-
Moon, Mars mining a must - Sevastiyanov
by
Sergi Manstov
on 26 Dec, 2005 14:52
-
-
#1
by
Mark Max Q
on 26 Dec, 2005 15:33
-
Very interesting. I like the way he puts his point across without the arrogance of previous comments.
He appears to have a plan, but the money needs to come. It does sound a little like the US situation.
-
#2
by
Dobbins
on 26 Dec, 2005 15:59
-
I have another idea for a Moon mining operation.
One the the problems that came up during Apollo was a the dust. Moon dust is really nasty abrasive stuff and it will have to be controlled once a base is established regardless of what kind of base it is. The best way to do this for a base will be paving the areas around the habitats, the paths between the habitats that are open, and roads that are near the base.
The best paving material for this will be rather low tech, gravel. It doesn't require much equipment, it's low maintenance, it doesn't require the import or use of any materials that are rare on the Moon, and the lunar vacuum won't present any problems with laying down gravel pavement. Gravel mining is low tech, all you have to do is scoop up the regolith, shift it to remove rocks that are too big, then shift it a second time to remove the dust and rocks that are too small, it's something that a robotic miner could do.
Gravel paving will greatly reduce the dust problem around a base, it can be done with local materials and tools that are no more complex than a blade and a roller that can be attached to a Moon Rover type vehicle.
-
#3
by
Super George
on 26 Dec, 2005 19:51
-
How far down into the surface is this He3?
-
#4
by
Davros
on 26 Dec, 2005 20:13
-
Literally just under the surface. Not much more than digging a hole with a good spade, I remember reading.
-
#5
by
ADC9
on 26 Dec, 2005 21:08
-
Sergi Manstov - 26/12/2005 9:52 AM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4158
Thanks for this. It's nice to see Sevastiyanov speak, rather than being soundbyted, which I feel has been his problem in the past. I like him a lot more now.
-
#6
by
Martin FL
on 26 Dec, 2005 23:01
-
At just 2 billion I'm a bit surprised that there's not a commerical angle they could go after.
-
#7
by
SRBseparama
on 26 Dec, 2005 23:50
-
Martin FL - 26/12/2005 6:01 PM
At just 2 billion I'm a bit surprised that there's not a commerical angle they could go after.
Maybe there is a clause in their contract with the Russian government that means they work for them on such issues like exploration, or not at all? RSC Energia is like the United Space Alliance and Boeing in one?
-
#8
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 27 Dec, 2005 01:03
-
Martin FL - 26/12/2005 6:01 PM
At just 2 billion I'm a bit surprised that there's not a commerical angle they could go after.
Or the if they could get a commercial deal into place once they start bringing back the He3? At that price I'm confused to why the government isn't pushing for it to happen.
-
#9
by
Colby
on 27 Dec, 2005 01:23
-
One problem with mining He3 is this: right now, we cannot do anything with it. Investors can be short-sighted, and they may not look 20 years down the road. All they see is that deuterium-tritium nuclear fusion is still not breaking-even, and any fusion reaction with helium-3 is going to be more difficult.
-
#10
by
realtime
on 27 Dec, 2005 06:04
-
Dobbins - 26/12/2005 11:59 AM
I have another idea for a Moon mining operation.
One the the problems that came up during Apollo was a the dust. Moon dust is really nasty abrasive stuff and it will have to be controlled once a base is established regardless of what kind of base it is. The best way to do this for a base will be paving the areas around the habitats, the paths between the habitats that are open, and roads that are near the base.
The best paving material for this will be rather low tech, gravel. It doesn't require much equipment, it's low maintenance, it doesn't require the import or use of any materials that are rare on the Moon, and the lunar vacuum won't present any problems with laying down gravel pavement. Gravel mining is low tech, all you have to do is scoop up the regolith, shift it to remove rocks that are too big, then shift it a second time to remove the dust and rocks that are too small, it's something that a robotic miner could do.
Gravel paving will greatly reduce the dust problem around a base, it can be done with local materials and tools that are no more complex than a blade and a roller that can be attached to a Moon Rover type vehicle.
There might be a better way. Microwave sintering, or, "the Lunar Lawnmower". I could hardly believe it when I read it.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawnmower.htmhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1812.pdf
-
#11
by
realtime
on 27 Dec, 2005 06:13
-
Colby - 26/12/2005 9:23 PM
One problem with mining He3 is this: right now, we cannot do anything with it. Investors can be short-sighted, and they may not look 20 years down the road. All they see is that deuterium-tritium nuclear fusion is still not breaking-even, and any fusion reaction with helium-3 is going to be more difficult.
Presumably, we'll have break-even fusion by the time it matters, but I always thought the goal of mining He3 was a stretch, too.
So what happens when we find no He3 on Luna? Guess we'd better have a backup story ready.
-
#12
by
Dobbins
on 27 Dec, 2005 07:37
-
realtime - 27/12/2005 2:04 AM
There might be a better way. Microwave sintering, or, "the Lunar Lawnmower". I could hardly believe it when I read it.
After years of dealing with Mr Murphy and his law I have come to the conclusion that low tech solutions, like gravel paving, have some real advantages.
-
#13
by
Sergi Manstov
on 27 Dec, 2005 14:56
-
Martin FL - 26/12/2005 6:01 PM
At just 2 billion I'm a bit surprised that there's not a commerical angle they could go after.
Putin would have to sign a form of alliance for this to happen.
-
#14
by
Launch Fan
on 27 Dec, 2005 15:19
-
realtime - 27/12/2005 1:13 AM
So what happens when we find no He3 on Luna? Guess we'd better have a backup story ready.
Is there a chance of this? It's not proven yet?
-
#15
by
Dobbins
on 27 Dec, 2005 15:37
-
Launch Fan - 27/12/2005 11:19 AM
realtime - 27/12/2005 1:13 AM
So what happens when we find no He3 on Luna? Guess we'd better have a backup story ready.
Is there a chance of this? It's not proven yet?
I Thought they had found He3 in the samples from the Apollo missions, but I could be mistaken on this point.
My concern over He3 is that it won't be any more useful than common Helium if commercial fusion isn't achieved. That goal seems to constantly retreat into the future. It seems we have been 10 years away from archiving it for the past 40 years.
-
#16
by
realtime
on 27 Dec, 2005 16:23
-
-
#17
by
InfraNut
on 26 Mar, 2006 15:12
-
vanilla - 27/1/2006 6:57 PM
Hmmm...mine the Moon for a trace of helium-3 that has been deposited over the eons?
A substance that requires about six times the plasma temperature in a fusion reactor to ignite as deuterium-tritium? (60 keV plasma temperature for D-He3 vs. 10 keV for D-T)
Did I mention that we can't ignite deuterium-tritium in fusion reactors yet and hope to be able to do that in about 20 years? (If we spend 20 billion on the ITER)
Lunar helium-3 mining is a (lousy) solution looking for a problem. [...]
The majority of experts seem to think HE3-D fusion would be faster to develop and lead to better reactors (less expensive, more efficient, and less radiation, mainly because the release of protons and not neutrons opens up many advantageous possibilities). Ignition has already long since achieved and should not be too much of a problem even for HE3 fusion. The main challenges for all fusion are centered around controlling the plasma and efficiently extract the released energy -- which is where HE3 fusion has its main advantages.
If HE3 was easily available now, it would likely be the used for initial development (ITER etc.)
However Lunar HE3 mining is realistically at least 2 decades of development away from producing usable quantities, and has a lot of political and commercial uncertainties. He3 Reactor development is extremely unilikely to be developed in parallell with ITER or instead of ITER. Serious development money (Beyond preliminary research) is even unlikely to be allocated after the first generation fusion is deployed, since a 2.nd generation D-T reactor by that time will be less costly and less risky. So until about 50 years from now, the prospects are not good.
I wish it was otherwise, but HE3 mining will probably be relegated beyond the current commercial horizon. It will therefore not have much impact on space transportation and in-space+lunar development until they already are developed and matured somewhat.
I would love to see space transportation and in-space+lunar development grow sustainably and preferrably reasonably fast -- but we will have to base it on other, more realistic, objectives for now.
-
#18
by
Tap-Sa
on 27 Mar, 2006 11:09
-
Reaching ignition, a state where energy released from fusion is alone enough to sustain the process (Q = infinite), is easy, just pump a lot of heat into plasma?
Maintaining plasma at ignition is hard, and not accomplished yet?
-
#19
by
InfraNut
on 27 Mar, 2006 13:50
-
Sorry for the sloppy and misleading use of the term "Ignition". I meant it in a more popular sense of starting a fusion reaction, as was achieved by the Joint European Torus. The JET tokamak in the UK produced 16 MW of fusion power already in 1997.
vanilla - 27/3/2006 3:06 AM
These statements clearly indicate to me that you are not abreast of the current state of fusion research...
In the strict technical sense that Fusion Scientists use the word (i.e. genetating more energy from fusion than is needed to sustain it), the statement "Ignition has already long since [been] achieved..." becomes a blatant and fundamental mistake, so I easily see in hindsight where you got your low opinion of my knowledge from. JET only reached about 70% (0.7) and no other have reached the 100% level that the scientists defines as "Ignition".
I am not any real fusion expert, but i have learnt enough about the subject to know where my limitations are, and stand by what I was trying to say as a serious and well-founded opinion, albeit not an authorative one.
-
#20
by
Tap-Sa
on 27 Mar, 2006 14:16
-
InfraNut - 27/3/2006 3:50 PM
JET only reached about 70% (0.7) and no other have reached the 100% level that the scientists defines as "Ignition"
I think you are mixing the terms 'ignition' and 'break-even'. Latter (Q=1) has been achieved by Japanese Tokamak JT-60. Ignition (Q=infinite) is still unreached goal, and is not even necessary for practical fusion reactor.
Wikipedia article about Q explains the terms quite well.
