I am interested in your fifth point. Can you point me towards an article that discusses this subject?
However, even if your last statement is true, do you know if this is a fundamental problem, or if there is, in fact, ongoing research to refine the process in order to make it more efficient? It would surprise me if that were not the case.
For points 1 and 2, why not just harvest both the He3 and He4 and return them both to Earth and refine them here?
And, I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence in point 4 when you say that "only tiny quantities are ever used", are you saying that only tiny quantities of tritium are ever used, or that only tiny quantities of He3 are produced from tritium decay? In either case, the statement seems to be highlighting that, although we can produce He3 on Earth, it is an inefficient process that, if your aim is only to produce He3, leaves byproducts.
Finally, point 3. If we wanted to start using He3 for fusion power in 20 years, then a plan to start harvesting it from the Moon can't come soon enough. We are not even returning to the Moon for another 16 years...best case scenario. As for the comment "Quite possibly never.", I'll leave that statement up to your own good judgement.
The fact that the dust does not hang in the air does not impact on my statement, except that it makes it more relevant. Lunar dust agitated from its position of rest on the surface will still likely settle on the machinery and, for dust provided enough energy, possibly the habitat (depending on how far afield it is located).
There are, in fact, at least three environmental issues that must be considered at some stage.
From a scientific and a lunar perpective we need to ensure that, in digging up the regolith, we do not destroy any evidence of potential scientific interest. For example, we should not mine in areas that are geologically unusual or unique.
Secondly, we need to ensure that we do not kick up a lot of moon dust. This will have an impact to the immediate area around the mine, the equipment and the colony, and possibly further afield.
Finally, in the probably distant future, when we start mining not only for the resources to sustain the colony but on an industrial capacity returning resources back to Earth such as helium 3, we may develop the capacity to actually change the appearance of the Moon as viewed from Earth. When this starts happenning I guarantee that there will be Earthbound lobbies protesting it.
Hopefully, once this system is installed in all cars, it can also be used to ensure people don't 'slow' (the opposite of speed?).
I have seen so many instances of these pathetic people doing under the speed limit for no reason other than they *think* they are being safer. However, the congestion and frustration they cause behind them lead to many incidents.
Obviously it will be a lot harder to implement a device that makes you travel faster due to the requirement to determine obstacles. But it needs to be done just as much as this system needs to be implemented.
The boiling point of water you talk about, as I mentioned, is a measurement based on water found under the pressure of our atomospher at sea level. If you went up Mt Everest, where the pressure is lower, you would find that water boils at a much lower temperature. And, water in a pressure cooker does not boil until much higher temperatures.
Hence my question, what would be the boiling point of water when it is under the pressure caused by that amount of gravity and some hypothesised volume of atomosphere?
The chances that something big actually hit the star are much smaller than the chances that the star captured something. Think about the volume of the star (the volume being hit) vs the volume of space around the star in which it might capture something.
Granted that the velocity of the object would have to be lower the further you got away from the star but who's to say that the object wasn't captured recently and is now in the process of spiralling in towards the star?
BTW, the two gas giants were 'discovered' using the same techniques. They are not visible either. In fact, of the 150 extra-solar planets discovered so far, all but one I believe have not been sighted.
Has anyone calculated what the surface gravity of this planet would be and what effect that might have on the existence of liquid water? I mean, on Earth water boils at 100 degress celius at sea level. If this planet does have an atomosphere perhaps the pressure on the surface is enough to allow water to remain liquid at much higher temperatures?
I completely agree. And, it just goes to show how out of control the US Patent office is. Patents like these can only serve to slow down technological progress. I mean how many scientists may decide to go into some other area of research now that they know that their labors will only benefit a company whose only efforts were to file a patent application?!
Slashdot Mirror
So, what do you say to articles like http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html?
Oscar
However, even if your last statement is true, do you know if this is a fundamental problem, or if there is, in fact, ongoing research to refine the process in order to make it more efficient? It would surprise me if that were not the case.
For points 1 and 2, why not just harvest both the He3 and He4 and return them both to Earth and refine them here?
And, I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence in point 4 when you say that "only tiny quantities are ever used", are you saying that only tiny quantities of tritium are ever used, or that only tiny quantities of He3 are produced from tritium decay? In either case, the statement seems to be highlighting that, although we can produce He3 on Earth, it is an inefficient process that, if your aim is only to produce He3, leaves byproducts.
Finally, point 3. If we wanted to start using He3 for fusion power in 20 years, then a plan to start harvesting it from the Moon can't come soon enough. We are not even returning to the Moon for another 16 years...best case scenario. As for the comment "Quite possibly never.", I'll leave that statement up to your own good judgement.
Oscar
The fact that the dust does not hang in the air does not impact on my statement, except that it makes it more relevant. Lunar dust agitated from its position of rest on the surface will still likely settle on the machinery and, for dust provided enough energy, possibly the habitat (depending on how far afield it is located).
Oscar
From a scientific and a lunar perpective we need to ensure that, in digging up the regolith, we do not destroy any evidence of potential scientific interest. For example, we should not mine in areas that are geologically unusual or unique.
Secondly, we need to ensure that we do not kick up a lot of moon dust. This will have an impact to the immediate area around the mine, the equipment and the colony, and possibly further afield.
Finally, in the probably distant future, when we start mining not only for the resources to sustain the colony but on an industrial capacity returning resources back to Earth such as helium 3, we may develop the capacity to actually change the appearance of the Moon as viewed from Earth. When this starts happenning I guarantee that there will be Earthbound lobbies protesting it.
Oscar
Hopefully, once this system is installed in all cars, it can also be used to ensure people don't 'slow' (the opposite of speed?).
I have seen so many instances of these pathetic people doing under the speed limit for no reason other than they *think* they are being safer. However, the congestion and frustration they cause behind them lead to many incidents.
Obviously it will be a lot harder to implement a device that makes you travel faster due to the requirement to determine obstacles. But it needs to be done just as much as this system needs to be implemented.
The boiling point of water you talk about, as I mentioned, is a measurement based on water found under the pressure of our atomospher at sea level. If you went up Mt Everest, where the pressure is lower, you would find that water boils at a much lower temperature. And, water in a pressure cooker does not boil until much higher temperatures. Hence my question, what would be the boiling point of water when it is under the pressure caused by that amount of gravity and some hypothesised volume of atomosphere?
The chances that something big actually hit the star are much smaller than the chances that the star captured something. Think about the volume of the star (the volume being hit) vs the volume of space around the star in which it might capture something. Granted that the velocity of the object would have to be lower the further you got away from the star but who's to say that the object wasn't captured recently and is now in the process of spiralling in towards the star?
BTW, the two gas giants were 'discovered' using the same techniques. They are not visible either. In fact, of the 150 extra-solar planets discovered so far, all but one I believe have not been sighted.
Has anyone calculated what the surface gravity of this planet would be and what effect that might have on the existence of liquid water? I mean, on Earth water boils at 100 degress celius at sea level. If this planet does have an atomosphere perhaps the pressure on the surface is enough to allow water to remain liquid at much higher temperatures?
I completely agree. And, it just goes to show how out of control the US Patent office is. Patents like these can only serve to slow down technological progress. I mean how many scientists may decide to go into some other area of research now that they know that their labors will only benefit a company whose only efforts were to file a patent application?!