For People with IQ's above 140.?

Question

In 2004 Bush re-instituted lunar exploration as the primarary goal of NASA, partially because of the advanced programs of China, the EU, and India. The resources on the moon are a potential energy source for the next millenia.The cost is estimated at 100 billion dollars. Heium3, which emits hardly any neutrons during the fusion process, rendering it almost harmless to the containment grids, is abundant on the moon, according to samples from the Apollo missions. These samples were given to other nations as a good will gesture during the 1970's.Is there a new space race for the moon now, and is it essential for the US to use our past expertise at getting to the moon to ensure we capture the untold benefits of this limitless energy source?

Brant. thanks for the response, 1 gram of He3 fused produces enough enery to render fission obselete. Youa re correct in pointing out the difficulties of getting it back to Earth though, that is the jist of my question. Is the cost worth it? Can we afford not to be first in the long run?

Thanks for your answer, but we know He3 is abundant on the moon. We don't know that about Mars. I see where you are going, but for our immedient needs, isn't the moon more important?

Cbirch, sorry it came across that way. It was an attention getter and not really meant just for the MENSA crowd, but I did get you to look.

Bob, thats part of what makes He3 so attractive, there is a lot of current research being done with the containment fields that looks promising because when He3 is fused, it does not eject the neutrons that cause the containment fields to degrade rapidly, like other materials.

Brant again, sorry I am not allowed to argue with you anymore, My IQ is not above 160, but indulge me anyway. I have attached a link on the subject for everyone to check out!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Answer 1

I have an IQ over 140 and I don't know the answer to your question. This DOES put me at level six, though!!!

Just a guess: He3 will not be a practical source of energy until we can get more out of it than it costs, (in energy), to bring it here. There are other vast, untapped sources of energy which I believe would be much more cost efficient. I would think that others who advise Bush would tell him this. Maybe this would be a good place for Condoleezza to apply her superior brain power. Like this: "George, look. You hired me because I'm ten times smarter than you. Now listen up!"

Edit: Okay, a little calculation, here. The moon's regolith is made up mostly of basaltic rock and meteoric dust. These materials are composed largely of light metals, silica, and oxygen. So let's roughly estimate the atomic parts at an AMU of about 28. The average AMU of regolith would be about 28. He3 (AMU=3) has a concentration of about .01 PPM, ore one part per hundred million. The ratio would be 28 grams for a mole of regolith atoms to 3 grams per mole of He3. You need 100 million moles to get 3 grams of He3. 100 million moles of regolith atoms would weigh 2.8 billion grams. That's 2.8 million kilograms. That means you would have to mine, bring back, and refine 1400 metric tons of regolith for every three grams of He3. Hardly worth it. (Unless that is enough to generate the 2.1 gigawatts of electricity necessary to...., uh, sorry. That was something else.)

I welcome disagreement. But you must have an IQ of at least 160.

Wider scope, I would have thought that, too, but look at my figures! Surely I have made a huge error here, as the experts in this field would be far more qualified that I am, to evaluate the feasibility of this plan..

booman, yes, I agree that the moon has comparatively more value to us now than Mars does. But Mars is a...a, well, you know...a *planet*! It's a pride thing.

So one gram is worth it, huh? How 'bout that!

Answer 2

Right now, it's cheaper to get He3 here on Earth. Much cheaper. You can make it in nuclear reactors, from tritium or lithium. Or capture it as tritium from old thermonuclear weapons decays. Kilogram quantities are available.

The problem with fusion right now is not the fuel. Deuterium works just fine. It's containing the reaction, without using more power to do it than you get.

There's no need to worry about getting large amounts of He3 (tonnes) until the problems of fusion are solved. At that point, maybe lunar travel will be cheap enough to mine it there. But I'm guessing it will still be cheaper to make it here.

Answer 3

I am not aware of this situation and feel somewhat at a loss in attempting to make a truly enlightened observation.

There are too many variables and too many unknowns in my mind.

I would want to know that the resource is indeed viable as you say, plentiful, easy to obtain and the monetary outlay cost effective. I cannot imagine that the total sum of costs of 'mining' the moon would be less than some of the options already available to us, but not bring pursued.

However, certainly these other countries have done their homework into the matter and if they are already actively pursuing such an option, they must believe it to be economically viable and that said, we better get a move on quick.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had been totally anti-Space Program previous to stumbling in.

Answer 4

There is no free energy on the moon. Helium 3 has no economic value. We cannot build a fusion reactor that burns helium any easier than a fusion reactor that burns deuterium. Neutrons have nothing to do with it. Fission reactors generate much more neutrons than any conceivable fusion reactor and yet we have no trouble building and operating fission reactors.

Travel to the moon costs so much money that the ground could be littered with diamonds and you still wouldn't make your money back.

Answer 5

Well it will cost 100 billion like you said. But you have to look at the opertunity cost of going. If what is there can be used for energy and if it is harmless then I say that it is worth the 100 Billion. Well I think that there is another race to the moon but I think that going there is just the begining of somthing bigger. I think that returning to the moon will be able to get us closer to mars.

Answer 6

First of all, why go back to the Moon? We've already been there, and, by having gotten there, raised more questions than answers, so what's the point?
If we decide to DO go out beyond Earth Orbit, we should concentrate our efforts towards a manned Mars expedition, instead!

Answer 7

Sorry, my IQ is too low.

However, I can say this with certainty. When it becomes economically feasible to exploit any resources in space, we're not going to need governments spending tax dollars to do it. Private investors are going to fund the project.

I'll get excited when I hear that Exxon and GE are interested in mining the moon.

Answer 8

Yes, and hopefully far beyond the moon. And also to travel faster.

Answer 9

nice to see that someone else watches the universe. its a shame that your too close minded that you only want answers from people with IQ's about 140, way to go, youll go no where in life.

Answer 10

I don't have that kind of an IQ, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night......