Franklin

Right on dude!!!!! To borrow a line from Supertramp, "bloody well right"!

Gerr, imho, is right! There will inevitably be many spin offs. We will break into a new zone of applied technology and like Gerr said, our economy will likely boom and without a war! (Well, ignoring the flak that will be put up by the companies with vested interests in oil!)

It's a win win win situation. A no brainer really. Go He3!

Manc

ok so you sold me on this crap being on the moon. So what's rover doing on Mars then?

dbj1000

Whoa! What a very, very misleading pseudo-scientific thread!

I think some points about He3 need to be clarified, because Patent Attorney may be a patent attorney, but he sure ain't a scientist

So, here goes: :lecture:

The figures for He3 on the Earth and Moon hide the real problems, but they are as follows: Earth - approx. 70 tons, Moon - approx. 1 million tons.

But here's where this whole discussion is missing the point: it is impossible to turn He3 into electricity, or any other form of power, with current technology.

That Space.com article is tabloid science of the worst sort. What it neglects to make crystal clear is that we can't do neuclear fusion yet - the technology doesn't exist. And that's the whole point - He3 is only a "perfect fuel" for nuclear fusion. It can't be burned. It can't power turbines. It can't run cars. It's a noble gas, just like Helium (He2), and it is entirely useless to us right now - and VERY expensive to extract too.

Research into nuclear fusion has been going on in ernest, consuming more funding than almost any other area of applied physics, for some 30 years plus, and we are yet to produce a reactor that can produce power for more than 5 seconds. Yes, FIVE SECONDS.

Optimistic estimates put the first, small fusion reactors 10-15 years away. Those will run on Hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) and as fuels these Hydrogen isotopes will do just fine. They're not perfect, but look at the figures in that article - even though the proponents of He3 say it's worth billions of dollars per ton, it is STILL not economical to mine and transport it. Why? Because you're talking about strip-mining the moon, heating the mined material to 800degC, capturing the He3 and shipping it back to Earth.

There ends my little lecture.

And Patent Attorney - before you start on me and my anti-space-exploration views, I will point out that I couldn't be MORE in favour of the exploratin of Mars and the Moon. I just have equally strong views about cod-science and sci-fi journalism.

dbj1000

I apologise if that message sounded rude to Patent Attorney. Re-reading my post it doesn't sound quite as light-hearted as I intended

Jabba1

Ok, I'll put my two cents in on this thread. He3 or no- I think the exploration of Mars and space in general is essential to our existance. In the centuries to come our technology will improve enough to make use of He3 or any other source of energy we may find. We must do what we can to make life better for our decendants. Those who follow us on this planet will live better lives thanks to our efforts. I would like to think that it's very possible that a future like the one seen in tv's "Star Trek" could actually happen. One in which man has moved out into space and colonized other worlds. In which all poverty on earth has been wiped out. Yeah, I'm probably dreaming.....but with all due respect, I think I'll "dream on'".

Franklin

OK, lets put this into perspective, Harrison Schmitt, former Apollo astronaut and a one-time visitor to the Moon, who is a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin and who is involved in efforts to commercialize He3 extraction from the Moon. He suggests that about 17 square kilometers of Moon surface will provide enough energy to power a city of ten million for a year.

As to your assertion that I am not a scientist, actually I am a scientist unless a PhD in chemistry from Glasgow University, Scotland doesn't count. I have said that exploiting He3 will require investment in infrastructure and new plant. I have indicated that it is not going to be easy, that it is a challenge and yes it will take big investments in time, effort, assets; I said it will take years. Yes, the He3 fuel is for a fusion reactor, and there will be problems getting it, but He3 is a LOT safer to handle than current nuke material. Yes current fusion reaction technology here on earth does not work well. However, we are not using He3 are we? Also, science on the leading edge is never black or white; it is controversial and often not well understood and can cause a lot of resentment and fear.

When I attended university at Glasgow I spent a lot of time going around the various exhibits at the Hunterian Museum (http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/), said to be the oldest public museum in Scotland (I went to Glasgow in part because I wanted to return to Scotland where my great grandfather came from, he was a bridge engineer out of Edinburgh, he built many of the bridges in the Welsh valleys for carrying “coal trucks�, i.e. trains carrying coal down from the valleys to, e.g., Cardiff and Barry docks). Anyway, one of the exhibits was a model of an inefficient steam engine. Now, without going into excruciating detail, the text attached to the exhibit pointed out that James Watt (at the time he was a member of staff at Glasgow University) looked at the working machine and realized how he could improve on its performance. Watt did not invent the steam engine, but he made it more efficient and practical. I would not doubt that many back then would have argued that steam engines were crap, did not work and were inefficient. But then came along James Watt and the dawn of a new era was born, the steam revolution. Watt became a household name and in his honor we now routinely use the power unit “Watt� as in a “50W light bulb�, James Watt of Glasgow University, Scotland).

About the same time I looked at that exhibit in the Hunterian Museum the Chemistry Dept took out one of its simply fantastic possessions and put it on display for a while in a glass cabinet. The exhibit showed a fraction of the work of a former Head of Chemistry Dept. (the great Joseph Black, his work is honored on the wall of scientific achievement at Chicago’s Industry and Science Museum, I know, because I saw it, I was a member of the museum and visited it as often as I could while training to be a lawyer and Patent Attorney) who did the original work on the theory of evaporation. As it turned out, this was seminal work of massive significance; it turned into the theory of latent heat of vaporization. It was said Watt saw the work of Black and used it to improve the design of the then steam engine, and from that came the Industrial Revolution and the era of steam power that impacted so much on us as a people. Gentlemen, He3 will turn out to be bigger than steam power – it will change our world and lead to a new era of science and development. So nothing works in isolation, developments and breakthroughs come from putting together work (and sometimes mistakes) of others. The story of the double helix is like that, if you haven’t already go and read “Honest Jim� (renamed: “The Double Helix�) penned by Watson.

Yes, there are special problems using current fusion technology here on earth, we have tried to mimic the fusion reaction that is going on in the sun, but that is very hard to do on a continuous basis. He3 would simplify matters and make the next generation of fusion plant work. Yes, it will require a huge investment in new technology (I said that as well), and man will have to solve lots of problems on the way, but like Kennedy said before we went to the moon, we are not going to the moon because it easy (it wasn't, there were problems, we solved those problems and put a man on the moon).

As to the article; yes it is a simple article. Surely you did not expect me to use a detailed technical paper obtained via e.g., the SCI, and paste that in a post? I also said that you couldn’t use He3 directly. The energy would have to be transformed into electrical energy. The fusion process will generate energy (as in create energy), but after that point we have to transform the heat energy into, e.g. steam energy and then mechanical energy and then electrical energy. Such energy transformations are done with conventional energy generating plant (e.g. nuke energy -> heat energy -> steam energy -> mechanical energy (in the spinning turbine) -> electrical energy (via an attached generator set). You see, I am a scientist and have a very good understanding of energy transformations (I guess my physics O and A levels help some).

As to quantities, I indicated that I was relying on memory, but I was right that the amount of the earth is too little and too dispersed to be of any real use. Also, the amount held in storage in substantially pure form by man is miniscule (again from memory) less than 100 lbs. The proposition argued by many scientists including that Professor of Physics at Wisconsin is that He3 on the moon can cleanly generate enough energy to dwarf rival power supplies such as from current uranium technology (fission reactor plants), coal/gas/oil (via combustion reactions, involving bog standard energy transformations including chemical energy -> heat -> steam -> electrical energy). Yes, the whole area is going to spark controversy. Science on the leading edge nearly always does that. Fear and rejection, anger and even vandalism often welcome a new break through, a new era of science and development in mankind.

I totally agree that He3 technology will have to be researched, built, tested and evolved to solve the myriad of problems that will come our way. But we are not going to be doing it because it is easy, but because we can do it. The amount of energy we can create from He3 on the moon is ENORMOUS - or do you deny that. It seems you want to get bogged down in negative thoughts instead of seeing with vision what we can do if we build and conquered this new technology and do away with oil, coal, gas, and uranium (fission reactors) power plants.

Manc

ok so you've a Phd, you didn't have to re-post your dissertation though.........

This thread is crazy, I am in no doubt that He3 exists in viable quantities on the Moon. A bloke from Bridgend I know works for Greatbatch Enterprises in Buffalo who are researching the refining and usage of He3 into a major fuel source.

However, we cannot get mixed up from the current (and future missions propsed by GWB) because they have **** all to do with He3.

1) George Bush, when he said let's go to the moon as a landing base for Mars, The man is the most environmentally unfriendly president as they come. Without being a green bleeding heart liberal, I still fail to see an immediate about turn by the prez in looking for a clean fuel source.

2) As I have mentioned all along, the current and fuiture missions to Mars cannot be connected to He3 or He3 exploration because there is enough for all on the moon.

3) Mars is a cold desolate rock millions of miles away. We can't live there, nowt grows there, There was water once. But that's ****ed off too.
If water and oxygen doesn't like the place, I fail to see why we should.

However you seem to think that I am against NASA and research in general, not so. Why Mars is all I am asking. For research and exploratory purposes wouldn't Callisto make more sense to go and have a ganders at? The place is covered in Ice and has in all likely water under the ice which could support life.

Franklin

Imho, He3 is one of the key reasons GWB is suddenly interested in establishing a moon base. He hardly had any interest in NASA while he was govenor of Texas. I visited NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas (organized trip with representatives and members of the Chicago Science & Industry Museum) and attended a talk given by one of NASA's scientists who said President Bush never visited the Johnson Space Center during all his time as govenor of Texas. So why the President's interest now? He3 on the moon?

I don't really care about why President Bush is interested in the moon, I just want NASA to get funding for its projects. I am very open about that, I don't hide why I support NASA and I don't care about the politics in Washington or the real reasons behind why Congress might start to fund NASA for a moon base and a future manned mission to Mars and, hopefully, with He3 powered space ships out to the rim of our solar system and maybe beyond that.

As to the question of the exact amount of He3 on the moon. In short we don't know. But we should certainly find out. The indications are that there is sufficient to enable man to make enormous amounts of energy, sufficient for transformation into huge quantities (over time) of electrical energy here on mother earth. He3, imho, will enable us to do away with current nuke plant, and replace large oil and coal burning power plants. But it will take time, it will cost money, it will involve developing new technologies, it will involve risk, it will not be easy, but yes we can do it, "not because it is easy but because it is hard".

I think everyone agrees that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. For this reason alone, we should give He3 a very close look and establish a base on the moon to, inter alia, process lunar soil into useable amounts of He3. There is no point in shipping lunar soil to earth for processing, that should be done on the moon.

The original steam engines were not efficient. Current fusion technology is not efficient. James Watt made the steam engine more efficient which led to the steam revolution of our industry. He3 holds out the prospect of making fusion work efficiently for mankind. Why not do it? We need to generate work and jobs and get the economy moving. A previous poster (Gerr123, from memory) said, if we can do it without a war, then lets do it! The spin-offs will be huge, but if we don't do it, rest assured the gaining wake of exporting American jobs will continue and our standard of living will continue to drop. We should leverage our comparative ability to develop key technology to exploit He3. If we don't do it, we leave it to China to do what we should do. Paralysis should not become our goal just because of petty feelings about current politics in Washington.

effi

So, who is gonna mine it, Halliburton?

Taffyles

We already have the technology and resources right here on earth for clean fuel. This environmentally unfriendly President is just touting votes IMO- and the fact he didn't actually mention more funding for Space exploration in his State of the Union speech tells me that he's misjudged the public on this issue and is thinking again. It isn't the 60's anymore - people are far more cynical these days.
The guy wouldn't honour the US commitment on Kyoto- his motive for space exploration isn't clean fuel.
I'm excited seeing pics from Mars- I also think space exploration is essential for many reasons, but I think it should be a multi-Nation endeavour for the benefit of humankind.

In the meantime- Europe is making use of technology and resources we have right now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3391507.stm

The extra money needed for space exploration would be better spent RIGHT NOW getting the USA off its dependence on fossil fuels. We don't have time to bugger about in space (in 20 years time?) - we need to do something now.

Anyone read the article in the Independent Monday? About Britain being plunged into an ice age because of global warming within decades.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/env...p?story=484490

Franklin

Ummm, errrrr
Try Congress, they ratify, they said they would not ratify. After that point Kyoto was moot no matter the view of the Pres of the day. Congress thought Kyoto was a threat to the US economy.

Franklin

Just points for debate ...

Which clean fuel? There are ups and downs on every "clean fuel". Some kind of tradeoff. That's how it goes.

As to the Independent article. Interesting piece. But aren't we due for another ice age or mini-ice age? They do crop up every what ... every few thousand years or so. When was the last one - anyone know? But I laugh when the papers talk about the biggest swing or the fastest change. We have only been measuring and collecting data for how long? A blink of an eye in earth history. Why was the earth a lot warmer before man appeared on the scene? Doesn't the planet's weather change? It is either cooling overal or warming up (or in the bit between warming up or cooling down). It is not static no matter what man does or doesn't do ... just points for debate