![]() ![]() |
Jun 4 2008, 08:52 AM
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
I was watching some stuff on discovery last night about us going back to the moon, and they mentioned it looks like the moon would be a vast source of helium 3 (according to them, pretty much the most valuable material known to man at the moment). Basically they said sustained fusion reactors could be possible using helium 3 instead of hydrogen (because they shoot off way less damaging neutrons which destroy the reactor walls in hydrogen reactors). They mentioned that (in theory) 1 metric ton of helium 3 would be enough to power a city of 10 million for a year (100% clean energy, treehuggers). They also mentioned that it's estimated the moon has over 100 million tons of the stuff. So if we could come up with a cost effective way to mine the moon for this material we could have a great energy solution for a long time. The current cash value of the stuff as said in the program is $1 billion/ton, so I could see these missions paying for themselves at some point.
what do yall think? did anyone else see that show? |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 09:59 AM
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 2,558 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Seoul, South Korea Member No.: 28 |
sounds interesting, but how do you mine gas exactly? and also, it's limited? i mean, i never thought about our gases being limited..i dont really know enough about it. so if someone mined oxygen out of earth, it would be possible?? just sounds strange to me.
also i wonder if it would have any negative impact on its gravity or anything? -------------------- ![]() |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 10:03 AM
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
the explanation that was given, is that the sun gives off helium 3 as a gas, and it's carried via solar winds across the whole system. when it gets to earth it's deflected by our atmosphere, but the moon has none so the minerals on the face of the moon have absorbed it for billions of years, resulting in huge deposits of it.
edit: dunno about the gravity part, I'd seriously doubt it. we're talking 100 million tons vs the mass of the moon total, which (according to wiki) is 7.36x10^19 tons. so: 100,000,000 vs 73,600,000,000,000,000,000 not really significant |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 10:56 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Admin Posts: 6,906 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9 |
Didn't see the show, but seems like it would be a good energy solution for sustaining lunar colonies. Maybe less feasible to mine it and return it to earth, but who knows? Once the infrastructure gets in place, it could be a good deal.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 11:33 AM
Post
#5
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,329 Joined: 20-June 07 Member No.: 1,243 |
(100% clean energy, treehuggers). Dogmeat does not approve of helium 3 -------------------- ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 11:46 AM
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
It looks like it will air again on June 8th at 5:00PM (eastern time I think?) on discovery science channel. title of the show is "Moon for Sale"
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 01:03 PM
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Oh baby bring me down Group: Agents Posts: 4,115 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Way out yonder Member No.: 68 |
that sounds cool, is helium 3 only containing 1 neutron?
-------------------- Southern Rock, beer and bears!
![]() |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 01:10 PM
Post
#8
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
yeah I believe so, that was how they explained it, that the hydrogen fusion reaction gave off way too many neutrons (something like 80% of the energy of the reaction), which damaged the reactor walls enough that they'd have to be replaced every few years. they said w/this helium 3 there's way more useable energy output and less maintinence.
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 03:15 PM
Post
#9
|
|
![]() Oh baby bring me down Group: Agents Posts: 4,115 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Way out yonder Member No.: 68 |
yeah I believe so, that was how they explained it, that the hydrogen fusion reaction gave off way too many neutrons (something like 80% of the energy of the reaction), which damaged the reactor walls enough that they'd have to be replaced every few years. they said w/this helium 3 there's way more useable energy output and less maintinence. I guess it was harder to break the strong force with more protons there? Sounds cool and wish i had more time to look into it. -------------------- Southern Rock, beer and bears!
![]() |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 05:28 PM
Post
#10
|
|
![]() GORILLA FLUFFER Group: Agents Posts: 7,711 Joined: 23-February 06 From: lubbock Member No.: 50 |
heh.. and wait until the "neutrality" of the moon no longer exists....
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 8 2008, 12:37 PM
Post
#11
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
Just a reminder, this show re-airs today at 4:00PM CST on Discovery Science Channel. "Moon For Sale" was the name of it.
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th August 2026 - 02:59 PM |