Space race seems to be heating up again

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by countezero, Nov 13, 2007.

1. MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
The easiest way to deal with a closed system is to open it. If you have too much of something, get rid of it. If you don't have enough, ship it in. A "closed system" would make the leaks of resources a lot slower, which would make resupply easier and cheaper.

Considering what the U.S. spent on all those missile silo systems, I really think that the economics are going to work better than you might think.

3. K.FLINTDevil's advocate :DRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
225
The golden Attitude

LOL your debating? I thought you were just continuing the pissing match you started.

HMMM unless a large portion of academics are ALL just "CUT & PASTING" doing research and listing references seems to be the accepted method of scholars. FIRST> you confuse fission with fusion, and not being a nuclear physicist { & unless I miss my guess, neither are you } I'm not able to explain why H3 when mixed with other elements is NOT radioactive , but you see Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin is a nuclear physicist. Thats why I referenced his work and his interviews. {feel free to do the research to answer your own question on this subject }

As for cost benefit analysis, I believe I covered that all ready but it seems you { again } allow your ego and the need to be { right } cloud your thought process. So in the spirit of being helpful Ill break it down into a simpler format.

GOLD = $25,500 per kilogram. According to NASA He3 =$5.7 Million per kilogram the cost of a round trip ticket to the moon and back =$40,000 to$60,000 per kilo That SHOULD close the money debate

As for asking me to do all the R&D for the power plant again reference the work by Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin and the other experts in this field. I do it for you but I KNOW how you hate it when people CUT & PASTE.

5. jlockeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
412
Hmm, I don't think that this 'closes' the money debate because assuming "$40,000 to$60,000 per kilo" is the correct cost at the moment you're still ignoring how much extra it will cost to actually harvest He3 from the surface of the moon by whatever craft you send up there.

7. K.FLINTDevil's advocate :DRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
225
Hmm

I'm sure the initial costs is going to be such a but load that the entire planet will feel the hurt.

However if the numbers that NASA is putting out is right it seems those initial costs will then be dwarfed by the potential return. Lets say that the costs of the plant its self, the harvesting and the cost of taking all the supplies to the moon are all added up then set into the per kilo figures, Lets then say there 4,000,000.00? a kilo { just guesstimating here} money is still being made and in surplus.

now lets off set those costs with the reduction of harvesting fossil fuels, transporting and storing toxic waste, and considering the fact that He3 represents more fossil fuels then the entire planet now posses , then I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that its more then worth the cost to set these things in motion.

Also it seems to me, that there is then a concrete reason for a Moon colony other then Human exploration { tourism }, military presence and medical research. the harvesting project will pave the way for all these other endeavors and lower the costs of those projects as well.

It has not been brought up by NASA yet but I'm assuming that they also expect the future to bring a fuel processing plant to the moon it's self in order to fuel the continuation of deep space exploration. Since we are limited in the distance we now travel in space by the amount of fuel used in escaping earths velocity being able to have a fueling station on the moon would be a nice perk.

I also imagine if they go so far as to do that then any future deep space vessels would never be designed to enter earth atmosphere, and would instead be docked in space reducing danger and costs. then it would only be a matter of transporting goods, which for some things could be done via a electromagnetic sled and ferrying workers and astronauts.

Anyway, there so MANY subjects related to this particular thread that its easy to bounce around,

sorry.

Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
8. MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
This is going to hop around even more: If the time domain of the fusion process could be extended enough all those thermal neutrons could become hydrogen.

We need more processes for fabricating usable materials from asteroids and we need a better kind of economy. One of the things that holds us back from building fabricators is the economics. So we might be able to build a machine that you can feed dirt into and get usable machines out of but we won't be able to buy parts, pay taxes, buy houses, and so on.

9. phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
It's not a piss fight, it's just that you are ignorant of several things. Take your ego out of the equation and try and learn something.

You do not however seem to grasp what it is you cut and paste.

No I don't, I understand the difference. Fusion can release neutrons. Neutrons cannot be contained using a an electromagnetic field, and therefore strike the walls of the containment vessel. This makes the vessel radioactive. I tried telling you this already, but you clearly didn't grasp it. Only certain $^3H$ fusion reactions do not produce neutrons, and the reaction with the best energy yield, maximising the fuel, is the hardest to initiate! DO YOUR MATHS.

I did study a degree in physics however, but no, did not pursue a career in the nuclear industry.

The devil is in the detail, it's not about 'mixing' it, but the fusion products.

I have. It seems that you don't grasp all the nuances in the material you C&P however. It's fine to be curious, but it's a failure to be overly optimistic, and $^3H$ is not a magical solution to our energy needs.

Again, you do not understand what you paste! I shall explain;

Why is $^3H$ so expensive? Because it is hard to obtain!

You aren't just ferrying a commodity back from the Moon, it's not an exercise of fetching something that costs $5.7m for$60k, first, you have to manufacture the $^3H$!!! Did you read and understand that Lunar regolith is just 0.01ppm $^3H$? That means sending manufacturing plant to the moon, and mining, do the maths, $10^8$ kilos of regolith to extract one kilo of $^3H$. It cost half a billion dollars to contruct such a plant on Earth. Now, at your self confessed cost of launching a kilo of material to the Moon, go weigh the plant that we currently have on Earth and get me the cost of launching that mass to the Moon!

10. phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Biosphere~2 was pretty big, covering over 3 acres of land. As you may be aware, the Moon has no atmosphere, so a similar sized structure would be required to service the same number of people(just eight), and it would have to be airtight too. (something that Biosphere~2 failed at)

Biosphere~2 cost \$200m and failed.

Messages:
225
12. MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
They would be better off getting their He3 from tritiated water.

13. jlockeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
412
Sorry, also to add to the money part of this debate, once we have a lot of H3, and the market is flooded, the price will go down significantly.

14. TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
That would require a gazillion of dollars worth of the damn thing before that happens. Take airplanes, for instance. Still pretty expensive, despite mass production.

15. TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
How much would it cost to produce the energy required to do that?

16. MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
It is a byproduct of nuclear power generation.

Messages:
15,162
Fission?

18. phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Yeah, we would have to maintain a bunch of nuclear reactors to make 'clean' nuclear fuel, ......

19. TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
That's what I was thinking....

We can never win, eh? :shrug:

We really need to find some for of "magic" fuel.... :shrug:

20. MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
Yes. The coolant water that flows through the reactor absorbs neutrons and produces tritium. Tritium decays to He3.

We might be better off with antimatter-initiated fusion.

21. TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
Do we have anti-matter readily avaliable?

22. draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
yeah...something like 4 atoms.

23. TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
That's a start...