|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2006, 13:04 GMT · By Tudor Raiciu
Russia Wants to Mine Helium-3 on the Moon |
|
|
|
|
SHARE:
Adjust text size: 
|
|
|

We wrote in an article published yesterday that stocks of metals on Earth wouldn't last forever, even if large-scale recycling programs were implemented, and that the obvious solution was to start mining operations on the Moon or other planets. It seems that Russia is one step ahead of other nations, the
country led by Vladimir Putin announcing its intention to build a lunar base by 2015. But the facility's main purpose will not be to mine metals, but a fuel which is scarce on our planet: helium-3. This fuel would be used for future fusion reactors. One of the main advantages associated with such a reactor is the absence of radioactive waste. In addition, aside from helium-3's obvious advantages, the Moon seems to contain large quantities, estimates placing the figure around 500 million tons. Gazeta.ru quoted the head of the company which built the Soyuz and Progress shuttles, Nikolai Sevastyanov, as saying that obtaining helium-3 was a key priority in the moon exploration program. According to the statements made by Sevastyanov, one ton of this isotope would generate the energy produced by 14 million tons of oil. "We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery ... of the rare isotope helium 3," Mr Sevastyanov told The Independent. The mining method doesn't imply the use of any helmet or axe, the Russian scientists thinking of using lunar bulldozers to heat the Moon's surface in order to get to the raw material.
|
|
|
|
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:
|
8,996 hits
· 10 comments
· Link to this article
· Print article
· Send to friend
· Subscribe to news
|
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
READER COMMENTS: |
| Comment #1 by: Tokar on 29 Jan 2006, 10:30 UTC | reply to this comment | In response, George W. Bush says: "We buy 14,000,000 tons of oil from the Saudi's for breakfast." |
| Comment #2 by: WingedSentry on 22 Apr 2009, 04:55 UTC | reply to this comment | The bible declares that before the flood of Noah, the moon was a luminous body so that our planet was powered by two 'suns'. The earth was protected from the combined heat of these two suns by a layer of water which fell as Noah's flood when the moon went out. The amount of Helium 3 in moon rocks is the undeniable evidence of these biblical statements. |
| Comment #2.1 by: Mak0 on 22 Apr 2009, 09:33 GMT | "The amount of Helium 3 in moon rocks is the undeniable evidence of these biblical statements."
ಠ_ಠ
Contrary to your belief, 3He is not support for the moon glowing. It's not radioactive and like most elements both radioactive or not, it doesn't actually glow.
3He is helium minus a neutron, when combined with Deuterium you get Helium 4 and a proton. The proton can be converted directly into electricity, resulting in more efficient energy production and no need for the usual water heating + turbines. |
| Comment #2.2 by: The Voice of Reason on 22 Apr 2009, 19:07 GMT | "undeniable evidence of these biblical statements". Hahaha, yeah, okay, right. Do you have any clue whatsoever what Helium 3 is? It is not a conventional fuel at all, like kerosene, or hydrogen, or oxygen. It doesn't cause things to shine like the sun. It is in fact a rare isotope of Helium that has accumulated in the regolith of the Moon's surface over billions of years of exposure to the solar winds. At no point has the moon been anything but a dead, lifeless, inert rocky body with zero atmosphere, and it certainly has never powered anything. It has an influence on the Earth's tides because of its gravitational pull, and it's "luminous" every night because it reflects sunlight.
If you believe in ridiculous fantasy and myth like Noah's flood and a "layer of water hovering above Earth" I'm really not sure how much effect a rational explanation will have on you, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. BTW, in case you're curious, the kinetic energy released by a flood-worthy volume of water raining down on the Earth from high above would heat the entire planet to thousands and thousands of degrees, and nothing would have survived, not even microbes.
You are guilty of a common logical fallacy called "confirmation bias", and you also believe in bronze-age mythology. Time to go get yourself an education I think.
P.S. along the lines of that education, here is some information about Helium 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3 |
| Comment #3 by: WingedSentry on 22 Apr 2009, 13:12 UTC | reply to this comment | Mak0,
I did not say the moon glowed. It actually burned and was as hot as our sun. And I did not directly state or even imply that it was radioactive either so I do not really see the relevance of your other statements. I do not know where you get the idea to try and educate me of things I already know so please keep your crap to yourself. Belief in the Bible is not the equivalent of ignorance as you seem to think.
I have no dispute with the use of material from the moon or anywhere if it helps to provide and preserve our environment. Mine was just a point of interest and I respect your right to disagree, so please respect mine to hold whatever view I think is right. |
| Comment #3.1 by: Blaser on 22 Apr 2009, 18:27 GMT | WingedSentry,
Please explain the difference between a luminous object and a glowing one.
Also, if the moon "burned and was as hot as the sun" there would be no life on earth, fyi.
How is Helium 3 on the moon evidence of your biblical statements?
Believe what you want, but don't try and act superior to people that have actual science and evidence backing up their claims. 10,000 year old earth, yeah right. |
| Comment #3.2 by: Voice of Reason on 22 Apr 2009, 19:19 GMT | Haha, this is just too funny! "It actually burned, and was as hot as our sun". Do you have ANY idea what that would be like? The Moon is fairly massive, about 1/3rd the size of Earth, and it's incredibly close to us. A star(which is insanely radioactive btw) burning "as hot as our sun", with the Moon's size and proximity to our planet would reduce Earth to a barren cinder instantly. No amount of shielding, and certainly not a "layer of protective water", as you've suggested, would save us from it. Do you have any understanding of physics at all?
And more importantly, why do you belief this utter garbage? You can't just make up stuff that defies every notion of logic and scientific evidence, and then ask us to "respect your right to hold whatever view you think is right". What you've described here is an impossible and ridiculous fantasy, written up in a Bronze-age text by a bunch of ignorant humans who knew basically nothing about the natural world. It's 2009, there is no reason to believe in stuff like this anymore. Be an adult, even if it means you have to face the prospect of your own mortality without some childish notions of a big, omnipotent, invisible, magical sky daddy to protect you from an eternity of nothing.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts."
-someone very wise |
| Comment #4 by: almagest on 22 Apr 2009, 17:26 UTC | reply to this comment | WingedSentry,
It did? Really? Why didn't the moon continue burning, then? Why didn't it supernova or become a red dwarf or a neutron star or a black hole or anything else normally associated with stars? How is helium-3 "undeniable" evidence that the moon was a star? Where did the rock that makes the moon come from, if it was a star? What other celestial bodies have turned from star into rocky bodies? How did water protect us from a miniature sun only 250,000 miles away? Wouldn't the water (and the planet) immediately vaporise from the tremendous heat? Wouldn't the earth be more like mercury? If there was so much water in the atmosphere, how did people breathe? Did they all have gills? Could you swim through the atmosphere pre-Noah? How did people find water to drink if the majority of it was locked up in the atmosphere? |
| Comment #5 by: Chris Elfers on 23 Apr 2009, 00:34 UTC | reply to this comment | I keep WAITING for a nation to start doing this instead of lame scientific research. This is a two for one deal.
STEP1:
You get IMMENSE scientific progress because there are AMAZING hurdles to solve but they are all solveable.
STEP2:
You get commercial and REAL benefit. When people say 'What are you getting with the base you built on the moon?', you won't have to make crap up or answer vauguely. You'll be able to say 'I produce 3 QUAD of energy and net profit is expected to reach 300 billion very soon.
Instead of going back to the moon to JUST learn useless scientific facts, you get BOTH the science facts AND EXTREME engineering AND learning to live on the moon AND incredible benifit to earth AND, AND AND... |
| Comment #6 by: Mehelium on 09 Feb 2011, 21:48 UTC | reply to this comment | No country should be allowed to mine the Moon. The Moon has tremendous affects on the Earth and eventually they would destroy the moon, which will affect the Earth's atmosphere, tides, temperatures and such. Leave the Moon alone. | |
Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at 
|
|