Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Pretty much anything with a clearer goal in mind, or that can be done without the additional cost of sustaining an installation in the moon. Energy sources, biomedical research, whatnot. Even a space station is likely more reasonable than a moon base. Possibly more useful, too.

[GlyphGryph]

We have a space station. And those other things have "a clearer goal in mind"?

[Flying Dice]

Biomedical: We're already working on cures for HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc. (with no end in sight).
Energy sources: We already have solar, nuclear, etc., but for a number of reasons continue to cling to fossil fuels. We're working on fusion. Added bonus of a moonbase: the remote possibility of using that to springboard to large solar arrays.
Moonbase: Nope, haven't done it yet.


So we've already got things that we've been investing in for years, and for billions of dollars, either for no return, or for a return which is ignored because it isn't as immediately profitable. We've invested exactly no time and no money into a moonbase. We already have a (cobbled together) space station as well, and we're busy killing off the shuttle program. A moonbase is exactly what we need: new, untried, opening new frontiers, stimulating the space program. Hell, if you want to come at it from the political side of things, think about all the jobs that a project on that scale would create! And we could ship our criminals there! (And hope their descendants don't ally with the moonbase supercomputer and threaten to drop grain barges on our heads.  )

[RedKing]

Should also be noted that the Chinese already have the beginnings of a space station (Tiangong-1). They've launched two lunar probes already, are launching a robotic rover to the lunar surface next year, and have plans for a manned mission by 2025-2030. Oh, and they have rather explicitly said they want to exploit the He-3 reserves for use in fusion reactors. So yeah, I'd say they're a lot further along than just "oh hey they put a guy in space".

First one to viable fusion power wins. Imagine a slew of helium-powered fusion reactors on the moon (where an accident would be just an accident and not a catastrophe), powering a microwave array which beams the power back to relay stations on Earth (or preferably in low-Earth orbit, tethered to ground stations with some kind of superconducting cable). You could power a large swath of the planet without fossil fuels. And with that much cheap power to go around, things like electric cars or fuel cells become a lot more viable. Hell, a LOT of things become more viable if electrical power is no longer an issue.

[Telgin]

Added bonus of a moonbase: the remote possibility of using that to springboard to large solar arrays.

Actually, that's not a bad idea at all.

I want power beamed from space like in Sim City!  Maybe I'm just being naive, but that actually doesn't sound like it's outside of our technological grasp either.

Economical?  Well, not so sure about that, but it's cool, and we've got to start somewhere.

[ChairmanPoo]

We have a space station. And those other things have "a clearer goal in mind"?

Yeah, I think they have more practical applications (and despite Flying Dice's insinuations, the pharmaceutical industry HAS produced many results).  I honestly don't see a point in a moon base just for it's own sake. Is there anything that can be made on the Moon that can't be made on Earth or a space station? I honestly fail to see the point. Solar array research sounds like something more related to a station or a satellite array than a moon base, too.

[10ebbor10]

He3 fusion is in fact very safe because of the amount of energy needed to get the fusion process going, so if there's  a reactor core breach, it implodes( fusion reactors work a extremely low pressures because of the temperature needed) and the fusion immediatly stops. With a deuterium-tritium reactor, you'd have the small problem that the entire reactor is radioactive, because while fusion produces no radioactive waste, it's fuel tritium is radioactive.

He3 replaces tritium, allowing for safe fusion. A fusion installation on the moon would be impossible however, because of the amount of energy needed to start the reactor, the materials needed to build it, the problem of getting the power back to earth( microwaving the atmosphere is not a good idea) and the chance of a solar flare frying all your electronics. Best would be to pack it up and send it back to earth.

We have a space station. And those other things have "a clearer goal in mind"?

Yeah, I think they have more practical applications (and despite Flying Dice's insinuations, the pharmaceutical industry HAS produced many results).  I honestly don't see a point in a moon base just for it's own sake. Is there anything that can be made on the Moon that can't be made on Earth or a space station? I honestly fail to see the point. Solar array research sounds like something more related to a station or a satellite array than a moon base, too.

He3 isn't found on earth.

Added bonus of a moonbase: the remote possibility of using that to springboard to large solar arrays.

Actually, that's not a bad idea at all.

I want power beamed from space like in Sim City!  Maybe I'm just being naive, but that actually doesn't sound like it's outside of our technological grasp either.

Economical?  Well, not so sure about that, but it's cool, and we've got to start somewhere.

Solar power pannels in space have an extremely short lifetime due to the hostile conditions(micrometeroids, waste,...). They won't last longer than 15 years.

[Levi]

I'd rather see the money spent on biomedical as well. 


Pretty sure I'm going to get some super-cancers eventually, and I'd like to have a cure for that waiting for me rather than moon base.

[Nadaka]

Why not to colonize the moon:
It will be really expensive.
And there are no resources worthwhile to return to earth.
He3 may eventually have a purpose when Fusion power becomes viable, but not before.

Why to colonize the moon:
There are vast amounts of resources that can be used for construction in space in a shallower gravity well than earth. This will make exploring and colonizing the rest of the solar system far cheaper in the long run.
You can build a gigantic array of optical and radio telescopes on the far side of the moon away from the EM and light pollution of the earth.
You can build a gigantic array of solar panels and beam the energy back to earth in the form of intense microwaves, for civilian AND military purposes.
Because it is there.

[GlyphGryph]

Is there anything that can be made on the Moon that can't be made on Earth or a space station?

Kind of. It's more a question of things being made on the moon not needing being launched into space, rather than the moon being some super special manufacturing zone.

In essence, a successful moonbase with some sort of moonfactory makes space easier and cheaper, across the board. It's an investment - a launching platform for the stuff with REAL returns. And it's a pretty good one, because it's got returns all its own with the He3, the scientific research boost, the singular THING people can rally around - it's a cultural boon as much as a direct technological one, in many ways (unless its handled super poorly, I guess)

I'd rather see the money spent on biomedical as well.

If we had to to choose between static space advancement or static medical research, while the other moves forward (which we won't - a key thing to keep in mind here is that biomed is going to advance regardless, while only governments have the resources to really pull off the space stuff), I'm sorry - I'd have to go with space every time. People die, yes, its terrible, but we've already decided as a society there are plenty of things more important than preserving or extending human life, and one of the few things I hold to be such is expanding into space.

[10ebbor10]

He3 may eventually have a purpose when Fusion power becomes viable, but not before.

The fun fact is that a He3-deuterium reactor is much easier to build then a deuterium-tritium reactor:

Deuterium- Tritium fusion
- Containment needed( tritium is radioactive)
- Produces heat(ie cooling needed, as the supermagnets need to function at near 0kelvin temperatures)
- Requires steam turbine for power production
- Reactor turns radioactive during and after using.

-Deuterium-He3/ He3-He3
-No containment needed( both He3 and deuterium are relativly safe)
-Produces less heat
-Produces electricity on it's own (He3+Deuterium= Helium + Electrictity)
-Safe

There's just the little problem that deuterium tends to react with itself to create tritium when superheated, so that you might get deuterium- tritium reactions in a deuterium - He3 reactor. (This means that you need a different design than the current tomahawk one). Problem is that there's very little He3 around on earth, so most research focusses on Deuterium- tritium fusion.( I think there's only 1 working Deuterium- He3 reactor in the entire world)

[Gizogin]

Well, there are a few problems inherent in a lunar base.  Firstly, the human body really isn't suited to extended periods in space.  Bones weaken, muscles atrophy, and there are (I think) some blood- and tissue-related problems as well.  The moon would be better than orbit in this regard, but probably not by much.  Then there's the difficulty of dealing with emergencies.  On Earth, you're never more than a few hours away from help, and it's rarely more complicated than sending a plane/helicopter with the necessary response team and supplies.  On the moon, however, you're something like 3 days away from anyone who can help, and that's not counting the time it takes to prepare the rocket and whatever else you need. 
Still, a moon base would be awesome, and I really hope it happens eventually.

[Nadaka]

He3 may eventually have a purpose when Fusion power becomes viable, but not before.

snip...( I think there's only 1 working Deuterium- He3 reactor in the entire world)

Working? As in above unity? No. There are no reactors capable of producing more power than they consume.

[10ebbor10]

He3 may eventually have a purpose when Fusion power becomes viable, but not before.

snip...( I think there's only 1 working Deuterium- He3 reactor in the entire world)

Working? As in above unity? No. There are no reactors capable of producing more power than they consume.

Working as in actually doing anything. The Iter reactor will produce more power than it consumes, but won't use this.(Ie the design doesn't not account for a power generator).
Basicaly there's only 1 single He3 test reactor, and that one is barely used once a month( Also, it's the size of small table).

[palsch]

Damnit, I'm up to 3.5k words in my own moonbase proposal/summary and probably only two thirds done (including editing). It's written as an OP but I guess I'll post it here when it's finished.

I've chimed in on fusion here before, so I'll just focus on that for now.

There's just the little problem that deuterium tends to react with itself to create tritium when superheated, so that you might get deuterium- tritium reactions in a deuterium - He3 reactor. (This means that you need a different design than the current tomahawk one). Problem is that there's very little He3 around on earth, so most research focusses on Deuterium- tritium fusion.( I think there's only 1 working Deuterium- He3 reactor in the entire world)

1) It's tokamak, a transliteration of a Russian 'word', which is in reality a physicists acronym (eg, doesn't use first letters of all words and doesn't even have a single definite meaning).

2) D-T reactions are focused on because they are the most possible. They have the lowest ignition energy so we can actually achieve ignition on reasonably sized machines.

When I say reasonably sized, I'm talking about many-tonne chunks of steel using magnetic fields large enough to generate currents powerful enough that when the current is dumped into the reactor mass (which happens and isn't good) the entire mass jumps into the air. They literally have gaps of several inches into the construction so that it doesn't deform and destroy itself. And ITER, the new generation, is going to need to be far bigger and more powerful than that to achieve real ignition. That is using the best technology we have in almost every facet of the machine.

A He3 reactor would need to be even more powerful to manage power output in that manner. The technology just isn't there yet.

3) A He3 reactor would produce around the same amount of 'heat' in hot alpha particles as D-T fusion, used in both models to keep the plasma hot and burning. It doesn't need the neutrino capture and generation layer, which is how a D-T plant would create electricity, but it would need a way to take high energy protons to be converted directly into electricity. An easier problem but not entirely negligible.

Some other points;

The radiation risk isn't from Tritium. It is radioactive and so needs control and containment, but a fusion reactor uses so little fuel (measured in grammes) it's more like medical isotopes than fission fuel or waste. The biggest problem is neutrino output.

Most of the energy from D-T fusion is in the form of fast neutrinos. These are both hard to capture (no charge) and have a tendency to activate other materials. Finding steel compounds that can stand up to high neutrino flux without becoming a) brittle and b) radioactive themselves is a very hard problem, and one of the biggest remaining in the way of creating a fusion reactor.