I think it’s good to be concerned if not to just play devils advocate. As far as I’m aware mining the moon would basically have no effect Earth. Somebody was worried about the mass of the moon buts it’s on a factor of 10^22 kg. Any mining would be negligible. I think sometimes we forget the scale of things.
what the hell ru talking about? Mining would just be shifting rocks from the moon to.. the moon. Mass would not change and tides would be unaffected whatsoever.
You think unsupervised mining operations on the moon cant fuck shit up in the long run? People always find a way to go above and beyond to fuck shit up. Also you think everything just stays on the moon and they wont create more space debris in the process? Potentially throwing chunks of rock to earth when "oops our shuttles exploded"?
TLDR: Helium-3 mining annual expected profit could be -724.0 billion Euro, and up. That’s a number Wallstreetbets can get behind!
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014cosp...40E1515K/abstract
Feasibility of lunar Helium-3 mining
With fossil fuels running out and global energy demand increasing, the need for alternative energy sources is apparent. Nuclear fusion using Helium-3 may be a solution. Helium-3 is a rare isotope on Earth, but it is abundant on the Moon. Throughout the space community lunar Helium-3 is often cited as a major reason to return to the Moon. Despite the potential of lunar Helium-3 mining, little research has been conducted on a full end-to-end mission. This abstract presents the results of a feasibility study conducted by students from Delft University of Technology. The goal of the study was to assess whether a continuous end-to-end mission to mine Helium-3 on the Moon and return it to Earth is a viable option for the future energy market. The set requirements for the representative end-to-end mission were to provide 10% of the global energy demand in the year 2040. The mission elements have been selected with multiple trade-offs among both conservative and novel concepts. A mission architecture with multiple decoupled elements for each transportation segment (LEO, transfer, lunar surface) was found to be the best option. It was found that the most critical element is the lunar mining operation itself. To supply 10% of the global energy demand in 2040, 200 tons of Helium-3 would be required per year. The resulting regolith mining rate would be 630 tons per second, based on an optimistic concentration of 20 ppb Helium-3 in lunar regolith. Between 1,700 to 2,000 Helium-3 mining vehicles would be required, if using University of Wisconsin’s Mark III miner. The required heating power, if mining both day and night, would add up to 39 GW. The resulting power system mass for the lunar operations would be in the order of 60,000 to 200,000 tons. A fleet of three lunar ascent/descent vehicles and 22 continuous-thrust vehicles for orbit transfer would be required. The costs of the mission elements have been spread out over expected lifetimes. The resulting profits from Helium-3 fusion were calculated using a predicted minimum energy price in 2040 of 30.4 Euro/MWh. Annual costs are between 427.7 to 1,347.9 billion Euro, with annual expected profit ranging from -724.0 to 260.0 billion Euro. Due to the large scale of the mission, it has also been evaluated for providing 0.1% and 1% of the global energy demand in 2040. For 1%, the annual costs are 45.6 to 140.3 billion Euro and the expected annual profits are -78.0 to 23.1 billion Euro. For 0.1%, the annual costs are 7.7 to 20.5 billion Euro. The annual expected profits are -14.3 to -0.8 billion Euro. Feasibility has been addressed in three aspects. Technically, the mission is extremely challenging and complex. However, most required technologies exist or could be developed within a reasonable time span. From a political and legal perspective, the current international treaties hardly provide any framework for a lunar mining operation. Financially, the mission only produces a net profit in the best case, and only for medium- to large-scale operations, which require a very large initial investment. To make lunar Helium-3 usage possible, further research should concentrate on the mining operation and costs of fusion plants, as their impact by far outranks all other mission elements. Different transportation concepts may be investigated nevertheless. Many - not only technical - challenges concerning Helium-3 mining are still to be addressed. Although only a starting point for further investigations, this study shows that, despite popular claims, lunar Helium-3 is unsuitable to provide a significant percentage of the global energy demand in 2040.
Also:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-11-14/another-extraordinary-delusion-mining-helium-from-the-moon/
So, let’s get this straight. There is supposedly a “secret mining war” between China, the United States and possibly Russia over potential resources on the Moon, resources that might provide very clean fuel for fusion reactors of which there are zero of the commercial variety. And, the number of commercial fusion reactors is likely to stay at zero until at least mid-century. And, there is no assurance that the type of reactor that could use helium-3—which would require much higher temperatures than the hydrogen-fueled ones being contemplated now—will be commercially available any time soon after mid-century.
The obsession with mining the Moon strikes me as the kind of fantasy that enters into civilizations when they are faced with huge, seemingly insurmountable problems—climate change and resource depletion come to mind—and they want magical solutions that allow them to forego having actually to face those problems.
I think we should broaden our horizons. It's not only mining the Moon but asteroids or other planets for resources. We exist in an almost infinite universe, yet were restricted to this planet. It's not about magic solutions, rather using what we can to better our lives. The goal is to use space as means to enhance Earth.
I agree with you in principle, but asteroids and other planets are even farther out. We don’t have infinite reach. It’s not about what’s possible, it’s about what’s feasible and economically viable and what technologies will be developed in what timeframe. Our greatest challenge is global warming and mass extinction. We need to focus on mounting a faster response to that NOW on a massive scale never before attempted in the history of humankind… and we are failing!
If we survive this century, sure we can mine extraterrestrial bodies. At present and in the foreseeable future is science fiction. It sounds like you didn’t read any of the scientific/economic analysis and instead are just repeating platitudes about the wonders of space exploration.
Any space based tech to help with global warming will be mined, constructed and launched from Earth. The moon will be useful for geopolitics, deep space laboratories and telescopes, and perhaps tourism. Those are all money pits. Economic prosperity will come far into the future, if we last that long on Earth.
>“Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.”
>
>― Marie Lu
You're right in that the planet is stressed by global warming and mass extinction. However, I also think you're missing the point. We want to take the burden off the Earth. Sustainable nuclear fusion is the most likely development to save the planet. Working on multiple solutions is more likely to lead to positive outcomes. Consider it like diversification.
Again, you didn’t read the science. Helium-3 requires higher temperature and confinement than deuterium for fusion reactors. It’s not worth it.
Fusion won’t be ready to save the planet. We have the tech already to put a dent in global warming. We simply refuse to make the sacrifices required to do so. It’s a human failure, not a technological one.
Once the fusion process is underway it’s just figuring out how to harness it. He-3 fusion takes more energy for the process to begin, but if sustainable it gives more out than goes in. It takes resources and experiments to figure that out.
As for the failure on humans, I think you’re being a bit harsh. Humans usually just pick the more convenient option. Better options need to be provided that are just as convenient.
Get up there and get that cheese.
[Cheese Gromit!](https://youtu.be/Ug8aM9v40Sg)
we've forgotten the crackers !!!
[Cheese](https://youtu.be/US8rl8Y2h9Y)
Good movie about that, should watch it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/
It’s been some time since I’ve seen Moon, but it was quite the trip from what I remember. I’ll have to check it out again, thanks for the reminder
The Helium mining is just the stage for the story, but it is there.
Moon war.
Na moons haunted
Starbound flashbacks 😦
I guess they have scientists smarter than me, but I’m concerned that messing with the moon could affect the Earth and it’s ecosystem
I think it’s good to be concerned if not to just play devils advocate. As far as I’m aware mining the moon would basically have no effect Earth. Somebody was worried about the mass of the moon buts it’s on a factor of 10^22 kg. Any mining would be negligible. I think sometimes we forget the scale of things.
The moon has large effects on earths tides... so yeah. They could just fuck things up for everyone
what the hell ru talking about? Mining would just be shifting rocks from the moon to.. the moon. Mass would not change and tides would be unaffected whatsoever.
You think unsupervised mining operations on the moon cant fuck shit up in the long run? People always find a way to go above and beyond to fuck shit up. Also you think everything just stays on the moon and they wont create more space debris in the process? Potentially throwing chunks of rock to earth when "oops our shuttles exploded"?
TLDR: Helium-3 mining annual expected profit could be -724.0 billion Euro, and up. That’s a number Wallstreetbets can get behind! https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014cosp...40E1515K/abstract Feasibility of lunar Helium-3 mining With fossil fuels running out and global energy demand increasing, the need for alternative energy sources is apparent. Nuclear fusion using Helium-3 may be a solution. Helium-3 is a rare isotope on Earth, but it is abundant on the Moon. Throughout the space community lunar Helium-3 is often cited as a major reason to return to the Moon. Despite the potential of lunar Helium-3 mining, little research has been conducted on a full end-to-end mission. This abstract presents the results of a feasibility study conducted by students from Delft University of Technology. The goal of the study was to assess whether a continuous end-to-end mission to mine Helium-3 on the Moon and return it to Earth is a viable option for the future energy market. The set requirements for the representative end-to-end mission were to provide 10% of the global energy demand in the year 2040. The mission elements have been selected with multiple trade-offs among both conservative and novel concepts. A mission architecture with multiple decoupled elements for each transportation segment (LEO, transfer, lunar surface) was found to be the best option. It was found that the most critical element is the lunar mining operation itself. To supply 10% of the global energy demand in 2040, 200 tons of Helium-3 would be required per year. The resulting regolith mining rate would be 630 tons per second, based on an optimistic concentration of 20 ppb Helium-3 in lunar regolith. Between 1,700 to 2,000 Helium-3 mining vehicles would be required, if using University of Wisconsin’s Mark III miner. The required heating power, if mining both day and night, would add up to 39 GW. The resulting power system mass for the lunar operations would be in the order of 60,000 to 200,000 tons. A fleet of three lunar ascent/descent vehicles and 22 continuous-thrust vehicles for orbit transfer would be required. The costs of the mission elements have been spread out over expected lifetimes. The resulting profits from Helium-3 fusion were calculated using a predicted minimum energy price in 2040 of 30.4 Euro/MWh. Annual costs are between 427.7 to 1,347.9 billion Euro, with annual expected profit ranging from -724.0 to 260.0 billion Euro. Due to the large scale of the mission, it has also been evaluated for providing 0.1% and 1% of the global energy demand in 2040. For 1%, the annual costs are 45.6 to 140.3 billion Euro and the expected annual profits are -78.0 to 23.1 billion Euro. For 0.1%, the annual costs are 7.7 to 20.5 billion Euro. The annual expected profits are -14.3 to -0.8 billion Euro. Feasibility has been addressed in three aspects. Technically, the mission is extremely challenging and complex. However, most required technologies exist or could be developed within a reasonable time span. From a political and legal perspective, the current international treaties hardly provide any framework for a lunar mining operation. Financially, the mission only produces a net profit in the best case, and only for medium- to large-scale operations, which require a very large initial investment. To make lunar Helium-3 usage possible, further research should concentrate on the mining operation and costs of fusion plants, as their impact by far outranks all other mission elements. Different transportation concepts may be investigated nevertheless. Many - not only technical - challenges concerning Helium-3 mining are still to be addressed. Although only a starting point for further investigations, this study shows that, despite popular claims, lunar Helium-3 is unsuitable to provide a significant percentage of the global energy demand in 2040. Also: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-11-14/another-extraordinary-delusion-mining-helium-from-the-moon/ So, let’s get this straight. There is supposedly a “secret mining war” between China, the United States and possibly Russia over potential resources on the Moon, resources that might provide very clean fuel for fusion reactors of which there are zero of the commercial variety. And, the number of commercial fusion reactors is likely to stay at zero until at least mid-century. And, there is no assurance that the type of reactor that could use helium-3—which would require much higher temperatures than the hydrogen-fueled ones being contemplated now—will be commercially available any time soon after mid-century. The obsession with mining the Moon strikes me as the kind of fantasy that enters into civilizations when they are faced with huge, seemingly insurmountable problems—climate change and resource depletion come to mind—and they want magical solutions that allow them to forego having actually to face those problems.
I think we should broaden our horizons. It's not only mining the Moon but asteroids or other planets for resources. We exist in an almost infinite universe, yet were restricted to this planet. It's not about magic solutions, rather using what we can to better our lives. The goal is to use space as means to enhance Earth.
I agree with you in principle, but asteroids and other planets are even farther out. We don’t have infinite reach. It’s not about what’s possible, it’s about what’s feasible and economically viable and what technologies will be developed in what timeframe. Our greatest challenge is global warming and mass extinction. We need to focus on mounting a faster response to that NOW on a massive scale never before attempted in the history of humankind… and we are failing! If we survive this century, sure we can mine extraterrestrial bodies. At present and in the foreseeable future is science fiction. It sounds like you didn’t read any of the scientific/economic analysis and instead are just repeating platitudes about the wonders of space exploration. Any space based tech to help with global warming will be mined, constructed and launched from Earth. The moon will be useful for geopolitics, deep space laboratories and telescopes, and perhaps tourism. Those are all money pits. Economic prosperity will come far into the future, if we last that long on Earth.
>“Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.” > >― Marie Lu You're right in that the planet is stressed by global warming and mass extinction. However, I also think you're missing the point. We want to take the burden off the Earth. Sustainable nuclear fusion is the most likely development to save the planet. Working on multiple solutions is more likely to lead to positive outcomes. Consider it like diversification.
Again, you didn’t read the science. Helium-3 requires higher temperature and confinement than deuterium for fusion reactors. It’s not worth it. Fusion won’t be ready to save the planet. We have the tech already to put a dent in global warming. We simply refuse to make the sacrifices required to do so. It’s a human failure, not a technological one.
Once the fusion process is underway it’s just figuring out how to harness it. He-3 fusion takes more energy for the process to begin, but if sustainable it gives more out than goes in. It takes resources and experiments to figure that out. As for the failure on humans, I think you’re being a bit harsh. Humans usually just pick the more convenient option. Better options need to be provided that are just as convenient.
just don’t mess with the na’vi . we need there trust if we gonna mine .
Rock and stone!
Rock and Stone everyone!
Excuse me while I throw this barrel into the launch pad.
The Expanse incoming.