Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia to Mine on the Moon by 2020

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the no-shortage-of-volunteer-workers dept.

sxmjmae writes to tell us News.com is reporting that Russia has unveiled plans to establish a permanent mining operation on the moon by 2020 in order to extract the rare isotope Helium-3. From the article: "Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium that can be used in nuclear fusion. Rare on earth but plentiful on the moon, it is seen by some experts as an ideal fuel because it is powerful, non-polluting and generates almost no radioactive by-product."

121 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Had to be said.. by Tha_Big_Guy23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's go ahead and get this one out of the way...

    In Soviet Russia, the moon mines you...

    --
    If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
    1. Re:Had to be said.. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Your comment seems especially apt, given the fact that this purported "ideal fuel" doesn't actually fuel anything: There is nothing that "burns" this fuel to produce useful work/energy.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Had to be said.. by wed128 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean devices couldn't be built or adapted to this new fuel.

  2. All I gotta say is... by topical_surfactant · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...good luck getting there. Moon landings require the combustion of huge piles of money.

    1. Re:All I gotta say is... by jcr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Moon landings require the combustion of huge piles of money.

      Yeah, but a huge pile of Russian money isn't so bad...

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:All I gotta say is... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Because we all know Russia is poor and has never been to space...

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    3. Re:All I gotta say is... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you're Andy Griffith, in which case you can do the whole thing in your back yard.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    4. Re:All I gotta say is... by WinkyN · · Score: 5, Informative

      Russia may be poor, but their predecessors the Soviets landed unmanned probes on the lunar surface. Here's a Wikipedia link for those missions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_programme

      Many of the attempts failed, but later missions return lunar rock and dust samples as well as included robotic rovers to move across the lunar surface.

    5. Re:All I gotta say is... by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Russia IS poor, and has never been to the moon."

      Who on earth modded you UP for such an obvious error? Russia has been to the moon many times. (Unless you want to argue semantics, as it was the Soviet Union, not Russia. Still the same people though.)

    6. Re:All I gotta say is... by mightypenguin · · Score: 1

      Actually, Andy Griffith doesn't have a clue about space. On the other hand, Chuck Norris could do this just fine.

    7. Re:All I gotta say is... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a seldom rememberd TV show in the early 80's starring Andy Griffith called Salvage One, in which they built a spaceship from junk and went to the moon.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  3. WHAT? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

    Haven't they seen THIS!!!!

    For real, super scary..

    1. Re:WHAT? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      LOL forgot the = sign

      This is what I was referring to...
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268695/

    2. Re:WHAT? by neoform · · Score: 1

      This is scary why? This is great science being put forward. The moon is just a big rock spinning around the earth, if we mine it it'll be no different than mining our own planet.

      Of course I can bet there will be some rediculous disputes where certain people will claim the moon belongs to the US or something..

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:WHAT? by SputnikPanic · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, a treaty was proposed to "restrict the exploitation of the Moon's resources" and was signed by a number of countries, none of those countries, however, being among the space-faring nations. So perhaps Russia is on solid ground, legally speaking, at least, as would be the U.S. if they proposed a similar endeavor. Space Race version 2.0, anyone?

    4. Re:WHAT? by jfdawes · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. A bunch of countries that can't mine the moon said that they wouldn't?

      1) Refuse to mine the moon
      2) ???
      3) Profit!

      Cool.

      I also refuse to mine the moon! ... Am I a country now?

    5. Re:WHAT? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

      I think you mean THIS!

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    6. Re:WHAT? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      No, I think you mean THIS!

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  4. Straight from the horse's mouth. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Informative


    Some more information about this endeavor can be found here.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Straight from the horse's mouth. by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here is a top scientist from the Russian Space Agency explaining why they want to go to the moon so badly.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  5. I love russia by inter+alias · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if they don't make it there (I think they will), they will reinvigorate the space race. I hope.

    1. Re:I love russia by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You said it before I could- I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't it be nice if the US launched a science education initiuative in response to this?
      Maybe I am an idealist, but what if all the countries of the world got all their best minds together in a sort of Manhatten Project to find alternative sources of clean energy, and had the technology be open source?

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    2. Re:I love russia by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the planet goes to hell.....

      --
      music lover since 1969
    3. Re:I love russia by tealover · · Score: 1

      You've been watching too many classic coke commercials

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    4. Re:I love russia by erotic+piebald · · Score: 1

      Of course, one of major underlying factors in the planet's going to hell is a lack of cheap, non-polluting, cheap, safe, cheap power in the form of fusion-generated electricity. Once we get cheap, non-polluting, safe, fusion-generated electricity, we (all 6+ billion of us) can exploit this planet the way it was meant to be exploited without killing ourselves in the process. All wealth flows from the availability of cheap power.

    5. Re:I love russia by NerdOfTheNorth · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this time 'round, they'll be able to bypass that whole "creating terrifying weapons of mass destruction" thing.

    6. Re:I love russia by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're an idealist, and that's simply not realistic. If everyone worked together, certain countries wouldn't be able to exercise their power over other countries. In addition, if alternative sources of energy were found which were plentiful, then the world order would utterly collapse.

      For instance, the USA wouldn't be able to keep their dollar overvalued by maintaining control over a scarce energy commodity (oil). Its economy would collapse, and would never recover since, with a devalued dollar (in relation to foreign currencies), it wouldn't be able to import necessities like food. It couldn't keep its economy afloat with its two main professions: lawyers and real estate agents. No normal country, on a level playing field, could possibly survive if all its people do are sell each other houses and sue each other. Then, most of the population would starve to death because no one even knows how to do anything for themselves any more, like grow food or raise chickens, much less maintain their own vehicle, maintain their house, etc.

      On the other side, Iran and the other middle eastern countries wouldn't want such an energy source because then their economies, also dependant on oil, would also collapse, and their governments wouldn't be able to stay in power. Their leaders wouldn't be able to realize their dream of turning the world into a fundamentalist Islamic state with women forced to cover their faces and young girls having their vaginas sewn shut.

      As you can see, having clean, plentiful energy sources is not in the interests of many powerful people on the planet. Hopefully, however, the people who are interested can overcome this obstacle and make it happen anyway, even if it does mean some economies collapsing.

    7. Re:I love russia by T-Ranger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the US is a net importer of oil, reduction in oil consumption would, if anything, increase the value of the dollar.

    8. Re:I love russia by andy314159pi · · Score: 1
      It is already underway.

      http://www.iter.org/

      Slashdot has nixed all of the stories I've submitted about fusion efforts.

    9. Re:I love russia by hab136 · · Score: 1
      As the US is a net importer of oil, reduction in oil consumption would, if anything, increase the value of the dollar.

      Reduction of the US's consumption, sure. Reduction of the world's consuption would hurt the US. One of the dollar's strengths is that it is used as a reserve currency, because most countries only trade oil for dollars. Not Euros, not Yen, not anything else. Not even their own currency for the most part.

      No more oil = considerably less demand for dollars = the US is screwed.

    10. Re:I love russia by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      You forget that the USA has some of the richest farmland in the world, with relatively low population density. It's in one of the best positions against surviving any kind of catastrophic collapse in global world order. Now Japan, with huge population density, stuck on a barren rock, is walking in a different set of shoes. Technically you could mass produce ammonia, proteins, sugar, etc. in chemical factories to feed the population if you had plenty of energy, such as fusion, no wonder they fought so desperately to host ITER. The sea just doesn't produce enough food for all of Japan to feed on, because it's colored blue, not green, and biological and photosynthetic activity is relatively low. As far as the USA goes, there isn't too much to worry about, we got everything here, we just aren't used to living within our means.

    11. Re:I love russia by hustlebird · · Score: 3, Informative
      By no means am i trying to troll here, but i would love to see links proving that the united state imports the majority of its food. But i will be the first to admit that i live in a highly agricultural state (illinois - granted, not population wise, but land consumption wise), and with the united states offering such incredible tax grants, they definately make it seems like we're feeding a good amount of the world.

      I was definately under the impression that the us exports alot more of their agriculture then they keep... again, please show me links, i'd love to learn more if i'm wrong.

    12. Re:I love russia by hustlebird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry to post again, but i'd also like to know where you found that the two main professions in the USA were Lawyers and real estate agents, i could not find this anywhere either (actually looked through the Occupational Outlook Handbook for something, to which i could find nothing)... Please back this up, because quite frankly this sound like entirely BS..

    13. Re:I love russia by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This is Slashdot. You actually expect everything here to be well-researched?

      Anyway, by the numbers, no, lawyers and real estate agents do not make up most of the employees here. But look at the two main drivers of our current economy: real estate (the main reason our economy is doing well at all right now, post dotcom-crash), and law (ever noticed how many lawyers, law offices, etc. there are now?). Most people in the USA are service workers of course; they clean bathrooms, wait tables at restaurants, ask "would you like fries with that?", etc. But what's paying their wages is all the people making money on real estate transactions (I'll admit: I'm one of them. I'm making far more in a few real estate transactions than I am in my day job as an engineer), and all the people getting legal settlements and all the lawyers and their associated workers.

      Of course, I've probably exaggerated a bit, but my real point if you read between the lines is that, here in the USA, we don't do anything of value any more. Suing each other and selling each other houses for rapidly-increasing values does not constitute a strong economy. Furthermore, how do these things make our currency worth anything to foreign countries? It's simple: in foreign trade, you have to have something of value to trade with. Animal pelts, spices, tea, and tobacco were valuable 200 years ago. These days, what do we export? Not a whole lot, as can be easily seen by our ridiculous trade deficit. We do (or did, before New Orleans was wiped out; not sure of the current status) export some food, but so do lots of third-world countries. Food isn't very valuable, and won't sustain an economy. We export some high-tech goods (CPUs), but that's going down as our companies move manufacturing offshore, and our engineering talent dries up. You can't sustain an economy by having some big companies based in the US with their boards of directors living here, but the rest of the company located elsewhere. Eventually, I think this state of affairs is going to catch up with us, as the rest of the world realizes our currency isn't as valuable as they thought it was, and it consequently devalues. When that happens, the economy here will collapse, because we depend so much on having an overvalued currency so we can be very unproductive while still buying a lot of foreign-made stuff, since we don't make anything ourselves anymore.

  6. And further... by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Funny
    The International Space Station (ISS) would play a key role in the project and a regular transport relay to the moon would be established with the help of the planned Clipper spaceship and the Parom, a space capsule intended to tug heavy cargo containers around space, Mr Sevastyanov said.

    "Then we will be able to drop bombs on... is microphone still on?"

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:And further... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't need to drop bombs, rocks would do. Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" R.A.Heinlein. Support your local used bookshop.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:And further... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who needs bombs, when you've got deorbitable cargo containers? Just change the trajectory.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:And further... by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      After all, she IS a harsh mistress...

    4. Re:And further... by jfdawes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't the ISS actually in a really bad orbit to participate in any sort of earth moon transfers?

      Anyone?

    5. Re:And further... by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      Who needs bombs, when you've got deorbitable cargo containers? Just change the trajectory.

      Deorbitable Cargo Containers? Pssh. Throw Rocks at 'em.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    6. Re:And further... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Isn't the ISS actually in a really bad orbit to participate in any sort of earth moon transfers?
      No, it's not in a really bad orbit for that purpose. It's in a freakin' incredibly bad orbit for earth -> moon transfers.

      This whole press release is just the latest in a long string of such nonsense from Russia.

    7. Re:And further... by beejhuff · · Score: 1

      Since the funny remark was already posted, I figured I'd post the obligatory wiki link to the summary of Robert Heinlein's novel. Certainly one of my favorites! Interestingly enough (and it's referenced in the Wiki summary) the dialect of the colony is heavily Russian-influenced. Heinlein as prognosticator? Wouldn't be the first time...

      --
      Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir
    8. Re:And further... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What he missed though is that a sufficiently large mass dropped from a great height makes for a *better* WMD than a nuclear bomb- thus merely disarming the nuclear bombs means almost nothing from the point of view of a mining colony with a mass driver.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:And further... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Impact weapons are one thing. Radioactive contamination weapons are entirely another. From space, it's easy to render a state unsuitable for agriculture.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  7. Maybe... by doctor_nation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the energy companies (i.e. oil) can be convinced that fusion is the next big energy source, I can see them ponying up the dollars to make this happen. Big investment up front for an even bigger possible return later on. It would certainly be easier to generate funds for doing this for business that it will be/is for scientific purposes.

    1. Re:Maybe... by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I respectfully disagree- I think if the world's governments all got together to find a renewable clean energy source, they could do it quicker. It would certainly lead to more peace on Earth, with China and India clammoring for Oil... (What was that Val Kilmer movie with the cold fusion where he wore the masks, and they gave the technology to the world for free?)
      It sucks that we spend so much effort, blood, money etc on fossil fuels. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if we could solve the energy problem, we could devote so much more time to science and discovery...

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    2. Re:Maybe... by rtaylor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think if the world's governments all got together to find a renewable clean energy source
      Clean is debatable. Oil was considered clean back when the alternative was a horse crapping on the street or coal powered boilers.

      We think fusion, wind, solar, etc. are clean simply because we haven't put much thought into what would happen if everyone used it on a massive scale.

      For example, we know that wind and solar impact the local microclimate but we don't really have much data on their impact on a wider scale.

      Better than oil? Certainly, but nothing is free and everything will have some kind of negative impact.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Maybe... by dredson · · Score: 1

      All assuming, of course, that The Powers That Be even want to advance as opposed to just maintaining the bottom line. Business as usual. Free energy for all means oil executives need to find a different way of making money.

    4. Re:Maybe... by lord+sibn · · Score: 1

      I agree completely! and while we are at it, let's change the national currency (pounds, dollars, cruzados, etc) into leaves. That will make everybody a lot richer, and enhance the quality of life all around!

      No, seriously. A cheap, clean energy source is not market friendly. It requires a major industry to just "go away." You want to know why cheap, clean energy is not the norm yet? Ask the Benjamins. The simple fact is that governments are not in control. It is the industries that really control them, and the industries intend to rage against the dying of the light.

      The technology is there. Why is it not being implemented? The market chooses the cheaper solution. The ideal solution wants too much money. Not to mention that the new market is already out of business. If light bulbs lasted for 80 years, there would be virtually no new light bulb purchases. Ever. It is not the governments calling the shots, here. It is the money.

    5. Re:Maybe... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      One problem. He3 Fusion is more difficult than De+Tr fusion and we haven't made that in to a practical system. He3 will just produce fewer neutrons which is a plus but it isn't a magic bullet.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Maybe... by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      It's happening. What do you think ITER is? Kyoto was also, in part, as scheme by which the world's governments got together and agreed rules that would force them all to dveelop an deploy cleaner energy sources. Sadly the US withdrew,

    7. Re:Maybe... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      He3 Fusion is more difficult than De+Tr


      No, its more easy. He3 + D (Deuterium) -> He4 + P (one proton) + energy (heat/kinetic energy of the particls)

      See e.g.: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
      or google is your friend.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Great energy source! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Assuming, of course, you have, like, a working fusion reactor.

    Two points for forward planning, I guess.

    Isn't there Helium-3 in the Earth's mantle? Could we go after that? Build one of them there driller vehicles.

    1. Re:Great energy source! by temojen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention stringing a power line between here and there.

    2. Re:Great energy source! by misleb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe a space elevator could double as as a a "space extension cord." Or maybe we could beam the energy back with a REALLY strong laser which is converted back to electricity here on Earth.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:Great energy source! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we could come up with a gen-u-wine room temperature superconductor, we could just weave some into the space elevator, beam the power to the station from other satellites, and run the power that way... And if I grew wings, I could fly home...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Great energy source! by jgbehrmann · · Score: 1

      > Maybe a space elevator could double as as a a "space extension cord." Or maybe we could beam the energy back with a REALLY strong laser which is converted back to electricity here on Earth.

      That's just what we need, Russia with a large amount of energy and a *really* big laser sitting on the moon.

      "Okay now, turn it on... Oops, sorry about that USA, you didn't need New York City, did you? It was an honest mistake. We're working on that targetting. Hold on, let's try that again..." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

    5. Re:Great energy source! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Isn't carbon nanotube a really good conductor?

    6. Re:Great energy source! by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Oh, be reasonable. Do you realize the size of shark we'd need for a laser that big?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  9. Can they use Helium-3 yet? by dannytaggart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they have a working prototype of a Helium-3 power plant? I have a feeling this is an Energia propaganda piece.

    --
    PimpMyMazda.com - Crazy mods to a 2002 Mazda Protege DX.
  10. A bit early perhaps by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 5, Informative
    Nuclear fusion is not expected by 2020, so it's a bit premature.

    Helium-3 is also not necessary to archive fusion. Deuterium-tritium reactions will also work, and you don't have to go to the moon to get those elements. Deuterium can be extracted from the sea and tritium can be created in situ by reactions with lithium embedded in the wall of the reactor.
    The benefit of using helium 3 is that you bypass the radioactive element tritium.

    It's a good idea for the long term, but let us first try to get a working reactor, shall we?

    1. Re:A bit early perhaps by barawn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The benefit of using helium 3 is that you bypass the radioactive element tritium.

      The benefit of Helium-3 is that its fusion reaction is aneutronic. This means that the containing vessel wouldn't be irradiated, and it's more efficient - that is, it should be easier to generate ignition with Helium-3 than with a similar fuel that wouldn't be aneutronic.

      The downside, of course, is that the reaction involved is D+He3, which means you'd have D+D, and He3-He3 side reactions, and D+D does give off neutrons. And D+He3 takes higher temperatures than D+T. So it's a little - um - daring for the Russians to be saying this, although it's not impossible to believe that given a supply of He3, there'd be economic incentive to build a freaking big fusion reactor.

    2. Re:A bit early perhaps by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      It's not the tritium that's the problem in DT fusion. Not at all. Tritium degrades rather quickly into helium-3 (12.3 year half life) and has many safe uses.

      Instead, it is the 14 MeV neutron generated by a DT reaction that is the problem.
      D + T -> n (14.07 MeV) + He^4 (3.52 MeV)

      Those 14 MeV neutrons are lethal, and they can only be contained by thick shields. Even in a standard fusion reactor with Tungsten inner shield walls, calculations in my plasma science courses years ago showed that, on average, every single atom in the shield wall lattice would be displaced every few months by the bombardment of neutrons. This renders the shield wall A) structurally unstable and in need of replacement, and B) most likely radioactive.

      He^3 is preferred because its reaction, while emitting less power, produces only easy-to-control protons and larger, slower, non-radioactive Helium-4 nucleii.
      He^3 + He^3 -> 2p + He^4 (12.9 MeV)

      (And we'll get a working reactor eventually, maybe, with a Tokamak, but I bet it will come sooner if we'd give up on that technology and look at some of the other ideas that have been tossed aside in its pursuit.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:A bit early perhaps by sprprsnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why couldn't you build a reactor only using He3-He3 reactions? Wouldn't that be aneutronic as well?

    4. Re:A bit early perhaps by Corbu+Mulak · · Score: 1

      I thought the benefits of using Helium-3 was mobile suits and beam weapons...

    5. Re:A bit early perhaps by TWooster · · Score: 1

      Ahahah.

      Why was that modded insightful?

      Some people need to read up on Chornobyl.

    6. Re:A bit early perhaps by dbombarc · · Score: 1

      Well, why not stockpile Helium-3 now? It is at least a lot smarter than the US trying to stockpile oil, a soon-to-be obsolete resource.

      --
      we're just marketing. marketing our bad attitudes.
    7. Re:A bit early perhaps by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chornobyl is in the Ukraine. There are at least two classes of people who would find you squashing them together offensive, I call them "Russians" and "Ukrainians".

    8. Re:A bit early perhaps by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      As he said (literally): Problem in Russia?? No.

      And nationalities are not classes. Read Stalin's writings on The National Question.

    9. Re:A bit early perhaps by barawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but bremsstrahlung losses prevent a useful He3-He3 reactor by a wide margin. Brem losses for D-He3 could kill it completely as well, but it's definitely gone for He3-He3.

    10. Re:A bit early perhaps by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously. The Russians have been researching Fiber Optics for years now, which clearly enables the Fusion tech to be research. If they crank up Science to 80% or 90% they'll be ready in no time.

    11. Re:A bit early perhaps by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      Well, to be pedantic, we had manmade nuclear fusion in the 1950s. It just wasn't very suitable for generating electricity.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    12. Re:A bit early perhaps by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, H-bombs are a bit difficult to control.

    13. Re:A bit early perhaps by jhsiao · · Score: 1

      Actually, the attractive thing about deuterium+helium-3 (D+He3) fusion reactions are that they emit no neutrons. Instead, the reaction produces a helium 4 isotope and a charged proton.

      Some suggest that this could reduce the need for massive radiation shielding from neutron bombardment. Since a neutron has no charge, it will pass through matter until it slams into an atomic nucleus likely creating a radioactive isotope.

      While ideal D+He3 fusion reactions are "aneutronic", the reality is that D+He3 fusion reactors will still require radiation shielding. Perhaps less than more common deuterium + tritium (D+T) reactions, but some nonetheless.

      Oh, and D+He3 fusion reactors won't necessarily bypass tritium. D+He3 reactions require almost 5 times the energy to get started than your traditional D+T fusion reaction. Since a D+He3 reactor will need to be considerably hotter to start the fusion reaction, this will result in pollution D+D reactions before the D+He3 reactions begin. While 50% of the D+D reactions create He3 and a neutron, the other 50% produce _tritum_ which spawn more pollution D+T reactions which release more neutrons. It's these pollution reactions that will necessitate the radiation shielding.

    14. Re:A bit early perhaps by drwho · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Chernobyl disaster caused a lot of problems. Yes, Chernobyl is in Ukraine. But if you look at where in Ukraine Chernobyl is, or, even better, look at a map of the contaminated areas http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster, you'll see that it's right nearby Belarus and Russia as well, and they got a lot of contamination. However bad the contamination of the ground around the reactor, the true damage was in the minds of the world. The damage the media caused in painting "Nukes" as bad and evil now has Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, deprecating nuclear power, and the only energy source which can take its place, are petroleum and natural gas. Funnily enough, Russia now controls a majority of the natural gas which Europe uses. HA HA. "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade" certainly must be a translation of something originally said in Russian.

      I think the original post was made tongue-in-cheek.

    15. Re:A bit early perhaps by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I see you've been modded as "flamebait"... and I can tell who modded you down.

      Russians.

      Ukrainians do find squashing them with Russians offensive, but Russians, on the other hand, would do anything to take over the world. Ever heard of panslavism?

      After centuries of propaganda, Russian people actually call Ukrainians, Poles and the like "ungrateful" when we fought against Russian occupation in 18-19th centuries, 1920, 1939-41, 1944-89. All because we "oppose the greatness we could achieve together with Russia".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  11. wikipedia by seann · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedias Helium-3 article.

    For people who were as clueless as I was.

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    1. Re:wikipedia by SpacialCoogs · · Score: 1

      "is thought to be".....

  12. "The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits" by Froze · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The moon is a harsh mistress p231, Robert A. Heinlein:

    I really hope that this turns out to be realistic. If an industry can be built around going to and from the moon then space will become a corporate endevour. Which means that we will soon have all manner of neat science/engineering going on from lunar telescopes (observing at all frequencies) to mass drivers (rail guns for cargo) to a 1/6 gravity New Las Vegas lunar resort - at costs more reasonable than big government budgets.

    Exciting news indeed IF (thats a really big if) this is not just another governmental pipedream.

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  13. How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by Tragek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How much mass would have to be removed from the moon (percentage wise) before there would be a noticable effect on the orbit of the moon, or the tides. Which would come first?

    1. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by glug101 · · Score: 1

      Tides would be affected first. The orbit of the moon is no reliant on it's mass. However, the pull of the moon DOES create a SLIGHT wobble to the Earth/Moon system, and this would be affected my a change in mass of the moon. But I think that being concerned about such a small change would be anal enough to make one a slashdot reader.

    2. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      That is a very good question, since the orbit of the moon is "growing". In other words, the moon is getting further away. Eventually, the moon will be at such a distance that it will no longer be within Earth's grasp. At that point, the Earth's "wobble" will likely become unstable (Like a 90 degree wobble, resulting in severe climate changes like the ice caps moving around the world. "Hey, what's this glacier doing here in the middle of the Sahara?")
       
      I think I speak for most of the planet when I say that I don't want anything expediting this process, so here is my solution, for every amount of mass removed from the moon, we replace it with an equivalent amount of nuclear waste. Maybe we can even add some additional mass to stabilize the orbit.

    3. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by raptor_87 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot. The moon is (IIRC) a bit over 1% of the mass of the earth. And it's mostly stuff like iron, oxygen, aluminum, and silicon. Long term and large scale mining *might* cause changes measurable with a good atomic clock (I'm feeling too lazy to calculate), but the amounts of mass needed are sufficiently large to be safely ignored for the duration of He-3 mining...

    4. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      here is my solution, for every amount of mass removed from the moon, we replace it with an equivalent amount of nuclear waste

      three reasons this is a bad idea:

      1. It costs $5,000 to $10,000 per pound to orbit with current technologies.
      2. If your spacecraft blows up, instant nuclear rain!
      3. We could be building breeder reactors and reusing our waste.
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The mass of the Moon is ~7,349,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.

      To cart away even one millionth of one percent of the moon would require staggering amounts of energy. By the time we're dealing with that kind of energy, if we ever can (which I have my doubts about, at least in any way that would be useful for this task), I think we will be able to deal with the consequences.

      Are you worried about whether if we do too much mining, we'll run out of crust on the Earth? Worrying about the Moon's mass is even sillier, since while there may be less moon, you're talking about actually removing the mass, something Earth mines don't have to do.

      You'd also be talking about cosmic levels of heat here, because said "staggering amounts of energy" can't just disappear. Assuming you're talking about moving bits of the Moon to Earth (and not just flinging it uselessly into space) since the Earth is lower in a gravity well, all the mass will pick up the difference in gravitational potential between the Earth and the Moon, 100% in heat (since it won't move on the surface of the Earth, at least not for long). If you moved any cosmically significant amount of the Moon to the Earth, you'd make the surface of the Earth incandescent. (The exact temperature would vary depending on how much mass you're talking, but if you want to have some fun, take the gravitational potential difference of 1% of the mass of the moon, compute how much energy that is, then see how much heat that would add. It's a Big Number.) Until such time as Mankind is so powerful as to be able to revoke the laws of conservation of energy, at which point you can't predict effects anyhow, no significant amount of the Moon is going to get to Earth, at least not with a biosphere on Earth left to care.

    6. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by smbarbour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have the answer to 1 and 2: Mass drivers and sufficiently sturdy containers

      For 3, I agree. We should be using breeders. But to use the US Government line: "Are you crazy? That's how you make weapons-grade plutonium!" Nevermind that not all breeders make weapons-grade plutonium, though...

      On a tangent, I have long thought that we should be tapping into some of the energy created by disposing of waste. I live near a large oil refinery that has two flare stacks that at least one has a visible flame going almost year-round. Why don't we tap into the heat generated by burning the waste to generate electricity (to be sold into the power grid)? Then, we aren't just burning waste, it is actually being productive (disregarding pollution issues since they're burning it anyway), and it is additional electricity for the grid, reducing the amount of fuel needed by the regular power plants (and reducing the usage of "peaker" plants that activate when demand exceeds normal production limits). Just a thought.

    7. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by sploxx · · Score: 1

      You'd also be talking about cosmic levels of heat here, because said "staggering amounts of energy" can't just disappear. Assuming you're talking about moving bits of the Moon to Earth (and not just flinging it uselessly into space) since the Earth is lower in a gravity well, all the mass will pick up the difference in gravitational potential between the Earth and the Moon, 100% in heat (since it won't move on the surface of the Earth, at least not for long).

      No. The energy WILL disappear. Do not forget radiated heat. We won't send all the mass down at once, of course!

      Or are you think the global warming is driven directly by the heat released when burning fossil fuels??

      Anyway, back to topic, this is - as already said - of course only transparent propaganda without any working fusion plant.

      Ahh, but, maybe, ... well we already HAVE a plan for working fusion power plant!
      Just ignite hydrogen bombs in the upper atmosphere and capture the emitted light with solar cells on the ground. Yay, working fusion power ;-)

    8. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      No. The energy WILL disappear. Do not forget radiated heat. We won't send all the mass down at once, of course!

      Across what, millions of years?

      One way or another, you're dealing with huge numbers. Plus, since the rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the heat difference, if you insist on keeping the biosphere livable the entire time (spoilsport!), you're going to add some more factors of magnitude to the time it takes to dissipate the heat since you can't raise the temperature very far before it's unlivable down here; just a few hundred degrees renders the entire place unlivable. (And in this context "a few hundred degrees" is indeed "just".) We'd be engulfed by the sun long before we could move any significant amount of the moon to Earth. Yeah, I didn't do the math, but with these factors of magnitude involved, it's a safe bet.

      (The Earth can actually hold onto heat pretty well, after all. Several billion years and only the top few miles have solidified; the rest remains really,
      really hot.)

    9. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Across what, millions of years?

      The fact that it gets cold at night (no sunlight!) should convince you that that the timescale is much smaller here.

      Plus, since the rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the heat difference,

      You're thinking 'conduction'. Radiative transport goes with T^4. Additionally, you have a nearly perfect heat sink at only a few K temperature (space). Look up Stefan-Boltzmann law.

      The rest of your argumentation is invalidated by this.

    10. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Meh. Twas an idle question formed out of fancy. I knew little enough about the subject to wonder.

    11. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The moon's orbit is growing because of the tidal interaction between it and Earth. The moon's orbit grows as it slows our rotation. So what you should REALLY be worrying about is what happens when Earth starts rotating once every few months. Might get rather warm, then rather cold. The moon won't escape Earth's grasp though.

    12. Re:How much mining? Orbital vectors etc.... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Er. The idea isn't to bring the helium down. The idea is to set up the reactor on the moon, and send the energy down as microwave or laser. That way, no transporation costs, nobody cares if the reactor blows up, nobody cares about all the rock detritus, and so on.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. 2020? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Russia to mine the moon, Sweden to abandon fossil fuels... It seems like 2020 is a popular year today. I wonder if I'll have my flying car by then.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:2020? by gooman · · Score: 1

      20/20 - Its a vision thing.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    2. Re:2020? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Better get saving those pennies then.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:2020? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I thought 20/20 was that news show....I think I'll go back to sleep

      --
      We are the Borg...
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Nonexistent Fusion Powerplants Notwithstanding... by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

    Why would a base need to be established, or humans even need to be sent, when all is needed is a robot. If we can send a probe to drive around Mars and take samples and analyze them, or to collect particles from comets and bring them back, we should be capable of sending a robot to the Moon that can mine for He-3, put it in a capsule, and launch it back to Earth, where it could either re-enter the atmosphere to land on US soil or be guided into orbit and then picked up by a shuttle. Or you could even build this Nonexistent Fusion Powerplant in space (hey! on the Moon!) and do what you want with the limitless energy...

  19. Re:Money? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Informative


    Where will the money come from?

    Here, among other sources...

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  20. The Saint by VampireByte · · Score: 2, Informative
    What was that Val Kilmer movie with the cold fusion where he wore the masks, and they gave the technology to the world for free?


    That movie would be The Saint. It's okay... Elisabeth Shue looks really cute playing a nerdy scientist in glasses and kneesocks.

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  21. Great news by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    I've always thought that the first melting pot landing on the moon would be much more important than the first person. Mining the moon carries great potential. (I've also wondered what a mining shaft on the moon would "feel like", I mean would there also be an increase in temerature as you get closer to the core).

    Oh well, back to reality: no way this plan will succeed, fundings will be cut as usual.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:Great news by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      The jury is still out on that one. It can still have a temperature gradient and a semi-molten core. If not getting near the core would be a real jackpot. solid Iron, nickel, you name it.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  22. Well, if you assume a 2nd gen fusion powerplant... by raptor_87 · · Score: 1

    ...a self assembling mining operation might be reasonable.

  23. Russian Moon Program by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Russia never made it (manned flight w/return) to the Moon before. What makes them think they can do it now?

    The International Space Station is certainly not going to be of any help. It was cleverly put into the very wrong orbit for Lunar travel.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Russian Moon Program by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Easy, TV studio equipment is a lot cheaper now than it was in the sixties.

    2. Re:Russian Moon Program by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Russia never made it (manned flight w/return) to the Moon before. What makes them think they can do it now?

      Thirty years of scientific progress and the kind of budget that can generally only come from the energy sector.

      Oh, and vodka.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  24. Re:Ownership of the Moon by misleb · · Score: 1

    $27.15 is a lot to pay for a indefensible claim to lunar land. Even for a "gag" gift. But then I guess if people are willing to pay money to name a star....

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  25. Re:Nonexistent Fusion Powerplants Notwithstanding. by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

    I gotta ask... What exactly do you expect to happen when said robot fails to work correctly?

    Currently we leave the robot wherever they failed since we have no way of reclaiming them. On the moon however... We are far closer and could reclaim a borken robot. I would think though simply keeping a small team on hand would likely be more effecient than shipping crews up when needed.

    --
    we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  26. now for the hard part by omegashenron · · Score: 1

    now for the hard part: - designing and building a launch/return vehicle - designing and building any robotic systems to be used for actual mining (assuming non-manned mission) - generating funds to do the above somehow I don't think this will be happening for some time. After all shouldn't we have been living on the moon in moon-bases already?

    --
    Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
  27. I like it better this way... by Elyjah · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, MINE moons YOU!

  28. Does Bush know? by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    Bush had a tizzy, and insisted that America must return to the moon when he learned that the Chinese were planning to go. Now that the Russians are thinking the same thing and even want a permanent base, can he get to the green cheese in time?

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  29. Re:Money? by wronkiew · · Score: 1

    Where will the money come from?

    The more interesting question is this: when Saudi Arabia dries up and Russia is powering the globe with their He-3 fusion reactors supplied by cargo tugs from the Moon, what will they spend all their money on?

    It is admittedly a high risk project, but every spacefaring country should be actively investigating this.

  30. Re:Money? by TWooster · · Score: 1

    Damn the Guardian!

    Helping out the reds! I knew their color scheme wasn't for nothin'.

  31. Re:Worth it? by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, gold is a relatively heavy material. Helium-3, not quite so much.

    Nah, the same mass of each actually WEIGHS the same! Duh!

    But Helium-3 is WORTH a lot more (per amount of mass), and thus (presuming it is viable for controlled nuclear fusion - I'd be surprised, but perhaps I should RTFA) it may actually be worth mining on the Moon.

    If the Moon were shown to have tons of cocaine on it, drug cartels might already be mining it.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  32. Re:Helium-3 by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    Has anyone actually proved that a Helium-3 based fusion reactor works? Haven't heard of any.

    I have no doubt such a reactor can be made to work brilliantly in the short term (a few nanoseconds).

    Long-term fusion reactors have indeed been problematic, but commercially viable fusion power plants have been 10 years away for at least the past four decades. IIRC, they are being tested with other light-element isotopes, but I'm sure the use of helium-3 would only require a carburetor adjustmemt.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  33. DAMN IT!!! by JaJ_D · · Score: 1

    ... I have just invested heavily in a Blue Cheese maker

    Yet another investment loss

    :-]

    Jaj

  34. Re:Worth it? by omega9 · · Score: 1

    Which weighs more? A ton of feathers, or a ton of bricks?

    --
    I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
  35. I don't like where this is going by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    In order to mine the moon and transport He3 back to earth will require a lot of power. Logicaly if you have supply of He3 you might aswell build a fusion reactor on the moon, also inorder to rail-gun the fule pods accurately so they reach Earth orbit and not fly off into space you would need some form of LASER guidence.

    Okay lets recap.
    1) Fusion Reactor
    2) Frikken Laser Powered by a Fusion reactor
    3) On the Moon!

    Thats no MOON!

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  36. Yeah, but how... by UsualDosage · · Score: 1

    ...will unmanned probes (or even manned missions) generate the 600 degrees (C) of thermal energy needed to extract the He-3 from the lunar dust? It's not like He-3 is stored in a solid form. Extracting the isotope could be slightly interesting.

    --
    "A true friend stabs you in the front." -Oscar Wilde