Astronauts will land the Moon with spades to dig for helium-3

[lovuian]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/16403_moon.html

A few kilograms of the lunar substance will be enough to start a thermonuclear electric power station

Head of the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, Nikolay Sevastyanov, said the other day that the International Space Station was getting its second wind and it got new objectives. The ISS is supposed to be used as a platform to assemble complexes sent to the Moon.

"One of the station docks can wonderfully do for receiving carriers with lunar blocks. This may be a lateral dock of Zvezda and Zarya modules or additional platforms on the propulsion modules," representatives of the corporation said.

Ordinary booster rockets like Progress or Soyuz are supposed to deliver components of a lunar ship from the surface to the ISS. A flight to the Moon will require one or several stages to pull the complex to the Moon, and one spaceship for astronauts. Primarily, three pioneers will be enough to reach the Moon, circle the satellite and then get back to the surface. Subsequently, the number of astronauts may considerably increase depending upon the results of the test flight. It is not ruled out that astronauts will even have a chance to land on the Moon during the second flight.

more...

Why going to the Moon got very popular!!! fascinating as Spock says!!!

[Mnemosyne]

1. And I was thinking that *sent them so

he could find out what makes the moon float in the sky!

Oh well, something else for them to exploit and suck the life out of...

Sorry to be negative, a little tired and cranky!

[madeline_con]

4. "Sorry to be negative ..."

Well, nucular power is so "clean" and "safe", stop being so negative!

:sarcasm:

[Mnemosyne]

19. But I'm series111 It's hugh111 :) n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

2. I really hope the last problems we are facing with fusion can be solved,

and we are able to establish mining colonies on the moon to bring helium-3 back to Earth. If we can't, that failure combined with Peak Oil... well, it isn't something I like to think about

[nashville_brook]

6. would have been nicer if they declared war on the moon for its resources

and smarter in the long run. but our boy W doesn't care for science.

[psychopomp]

17. Lol yup

As nonsensical as it sounds it makes heaps more sense than what we did!

[AZBlue]

3. So now we'll be mining the moon?

That's a scary thought. But, I guess since we've stripped the Earth bare, now we need to move on to another planet.

I applaud the innovative search for new energy sources. If it would just stop at that, then there'd be no problem. But, I've seen other references to this, most recently in the new Tom Hanks film "Magnificent Desolation 3D" that was made in conjunction with NASA. I think they have plans to tear the moon apart as they have done our own planet. Think of the possible consequences of that!

[Skip Intro]

5. We're going to mine the moon?

Didn't we have a, "going to land on the moon again," initiative from bushco a year or two ago? What was that all about?

"We gone drill the moon, yee haw!"

[dweller]

8. first thing, we gonna land it!

mebbe in the desert somewhere ... they look the same!

then we'll mine it.
dp

[lovuian]

7. Can some braniac tell me why we can't make Helium 3 on earth?

Sorry I'm not a chemistry major???

just fascinated???

[BadgerKid]

10. ...is abundant on the moon

Helium 3 is relatively rare on Earth and would require the use of nuclear reactors to produce. It is unstable in the sense that half the amount of any sample decays in a little over 10 years (in other words, the half-life). It is naturally abundant on the moon and is therefore appealing to harvest for use as a fuel for power space vehicles, etc.

There are probably military and economic interests, in addition to the usual scientific interests, that are coming into play.

[lovuian]

13. Thanks Badgerkid!!! Your pretty smart kid!!!

At least there is a reason now to go to the moon for practical reasons!!!

[The Traveler]

9. Ultimately, we face two choices

Massive reduction of population (stabilization won't do) or expansion of resource base. I myself cannot advocate the former, given all its nasty implications.

But, I am always asked, "What about the vast resources of the sea?"

Given the importance of the oceans to sustaining life on the planet, we might be best advised not to exploit them over much ... if indeed we have not already done so. Aquatic environments are already on the ropes, and we are only now beginning to appreciate how dependent upon them we are.

For these and other reasons, China and Russia are seriously regarding lunar operations as a means of expanding the resource base of planet Earth.

This radical idea is generally scorned in the United States but is viewed differently by the peoples of other nations. Ironically, the majority of the hard science and engineering upon which that optimism is based was done in America.

The American political dialog has focused on establishing the validity of the statements of ecologists and climatologists. Other nations have long ago accepted the evidence and have focused thought and energy on what to do about it. Bush's feeble minded plan to send men to Mars misses the point seized upon by the Chinese, the Russians, and others. We must return to the moon to do work and achieve practical results ... not to achieve internation prestige or a boost to our national self esteem.

[Gregorian]

12. Thank you.

I really appreciate hearing the common sense argument. It's painfully obvious to a few of us. It's too late now. But we can slow down the damage when we teach the masses the right way to think and act. We must stop being so flaggrant with our consumptions.

[MisterP]

21. with our consumption patterns, space resources would actually compound

the crowding and consumption problems due to carnality, so to speak, primarily Western
of course, the resources might be utterly negligible: we're not running out of potassium or silicon any time soon

[daleo]

11. Without a working fusion reactor, these projections are premature

And that is a nut that has proven tough to crack.

Nuclear power from space is a practical idea - its other name is solar power.

[sofa king]

14. Fusion is always thirty years away.

I agree. Even if that nut gets cracked, fusion reactors will rely on tritium, not helium 3. So that's two steps away from never, unless someone steps up the funding in a big, big way.

[wordout]

15. I'll believe it when i see it on television.

[Gasping4Truth]

16. Pipedream

According to Wikipedia:

The big downsides to helium-3 are that the ignition temperature is ten times higher than conventional fusion, and thus considerably harder to fuse. Breakeven has not been achieved with conventional fusion. Helium-3 fusion is thus only a potential power source, rather than one likely to be useful in the midterm. In addition, the quantity of helium-3 that gets trapped from the solar wind in the lunar surface has never been determined, and may be below the economic mining point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

[TaleWgnDg]

18. Oh, good. Let's send Cheney and Dumbya and all their energy buds!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. -snip-

To begin the mining of helium-3 on the Moon, astronauts must first of all build a base for miners to live and work in.

Sounded great while it lasted.