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."

43 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.
  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 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.

  3. 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?
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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..

    6. 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.

  5. 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 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.
    2. 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?

  6. 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
  7. 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.'"
  8. 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.
  9. 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 sprprsnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    3. 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".

    4. 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. 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.
  11. "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.
  12. 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 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...

    2. 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.'"
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. 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
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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


    Where will the money come from?

    Here, among other sources...

    --
    ____

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

  17. 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.

  18. I like it better this way... by Elyjah · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, MINE moons YOU!

  19. 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.