2 ms·
Isn't the point we've been - and we've learned there really isn't much there and it's not worth the effort? Even at the time people suspected that - but at lea
by DrScientist 1y ago
Isn't the point we've been - and we've learned there really isn't much there and it's not worth the effort?
Even at the time people suspected that - but at least there was a chance of finding something unexpected.
As to the knowledge is has been done, and therefore could be done again - sure that's valuable, but that knowledge belongs to the whole world not just to America.
And in terms of national prestige or uniting goal - wouldn't it be better to have a goal to create a long term sustainable energy economy for example.
I think that has more strategic value than putting a man back ( or women for the first time ) on the moon.
- greesil 1y agoBoots on the moon! Maybe we will want that helium 3 since it looks like fusion has a shot.
- DrScientist 1y agoIs it really easier/cheaper to colonize the moon, set up Helium 3 collection, and transport it back, rather than use Deuterium/Tritium? Also while He-3 doesn't produce radio-active by products, doesn't the reaction require much higher temps than a D-T one? Perhaps it might be wise to get one working first before investing too much in a moon shot.
- greesil 1y agoNo of course not. Helium 3 is a joke. I mean, it'd be nice not to make nuclear waste of the reactor walls. But maybe not billion dollar nice.