6 ms·

> If Apollo 11 had found oil on the moon, we would have a few thousand people living there already. You're forgetting the most important piece of information i

> If Apollo 11 had found oil on the moon, we would have a few thousand people living there already. You're forgetting the most important piece of information in the economy: price. Since oil produced on Earth is cheap, compared with hauling it back from the Moon, we don't get any from the Moon. Now, if we had found some exotic energy source that didn't exist on Earth at all, that would be a different story.

soperj 7y ago
Hauling it back from the moon wouldn't be overly expensive. It'd be getting there in the first place that would.
garmaine 7y ago
> Now, if we had found some exotic energy source that didn't exist on Earth at all, that would be a different story. Which does exist, btw: helium-3 which is deposited by the solar wind and captured in cold traps on the lunar poles. It doesn't exist on Earth in any quantity, except artificially produced in nuclear laboratories. He3 fusion is easier to achieve and less dangerous to operate.
- clarkmoody 7y ago
  Sounds like an excellent reason to go to the Moon :-)
  - dTal 7y ago
    Unlikely: "The helium-3 incantation" - http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1 tl;dr the popularity of mine-the-moon-for-he3 meme is due to wishful thinking about sustainable moon colonies, and there's no analysis that suggests it's even remotely practical to do.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      That article is bogus. Let's take the outline points: "There are no fusion reactors." Well, duh. Fusion power isn't that far off though. Even Lockheed has a self-funded fusion power program being run out of Skunkworks, which isn't known for ivory-tower boondoggles. Even so, part of the point is that He3 fusion is different from D-T fusion, which brings us to... "Helium-3 fusion is even more difficult than regular fusion." No, He3 fusion ignition temperatures are higher than D-T fusion. But in every other way aneutronic fusion reactors are easier to build and maintain than neutron-generating D-T. They can be smaller, lighter, generate less radioactive waste, permit more efficient direct electrical current generation, and require simpler electrostatic containment than Tokamak-like designs. You can literally build one in your garage. "Helium-3 may be very difficult to locate and mine on the Moon" This was invalidated by LRO's data on the cold traps in permanently shadowed craters on the Moon (and MESSENGER's data on Mercury), which were then validated by simulations of the Moon's exosphere and interaction with the solar wind. The regolith in these craters is as much 40% volatiles by weight, of which a economically extractable fraction is He3 from the solar wind.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        The huge point against lunar 3He, even ignoring that it's two orders of magnitude less reactive than DT, is the difficulty of extracting it on the moon. 3He occurs in regolith in concentrations measured in the ppb. Even with beneficiation of fine fractions and efficient recycling of heat from the thermal extraction step, the energy requires are large, a significant fraction of the energy the 3He would produce when fused. So to power the terrestrial economy with 3He, you need to put a significant fraction of the terrestrial energy output on the moon to get the 3He. Power plants on the moon will be much more expensive than on Earth (because labor, materials, and supply chains will be more expensive there, even with cheap space transport), so this is unlikely to pencil out.
        garmaine 7y ago
        Your information about the composition of the moon is 30 years out of date. He3 would be mined from the cold traps in permanently shadowed craters at the north and south poles of the moon. There it exists in extremely high concentrations, alongside other useful volatiles that together make up 40% of the surface material by weight. “Refining” is a process as simple as shoveling it into a pressure container, heating it, and then letting dissipatively cool back to ambient temperature, collecting the other volatiles as they condense out. What’s left is a mix of inert gasses, including He3.
  - autokad 7y ago
    and build a fusion reactor =D
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Which is relatively trivial to do with He3, which is rather the point :) He3-He3 fusion produces no neutrons, so it requires no mass shielding. The energetic particles that result are electrically charged, so their kinetic energy can be directly turned into electricity, which further adds to efficiencies and avoids all the real engineering problems that come from coupling power generators to the fusion plasma in some way. The ignition temperature for He3 fusion is higher than the traditional D-T fusion, but it's a heck of a lot easier to achieve high temperature containment when you don't have to worry about things like shielding, and that shielding becoming radioactive from neutron bombardment. A great deal of the engineering challenges that plague D-T fusion simply don't show up in He3 fusion. However the way that you get He3 in large quantities, on Earth, is through D-T fusion. So He3 fusion being easier doesn't help much because to get the fuel you have to do the harder D-T fusion first... unless you go to cold traps on the Moon, or mine the atmosphere of Jupiter/Saturn.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        3He-3He fusion is probably impossible. The 3He fusion reactors being talked about would use D-3He, and would still produce neutrons. The two big issues with neutrons are damage to the reactor structure, and induced radioactivity preventing hands-on maintenance. D-3He could help with the first, but not the second. A D-3He reactor would still have to be maintained remotely, with robots. At best, it would reduce the radiation load on the robots. The need to maintain fusion reactors with robots reminds me of what they did at the hot cells at Hanford to ensure they could be maintained after being used for reprocessing. They required that the operators install all the equipment there using the remote handling equipment (mechanical waldoes, not robots). I'll believe the fusion people can maintain their reactors when they do the same thing.
adrianN 7y ago
Oil on the Moon wouldn't be hauled back to Earth, it would be used for an independent space based industry that produces things that are harder to do on Earth.
- dTal 7y ago
  Not for energy, it wouldn't - good luck burning anything on the moon!
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I was thinking of fancy plastics. Perhaps bring-your-own oxidizer rocket fuel.

soperj 7y ago

Hauling it back from the moon wouldn't be overly expensive. It'd be getting there in the first place that would.

garmaine 7y ago

> Now, if we had found some exotic energy source that didn't exist on Earth at all, that would be a different story. Which does exist, btw: helium-3 which is deposited by the solar wind and captured in cold traps on the lunar poles. It doesn't exist on Earth in any quantity, except artificially produced in nuclear laboratories. He3 fusion is easier to achieve and less dangerous to operate.

clarkmoody 7y ago
Sounds like an excellent reason to go to the Moon :-)
- dTal 7y ago
  Unlikely: "The helium-3 incantation" - http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1 tl;dr the popularity of mine-the-moon-for-he3 meme is due to wishful thinking about sustainable moon colonies, and there's no analysis that suggests it's even remotely practical to do.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    That article is bogus. Let's take the outline points: "There are no fusion reactors." Well, duh. Fusion power isn't that far off though. Even Lockheed has a self-funded fusion power program being run out of Skunkworks, which isn't known for ivory-tower boondoggles. Even so, part of the point is that He3 fusion is different from D-T fusion, which brings us to... "Helium-3 fusion is even more difficult than regular fusion." No, He3 fusion ignition temperatures are higher than D-T fusion. But in every other way aneutronic fusion reactors are easier to build and maintain than neutron-generating D-T. They can be smaller, lighter, generate less radioactive waste, permit more efficient direct electrical current generation, and require simpler electrostatic containment than Tokamak-like designs. You can literally build one in your garage. "Helium-3 may be very difficult to locate and mine on the Moon" This was invalidated by LRO's data on the cold traps in permanently shadowed craters on the Moon (and MESSENGER's data on Mercury), which were then validated by simulations of the Moon's exosphere and interaction with the solar wind. The regolith in these craters is as much 40% volatiles by weight, of which a economically extractable fraction is He3 from the solar wind.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      The huge point against lunar 3He, even ignoring that it's two orders of magnitude less reactive than DT, is the difficulty of extracting it on the moon. 3He occurs in regolith in concentrations measured in the ppb. Even with beneficiation of fine fractions and efficient recycling of heat from the thermal extraction step, the energy requires are large, a significant fraction of the energy the 3He would produce when fused. So to power the terrestrial economy with 3He, you need to put a significant fraction of the terrestrial energy output on the moon to get the 3He. Power plants on the moon will be much more expensive than on Earth (because labor, materials, and supply chains will be more expensive there, even with cheap space transport), so this is unlikely to pencil out.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        Your information about the composition of the moon is 30 years out of date. He3 would be mined from the cold traps in permanently shadowed craters at the north and south poles of the moon. There it exists in extremely high concentrations, alongside other useful volatiles that together make up 40% of the surface material by weight. “Refining” is a process as simple as shoveling it into a pressure container, heating it, and then letting dissipatively cool back to ambient temperature, collecting the other volatiles as they condense out. What’s left is a mix of inert gasses, including He3.
- autokad 7y ago
  and build a fusion reactor =D
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Which is relatively trivial to do with He3, which is rather the point :) He3-He3 fusion produces no neutrons, so it requires no mass shielding. The energetic particles that result are electrically charged, so their kinetic energy can be directly turned into electricity, which further adds to efficiencies and avoids all the real engineering problems that come from coupling power generators to the fusion plasma in some way. The ignition temperature for He3 fusion is higher than the traditional D-T fusion, but it's a heck of a lot easier to achieve high temperature containment when you don't have to worry about things like shielding, and that shielding becoming radioactive from neutron bombardment. A great deal of the engineering challenges that plague D-T fusion simply don't show up in He3 fusion. However the way that you get He3 in large quantities, on Earth, is through D-T fusion. So He3 fusion being easier doesn't help much because to get the fuel you have to do the harder D-T fusion first... unless you go to cold traps on the Moon, or mine the atmosphere of Jupiter/Saturn.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      3He-3He fusion is probably impossible. The 3He fusion reactors being talked about would use D-3He, and would still produce neutrons. The two big issues with neutrons are damage to the reactor structure, and induced radioactivity preventing hands-on maintenance. D-3He could help with the first, but not the second. A D-3He reactor would still have to be maintained remotely, with robots. At best, it would reduce the radiation load on the robots. The need to maintain fusion reactors with robots reminds me of what they did at the hot cells at Hanford to ensure they could be maintained after being used for reprocessing. They required that the operators install all the equipment there using the remote handling equipment (mechanical waldoes, not robots). I'll believe the fusion people can maintain their reactors when they do the same thing.

adrianN 7y ago

Oil on the Moon wouldn't be hauled back to Earth, it would be used for an independent space based industry that produces things that are harder to do on Earth.

dTal 7y ago
Not for energy, it wouldn't - good luck burning anything on the moon!
- adrianN 7y ago
  I was thinking of fancy plastics. Perhaps bring-your-own oxidizer rocket fuel.