw power directly from the plasma (vastly more efficient than boiling water). And yes, it's true, your could generate enough power for the entire world for a year with about 50 tons of He-3.
BAD NEWS:
Even if you had 50 tons of He-3 in your backyard it wouldn't be immediately useful because this is all theoretical. We've never built a He-3 reactor because He-3 fusion requires much higher temperatures than deuterium. But let's assume that's an easier engineering challenge than it seems and He-3 fusion becomes workable. That'd be great but the fact is it only takes a bit more heat to fuse hydrogen and boron, which has all the useful features of He-3 fusion plus boron is common and you don't have to import it from another planet.
There are a lot of good reasons to go to the moon. But mining He-3 is not one of them. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't you understand? We have to make the "moon race" into a sophomoric game so we can feel better about hoarding resources and dicking people over.
- alski707, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Educate your dumb self.
The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. - egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) establish mining colony on the moon
2) bring He3 back to earth
3) Build fusion reactor using said He3
4) generate enough energy to convert H2O to H2 + O
5) Use H2 + O as rocket fuel to propel rocket to moon
6) Collect more He3 and bring back for the reactor
7) Get seat on the board of the energy company
8) Convince everyone you'll eventually generate enough energy to sell some
9) Profit!
George Bush is a genius! After all, he knows the oil speculation business. He proposed establishing a permanent moon base. And, he wants to convert us from oil to hydrogen. - ChrisPikula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cause, you know, having a base on the moon that's constantly being hit by the solar wind couldn't be useful in the manufacture/capture of fissionable isotopes *at all*, eh?
- davy2002a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this could be very dangerous, if they mess up anywhere at any geographical point, it could pose a danger to the moon itself, it could be dangerous to the Earth as it was mentioned in science that the moon is essential for our planets stability. The question I would throw at them is this, what would happen if the moon were to break up in the event of a mining disaster?
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wired news suck these days, they used to have cred with as lot more pure science but now it's more to do with tabloid crap.
- ImIce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Visvivalaw:
- D-3He reactors have already been successfully tested (JET - 3x in late '80s/early '90s)
- Hydrogen-Boron reaction has not been achieved, primarily because it is literally an order of magnitude more difficult in both ignition temperature and plasma confinement (due to predicted/modeled flux density of the p-B11 plasma)
In other words, although commercial-scale D-3He has not been demonstrated, it is feasible, whereas the p-B11 reaction is PURELY theoretical. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah well building Battle Cruisers is a bitch.
- HeliumHigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Huh, would you look at that. Everyone laughed at me when I chose my name, but I told em. I told em. Look at me now eh? Guess who was right? ME! HAH!
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Neither has open space, and open space is much easier to access than the lunar surface.
There could be an advantage for radio telescopes, as they can be built in earths radio shadow, on the dark side of the moon, but there are at present no plans to build any telescopes on the dark side. For everything else you're better off in open space. - ImIce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Davy,
Umm...no. We're not talking about shaft or deep mining; we're talking about something akin to strip mining, but only to a depth of 3 or 4 meters. The volume would be a lot to paint, so to speak, but is totally insignificant as a ratio of the moon's mass. Also, and this is a small point, it's "selenographic" (vice geographic). More regolith is dispersed every year through lunar meteoroid impacts than we would be mining.
The principle hazard we could expect on the moon from the mining would be the generation of a lot of dust, which is extremely hazardous to astronauts and equipment (inhalation and fouling hazard). - dudad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How much weight do you think we can put on the moon before it crashes into earth?
- btfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Moon wars! Everybody, strap a laser pointer to a telescope! Together we can stop those capitalist pigs!
- JohnnyZito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.digg.com/space/Semper_Fly_Marines_in_Space
hm. I was saying something about the militarization of space... - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I don't see how this could be a new space race since none of those countries could get their on their own without the help of NASA."
Hilarious, really. - Enterprise8875, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well i could say I have wanted the He since the 20s and that doesnt mean I will get it. The British may have wanted it since the 70s but they havent done anythng about it. Now the US and its allies(yea that means the UK too lol) are actually going back...and this time it shall be ours!!!
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I know for sure that as soon as we have a solid industrial infrastructure in space that will mean a massive economic growth. Investing in space based industries will give growth rates well over 10% once you crossed a certain treshold. A vacuum rush into space, based on mining lunar tritium will be a massive boost to the wealth of the world - and it might liberate us from the damn oil.
However....
Arabs and OPEC won't be to happy with all that space based investment, because it may cost them thousands of billions of revenues in a few decades. They might even consider some terrorism, one way or another, to keep the rich countries from exploring all that lunar energy. - Lavr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What was the name of that time machine movie where the moon fell apart and fell on earth because of all the drilling?
- DrivinWest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1China is in no way involved in the ISS.
- KJSatz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(Oh I didn't notice that thanks)
- HyperbolePolice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't make me go off on a public school system rant.
- DrivinWest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His use of homonyms aside, he's right. The only reason the Russian space program is still chugging along is because of the ISS and the amount of money that NASA gives them. Turning Space Station Freedom into the ISS was meant to be a solution to political ends (we give you cash, you sell us hardware, you don't sell ballistic missile technology to Iran - thank you very much Al Gore). If not for that the Russian would not be launching manned rockets. Period.
The Russians are fantastic at what they do; 3 guys up and down relatively safety and cheaply, but they haven't innovated in many decades and they don't have the cash to do it now. And you think China is on NASA's heels? Hardly, the Sheznou is a knock-off of the Russian's Soyuz! - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Mooninites Unite!
- Mullinator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Personally I don't believe any country will actually get off their fat asses and go to the moon unless such competition exists. Even if it isn't real competition it will be a good way to get the citizens of a country interested.
- JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ImIce...isnt the usa pretty far ahead of every other country in the world in terms of space travel? like far enough ahead so that were the only ones who could really get there or at least definetly be able to get there the quickest?
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is