Space review panel says moon, Mars out of reach of NASA

[Revy]

Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57D45Z20090814)

Of course this is no surprise. The obvious solution is an international one, creation of the International Space Agency.

National space programs are outdated and need to be done away with. They waste resources only for purposes of nationalism, which was the real purpose of the Apollo program.

of course, the US does know that the Moon has potential resources and there are potential territorial claims over regions with high resources. The lunar mission is official, it will launch in July 2019.

I do think that those who argue "We shouldn't have a space program at all, because matters here on Earth are important" are being so damn primitivist. This is the 21st century, a space program is important, we just need one big international one. Just as Skylab and Mir led to the ISS, so will the current national space programs lead to an international one.

[Muzk]

What do you need resources for? Guns, weapons, tanks, cars
...if you look at how fucked up the world is, such programs are USELESS. America likes it. Propaganda more? We are the best, we won against the russians! We are the first on the moon! One step for me, a huge leap for america!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57D45Z20090814)

Of course this is no surprise. The obvious solution is an international one, creation of the International Space Agency.

Or they could stop strangling NASA's funding. I find it utterly repulsive that the USG can spare hundreds of billions to bailout fat cat bankers, but funding space missions of real scientific and (in the long-term at least) economic value is somehow not a priority. The cash is there, but the political will isn't.


National space programs are outdated and need to be done away with. They waste resources only for purposes of nationalism, which was the real purpose of the Apollo program. The problem is that an international space program also requires political will, only not just from one country but from all that participate. I suspect that while an inernational space agency would likely have more monetary resources at its disposal, there would be tremendous amounts of pointless squabbling.


of course, the US does know that the Moon has potential resources and there are potential territorial claims over regions with high
resources.Any such claims would be illegitimate and would go unrecognised by everyone else. Although in my opinion it would be a good thing for sovereign entities to be established on other bodies, as opposed to merely political extensions of Earthly powers.


The lunar mission is official, it will launch in July 2019.I'm pessimistic, myself.


I do think that those who argue "We shouldn't have a space program at all, because matters here on Earth are important" are being so damn primitivist. This is the 21st century, a space program is important, we just need one big international one. Just as Skylab and Mir led to the ISS, so will the current national space programs lead to an international one.Well, I hope that turns out well. The main problem as I see it is that it's just so damn expensive to get things into orbit. We need something along the lines of a super-cheap but re-usable launch vehicle, a better spaceplane, or a space elevator.

[FreeFocus]

I'm really anxious for humanity to reach its full potential, I want to see us on other planets and other star systems. Prior to that, though, we need to get things sorted out on Earth. That's why I'm a communist. We need an international space program, it's inexcusable that individual states have their own programs. Basically the space programs are for extending aggressive militarism and geopolitics into space.

Additionally, I don't think people who argue for putting space exploration/colonization off are "primitivists." In the near term, it does absolutely zero to improve the lives of the vast majority of the world's 6 billion people. Frankly, most people don't care about space right now, they're more concerned with putting food in their stomachs. To disregard cautionary sentiment as "primitivist" is a little ridiculous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm really anxious for humanity to reach its full potential, I want to see us on other planets and other star systems. Prior to that, though, we need to get things sorted out on Earth.

I disagree. We need an independant human presence off the Earth ASAP. There are so many damn problems that we need to fix down here that if we wait to fix them all we'll never get anywhere.

Also, who's to say that Earth problems cannot be fixed by off-world solutions? Take for instance the issue of resources. The establishment of orbital industry and resource acquisition serving Earth would be an incredible boon - a relatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1km would provide twice the world production of iron ore in the year 2004. That's just one asteroid, and one type of resource. As well as metals, asteroids would also contain volatiles, organic compounds and water. Captured comets would also provide significant amounts of water as well as stuff like methane (natural gas) and complex hydrocarbons.

But in order to take advantage of such a cosmic bounty, a real effort needs to be made to establish a permanent human presence in space.

[FreeFocus]

I disagree. We need an independant human presence off the Earth ASAP. There are so many damn problems that we need to fix down here that if we wait to fix them all we'll never get anywhere.

Also, who's to say that Earth problems cannot be fixed by off-world solutions? Take for instance the issue of resources. The establishment of orbital industry and resource acquisition serving Earth would be an incredible boon - a relatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1km would provide twice the world production of iron ore in the year 2004. That's just one asteroid, and one type of resource. As well as metals, asteroids would also contain volatiles, organic compounds and water. Captured comets would also provide significant amounts of water as well as stuff like methane (natural gas) and complex hydrocarbons.

But in order to take advantage of such a cosmic bounty, a real effort needs to be made to establish a permanent human presence in space.

Fair enough, I'm not saying that we wouldn't be able to extract resources from such sources. However, under capitalism, we all know what the resources would be used for. The vast majority of the world would not benefit, and may in fact be adversely affected by capitalists gaining access to additional resources - these metals may be used to build tanks or bullets, for example.

If space exploration was done under an international body at the very least, at least there would be some degree of internationalism and progressivism. Right now, though, once again, it's just an extension of militarism, in effect. I don't want space exploration to come at the cost of the US putting missiles in space to threaten the entire planet (the neo-con movement is very keen on doing this), for example.

[Muzk]

I still wonder how there can be places with people already flying around in space while on other places on earth the people live in mud huts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I still wonder how there can be places with people already flying around in space while on other places on earth the people live in mud huts.

Does anyone actually live in mud huts any more? I thought that was a racist stereotype.

[Muzk]

If they had any. Ever seen pictures of slums?

Some years ago I've seen a documentary about a doctor who moved to a poor third world town to help the sick people out. Alone under thousands of ill people. I remember when he came along a box - he opened it, revealing a dying woman. The doctor saying: Her can't be helped. Let's move on.

[Sarah Palin]

I can imagine the arguments against it from John Bolton: They are trying to stifle American freedom! Before you know it, communists will be raping your children in the name of space exploration!

[BlackCapital]

Frankly it is surprising to me just how short-sighted the capitalists and state bureaucrats continue to prove themselves to be. There are obviously resources on the moon, Mars, and even closer objects that frequently orbit earth that could be harvested, yet the progress is so slow due to deprived funding. Why would they not see this as an extremely profitable opportunity? Expanding their markets and properties into space seems a not too distant and logical step, but they continue to spend superfluous amounts of money on their already dominant militiaries instead.

While the capitalist/nationalist mindset continues I see very little hope for an international space organization that shares technology, funding, ect.

[Salyut]

India, the EU, China, and Russia are verrrryyy slowly getting there though. I still don't think they'll be anyone on Mars in my lifetime though. :(

[FreeFocus]

I'm just pissed off that I won't be around when (if our species is still around :() we finally get to other star systems and perhaps out of the galaxy. I've been reading about Dyson spheres and ring worlds lately. That stuff is amazing. I think we'll be on Mars in my lifetime, but even if not in mine, I think it's a definite by the end of this century.

Humans have so much potential. I don't want to see it wasted.

[Luís Henrique]

Does anyone actually live in mud huts any more? I thought that was a racist stereotype.

http://images.google.com.br/images?q=mud%20huts&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:pt-BR:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=pt-BR&tab=wi

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YxZcMRLvWfx1NM:http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/rajasthan/karauli/images/JAI%2520-%2520traditional%2520mud%2520huts%2520with%2520sun-dried%2520cow%2520manure%2520on%2520the%2520road%2 520from%2520Ranthambore%2520National%2520Park%2520 to%2520Karauli%25203008x2000.jpg http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ttA5c1lCRNKTMM:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geographyofwealth/gallery/frafra/pic_01.jpg http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:u9ASBb-n6IT_9M:http://www.armedassault.info/_hosted/bushwars/nrenders/Huts2.jpg http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:WYou3XMrTEpJNM:http://outsideinnovation.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/thatched_hut_with_kids.jpg http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:oRHxJZqy_PE3dM:http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/07/03/PH2008070304034.jpg http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:7uIOjUtoKxGBFM:http://tricyclingafrica.com/images/021_mud_huts.jpg

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

There are shanty towns, too:

http://images.google.com.br/images?hl=pt-BR&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%3Aofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=shanty+towns&btnG=Pesquisar+imagens&aq=f&oq=

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:MdtlmvxIWkPzSM:http://www.capetown.dj/people/CapeFlats/IMG_1226.JPG Capetown http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:pC8NjR5KKlmcsM:http://www.oikocredit.com/documents/gfx/Shanty_towns_of_Lima.JPG Lima http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:JM-yWPAr45-EIM:http://www.r0ry.co.uk/pics/cashanty.jpg Caracas http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:dwGfg9zmUSZkQM:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/11/29/gonzalez.jpg São Paulo http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:pnRboiG1WdOEsM:http://img7.travelblog.org/Photos/67185/393377/t/3737248-Shanty-towns-in-Jakarta-2.jpg Jakarta http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:JL5HfBGazYi-0M:http://hrart.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/smashingtheghetto11.jpg Madrid http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8tWMetkeGpO8IM:http://rapdict.org/images/4/45/Regent_Park_Toronto1.jpg Toronto

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Point taken about the mud huts. I was aware of shanty towns, but they're not exactly the same thing.

All the same, I think we have the resources for both a decent space program and decent housing for those lacking it.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course, they should be compared to:

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:S8MXjgjdUjIHoM:http://85.119.217.103/%7Ecapetown/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sunny-cape-town.jpg Capetown http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:pra4WmbTe70CgM:http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/70/84970-004-7DB5C365.jpg Lima http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:bkG3zzB69PIcBM:http://www.mission.net/venezuela/caracas/images/caracas2.jpg Caracas http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:3poxbdXHN1EMYM:http://api.ning.com/files/58BTe0Y6jeYOCpTKrqSrkXSYpC-qwomAllVPyGU9FbPnoAaPeoJp5LlIx1RjSpx0HSbWbqVYbT0jd HZ6e93Otsa73fmtWJd-/SaoPaulo_jpg.jpg São Paulo
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:00UNK-hveDJPMM:http://voch.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/photo_lg_jakarta.jpg Jakarta http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:hfV2OH36PXiyTM:http://usuarios.lycos.es/carlos_cr/esp/madrid/imagen/madrid01.jpg Madrid http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:m2qA4LVL5XpKuM:http://canadianfreestuff.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/toronto.jpg Toronto

Welcome to capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

All the same, I think we have the resources for both a decent space program and decent housing for those lacking it.
We do. We don't have a social system able to deliver decent housing - only space programs.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We do. We don't have a social system able to deliver decent housing - only space programs.

Luís Henrique

Actually, considering the small scale stuff NASA and other space agencies have been up to since end of stuff like the Apollo program, I would say that a decent space program is also beyond capitalism.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I do think that those who argue "We shouldn't have a space program at all, because matters here on Earth are important" are being so damn primitivist.

Oh bullshit.
There is nothing worth doing in space besides SCIENCE!, now SCIENCE! is good for it's own sake, and we should keep that up. But that doesn't require such foolishness as a manned mission to mars.

There isn't really any practical benefit to manned space flight, because space flight is BLOODY EXPENSIVE.
Sure we could get a lot of iron off one asteroid, but it would cost far far more than just drawing the iron from our own planet.
When space flight becomes exponentially cheaper, or were going to exhaust earths resources in the foreseeable future then space flight becomes a real consideration. Until then it's bullshit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh bullshit.
There is nothing worth doing in space besides SCIENCE!,

Have you even read the thread? I point out that space can be a valuable source of resources in an above post.


But that doesn't require such foolishness as a manned mission to mars.

A manned mission to Mars would provide a wealth of scientific data, especially data relevant to eventual colonisation.


There isn't really any practical benefit to manned space flight, because space flight is BLOODY EXPENSIVE.

Then it behooves us to find ways of making it less expensive, doesn't it?


Sure we could get a lot of iron off one asteroid, but it would cost far far more than just drawing the iron from our own planet.

In the short term, yes. But in the long term it would give us access to a practically infinite amount of resources. But we have to spend money to make money, so to speak.


When space flight becomes exponentially cheaper, or were going to exhaust earths resources in the foreseeable future then space flight becomes a real consideration. Until then it's bullshit.

We shouldn't wait until we are crying out for resources in order to exploit the wealth of the stars - because at that point, we won't have the necessities required to do so. And attitudes like yours ("space exploration is bullshit") are hardly conducive to the development of cheap space flight.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We will never be in a situation to say "ok, all problems on Earth have been solved, let's explore space now". Even after communism has been established across the globe, the world will not be perfect. There will still be disease, there will still be the need to expand the human lifespan, there will still be the need to educate new generations, there will still be the need to invest resources (human resources, if material scarcity is no longer a factor) into researching new technologies.

Space exploration will always have an opportunity cost. If we wait around for utopia before we go out among the stars, we will wait forever.

[Kukulofori]

guys

since capitalism is crumbling because it's built on expanding i think we should push for a way to allow it to expand more

mirite or mirite

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Have you even read the thread? I point out that space can be a valuable source of resources in an above post.

Oh i read the thread.


A manned mission to Mars would provide a wealth of scientific dataWe can, and have sent machines. They've been quite effective at bringing back scientific data.


especially data relevant to eventual colonisation.And we want to colonize mars why exactly? Were hardly running low on space, and the place is rather uninhabitable.


Then it behooves us to find ways of making it less expensive, doesn't it?Now that is something worth looking into, but that's a little different than launching monkeys at mars using our current technology isn't it?


In the short term, yes. But in the long term it would give us access to a practically infinite amount of resources. But we have to spend money to make money, so to speak.That we currently don't need. Were not anywhere close to tapping out our resource usage, and were wildly ineffcient.


We shouldn't wait until we are crying out for resources in order to exploit the wealth of the stars - because at that point, we won't have the necessities required to do so.Hence "In the foreseeable future", that isn't anywhere near the foreseeable future currently.


And attitudes like yours ("space exploration is bullshit") are hardly conducive to the development of cheap space flight.And treating space flight as an extension of manifest destiny that trumps human interests is hardly conductive to the development of a better society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We can, and have sent machines. They've been quite effective at bringing back scientific data.

With the important exception of scientific data related to humans living and working in interplanetary space and on Mars.


And we want to colonize mars why exactly? Were hardly running low on space, and the place is rather uninhabitable.

It's a good long-term strategy, and now is as good a time to start as any to start work on that strategy. Planets tend not to be conducive to the long-term survival of a species, and by colonising additional planets we will be increasing our long-term survival chances, because the odds of two, three, four planets being struck with civilisation wrecking disasters at the same time is geometrically unlikely.


Now that is something worth looking into, but that's a little different than launching monkeys at mars using our current technology isn't it?

Yes, it is different and certainly worthwhile, but that does not negate the value of learning how the human body responds to interplanetary and Martian environmental conditions.


That we currently don't need. Were not anywhere close to tapping out our resource usage, and were wildly ineffcient.

I disagree that resources are sufficient as a general rule. They may be sufficient at current usage rates under the dreadfully unequal capitalist system, but we must keep in mind future needs and desires, and start work now.


Hence "In the foreseeable future", that isn't anywhere near the foreseeable future currently.

A recipe for indefinate postponement. No thanks.


And treating space flight as an extension of manifest destiny that trumps human interests is hardly conductive to the development of a better society.

As I've pointed out, developing a better society is not incompatible with forwarding our "manifest destiny". In fact I believe the two are co-dependant.

[Revy]

Personally, I think the focus for both the Moon and Mars should be using robots to build these bases first, rather than have humans try to build them. Robots don't need oxygen , food , water, so they make ideal space travellers. Thus, these robonauts will make it easier for astronauts when they come.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm convinced China will probably reach Mars first, if their economy keeps skyrocketing.

In fact i heard rumours before China even got into the G8 they were considering a 'budgeted' single man, one way mission to the red planet just to get the red flag there first. It would of course have effectively been a suicide mission.

[mikelepore]

Planets tend not to be conducive to the long-term survival of a species, and by colonising additional planets we will be increasing our long-term survival chances, because the odds of two, three, four planets being struck with civilisation wrecking disasters at the same time is geometrically unlikely.

A hundred year postponement in that colonisation of another planet wouldn't change our chances of survival too much. We could use that hundred years to work on the propulsion, radiation shielding, simulated gravity, materials recycling, etc., without actually going anywhere. Then when people go they will have have better methods from the time of their first trip. We haven't even had any successful Biosphere 2 type experiments in the reuse of materials, which need to be made error-free before traveling anywhere. Also, any robotics that can be developed to cut Mars rock into building blocks or a related task will overlap with robotics technology that can be used on the earth. Planners like Zubrin who want to have people on Mars very quickly would be wasting a lot of wealth, because the development work can be done on earth, go through many iterations to get it right, and then go to Mars with a more perfect infrastructure. I think Zubrin just wants to be alive to see the Mars colony, which is a selfish reason for rushing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A hundred year postponement in that colonisation of another planet wouldn't change our chances of survival too much.

I'm not so sure, myself. We've done basically fuck-all in terms of trying to keep track of any potentially Earth-threatening objects - we have no early warning system in place whatsoever. As far as we know, death could fall from the skies in 100 years, a decade, or as little as a year from now. Obviously we should be building up our monitoring and interception capabilities, but I don't think it's something we should rely on.


We could use that hundred years to work on the propulsion, radiation shielding, simulated gravity, materials recycling, etc., without actually going anywhere. Then when people go they will have have better methods from the time of their first trip.

Technically speaking we already have the propulsion issue licked, we just need to overcome our quite frankly ridiculous fear and paranoia with regards to nuclear technology. Likewise radiation shielding and simulated gravity are merely questions of engineering, which we've gotten damn good at.


We haven't even had any successful Biosphere 2 type experiments in the reuse of materials, which need to be made error-free before traveling anywhere.

Remember that a completely self-sustaining environment is only really needed for the trip there and back, and with powerful nuclear propulsion the round trip wouldn't be that long.

However, for a permanent human presence on somewhere like Mars for instance, self-sustainability will be a must. But in the case of Mars it shouldn't be as difficult as it first appears - oxygen can be cracked from the atmospheric CO2 or liberated from oxides in the local rocks, water should be plentiful provided a suitable location is chosen, and other essential minerals can be derived from readily accessible strata. Most promisingly, Martian soil appears to be somewhat suitable for life (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7477310.stm) - which is great news since it will save us lugging along the stuff from Earth or relying on hydroponics.

Further study is needed (as always), but things are looking good.


Also, any robotics that can be developed to cut Mars rock into building blocks or a related task will overlap with robotics technology that can be used on the earth.

Actually, the main problem is the lack of any suitable platform for transporting heavy automated equipment into Earth orbit and beyond - what's needed is a heavy lift launch vehicle (which like any Mars spacecraft should be nuclear for maximum power) that can transport any construction/preparation robots required to "pave the way" for future colonists.


Planners like Zubrin who want to have people on Mars very quickly would be wasting a lot of wealth, because the development work can be done on earth, go through many iterations to get it right, and then go to Mars with a more perfect infrastructure. I think Zubrin just wants to be alive to see the Mars colony, which is a selfish reason for rushing.

Personally I'm an advocate of a stepwise approach when it comes to colonisation - build up a proper orbital presence, involving asteroid mining and orbital heavy industry as opposed to the pathetic ISS, then moving on to the Near Earth Objects, then the Moon, then Mars, then Jupiter and its moons. Of course, once we have established ourselves properly in Earth orbit, it will be much easier to mount manned exploratory expeditions for the purpose of gathering scientific data relating to humans living and working in specific environments - like say, the space around Jupiter.

[ev]

Personally I think it by the time we are capable of gathering recources from space we'll have AI's that will be able to do it for us:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/3/3/633716522386007510-hal9000.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I think it by the time we are capable of gathering recources from space we'll have AI's that will be able to do it for us:

Well, that would be nice, but considering the brightest minds in the field of AI research have been banging their heads for decades against the problem of creating AI in the first place, let alone the even bigger problem of creating friendly AI, I'm not holding my breath. That's not to say that AI research isn't a worthwhile endeavour - we will almost certainly make some advances with regards to autonomous agents if not "hard AI" - but I think it would be foolish to rely on some silicon genie to do all the work for us.

[mikelepore]

But in the case of Mars it shouldn't be as difficult as it first appears - oxygen can be cracked from the atmospheric CO2 or liberated from oxides in the local rocks, water should be plentiful provided a suitable location is chosen, and other essential minerals can be derived from readily accessible strata.

Since we don't yet know how to generate the power those projects would require, I think that's a good example of the need for a long period of new research. Spirit and Opportunity use about 100 watts. To use the Mars environment to sustain people will require a power system that hasn't been invented yet. I believe there's nothing to gain by having a political order that NASA is directed to launch by the year 20xx, like Kennedy's "by the end of this decade" for the Apollo program. Just get started on the research, and a realistic schedule will later become clear.

[Revy]

I googled helium-3 and this was what I found. I suggest you read it. It talks about how the helium-3 on the moon will have amazing benefits for energy here on Earth. This is why the Moon is a much better destination than Mars, not only because it only takes days to get there, but because of this.

Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source,
in a nutshell

The Setting

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the He3 fusion plants have been proved out, and folks are frantically building them, just waiting for us to show up with with tanks full of helium-3.
The Ingredients of Nuclear Fusion

The names of the ingredients for nuclear fusion reactions -- deuterium, tritium, isotopes of helium -- sound complicated, but really these are only variations on substances found in everyday life. We'll assume you understand that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons are the very lightweight, negatively charged bits that buzz around the edges of an atom. Regular chemical reactions work by trading and sharing electons among atoms. For instance, when you burn a piece of paper in air, the chemical reaction involves some carbon atoms in the paper sharing electrons with some oxygen atoms from the air. The reaction forms carbon dioxide gas while the electons give off energy, as heat and light, when they change their orbits.



Protons and neutrons make up an atom's nucleus. In this discussion, we're concerned with rearranging the nucleus of an atom; hence the term "nuclear reaction." Generally, the neutrally charged neutrons keep the positively charged protons from fighting each other. An atom's nucleus is very tightly bound together, so when we start moving these things around, we're moving energy around in a big way.


Hydrogen is the familiar stuff used to make up water by combining it with oxygen. It's the most abundant element in the universe. Normal hydrogen has 1 proton and no neutrons. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that has a neutron next to its lonely proton.





http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-diagram.gif
You're familiar with helium gas as the stuff we use to blow up blimps and balloons. Normal helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons in its nucleus, giving it an atomic weight of 4.
Now, if you kick out one of neutrons, you get helium-3. This happens once in a while in very energetic nuclear reactors, especially the sun. The sun produces helium by fusing hydrogen atoms together, but about one in every ten thousand helium atoms comes out missing a neutron.
He3 casts lustful eyes upon that neutron in the deuterium, and will grab it if it gets a chance. We give it a chance by introducing the He3 to the deuterium at a high temperature.
The Mixture

He3 is used in a reaction with deuterium to produce energy:

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-eqn.gif
This is a nuclear fusion reaction. The deuterium and helium-3 atoms come together to give off a proton and helium-4. The products weigh less than the initial components; the missing mass is converted to energy. 1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output.
The fusion reaction time for the D-He3 reaction becomes significant at a temperature of about 10 KeV, and peaks about about 200 KeV. A 100 KeV (or so) reactor looks about optimum.
A reactor built to use the D-He3 reaction would be inherently safe. The worst-case failure scenario would not result in any civilian fatalities or significant exposures to radiation.
Note: MeV and KeV are measures of energy, standing for mega-electron volts and kilo-electron volts, respectively. In nuclear physics, these terms are used to refer to the amount of energy in a nuclear reactor. One electron volt is the energy acquired by one electron falling through a potential of one volt, equal to approximately 1.609 E-19 joule.
The supply

Some He3 is available on Earth. It is a by-product of the maintenance of nuclear weapons, which would supply us with about 300 kg of He3 and could continue to produce about 15 kg per year. The total supply in the U.S. strategic reserves of helium is about 29 kg, and another 187 kg is mixed up with the natural gas we have stored; these sources are not renewable at any significant rate.
In their 1988 paper, Kulcinski, et al. (see ref note below), estimate a total of 1,100,000 metric tonnes of He3 have been deposited by the solar wind in the lunar regolith. Since the regolith has been stirred up by collisions with meteorites, we'll probably find He3 down to depths of several meters.
The highest concentrations are in the lunar maria; about half the He3 is deposited in the 20% of the lunar surface covered by the maria.
To extract He3 from the lunar soil, we heat the dust to about 600 degrees C.
We get most of the other volatiles out at the same time, so we'll be heating up the rocks anyway. (To get the oxgyen out, we'll turn up the furnace to about 900 deg C and do some other nasty stuff; but that's a different story (http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/10/04/oxygen-extraction.html).)
The Energy

That 1 million metric tonnes of He3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terrawatt-years of thermal energy. The units alone are awesome: a terrawatt-year is one trillion (10 to 12th power) watt-years. To put this into perspective, one 100-watt light bulb will use 100 watt-years of energy in one year.
That's about 10 times the energy we could get from mining all the fossil fuels on Earth, without the smog and acid rain. If we torched all our uranium in liquid metal fast breeder reactors, we could generate about half this much energy, and have some interesting times storing the waste.
The Value

About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. To put it in perspective: that's about the weight of a fully loaded railroad box car, or a maximum Space Shuttle payload.
To assign an economic value, suppose we assume He3 would replace the fuels the United States currently buys to generate electricity. We still have all those power generating plants and distribution network, so we can't use how much we pay for electricity. As a replacement for that fuel, that 25-tonne load of He3 would worth on the order of $75 billion today, or $3 billion per tonne.
The Payoff

A guess is the best we can do. Let's suppose that by the time we're slinging tanks of He3 off the moon, the world-wide demand is 100 tonnes of the stuff a year, and people are happy to pay $3 billion per tonne. That gives us gross revenues of $300 billion a year.
To put that number in perspective: Ignoring the cost of money and taxes and whatnot, that rate of income would launch a moon shot like our reference mission every day for the next 10,000 years. (At which point, we will have used up all the helium-3 on the moon and had better start thinking about something else.)
Reference: Kulcinksi, Cameron, Santarius, Sviatoslavsky, and Wittenberg, "Fusion Energy from the Moon for the 21st Century." 1988. Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since we don't yet know how to generate the power those projects would require, I think that's a good example of the need for a long period of new research. Spirit and Opportunity use about 100 watts. To use the Mars environment to sustain people will require a power system that hasn't been invented yet.

Nonsense. Given a decent heavy lift launch vehicle, there's no reason why we can't bring along a decent-sized nuclear reactor and any additional fuel needed. In addition to electrical energy, a reactor could provide hot water for heating and bathing. For full self-sufficiency, we could go prospecting for Uranium, which is believed to be as abundant on Mars as it is on Earth.

[VolosIkram]

I have no doubt that we as a species have a potential to colonize distant planets and their moons.
I'm always in favour of scientific/technological progress... at that point in time I don't really see the need of sending man to the moon or Mars. Research must continue but then again looking at present situation... sorry, I'm pessimistic, though that is not in my nature, about colonizing and 'exploiting' other space objects than Earth in... I don't know... this century.

[mikelepore]

Nonsense. Given a decent heavy lift launch vehicle, there's no reason why we can't bring along a decent-sized nuclear reactor and any additional fuel needed. In addition to electrical energy, a reactor could provide hot water for heating and bathing. For full self-sufficiency, we could go prospecting for Uranium, which is believed to be as abundant on Mars as it is on Earth.

Today it costs over $20,000 per kilogram to put mass into orbit, so what would it cost to send one of today's nuclear reactors to Mars? What's the mass of a fission reactor in one of the Navy's nuclear submarines? I expect that it will be the policy for designers to miniaturize the machinery a lot before going anywhere. So I still say: several of the components they will want to use haven't been invented yet, so it's way too soon to propose even a rough launch schedule. If they rush the program, the typical NASA "go fever" will probably cause fatal disasters.

[Q]

1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output.

...

The Payoff

A guess is the best we can do. Let's suppose that by the time we're slinging tanks of He3 off the moon, the world-wide demand is 100 tonnes of the stuff a year, and people are happy to pay $3 billion per tonne. That gives us gross revenues of $300 billion a year.
To put that number in perspective: Ignoring the cost of money and taxes and whatnot, that rate of income would launch a moon shot like our reference mission every day for the next 10,000 years. (At which point, we will have used up all the helium-3 on the moon and had better start thinking about something else.)
This puts the price at 1.8 dollarcents per kiloWatt-hour (this excludes the costs of extracting the needed deuterium, building and upkeeping the fusion reactors, etc), which makes this very interesting economically. The only reason why we are on the moon yet, is because we're still far off commercial fusion reactors.

[Manifesto]

We should probably know more about our own planet before we go into space exploring others anyways. The oceans make up for 70% of the planet and we have explored only 5% of it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Today it costs over $20,000 per kilogram to put mass into orbit,

With currently-used booster designs, which are chemical rockets. Nuclear-powered rockets have a much greater energy density, which means more thrust per kilo of payload and hence less cost.


so what would it cost to send one of today's nuclear reactors to Mars? What's the mass of a fission reactor in one of the Navy's nuclear submarines?

As long as it masses under 1000 metric tons, we should be able to send it up all in one go using one of these (http://nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg10.aspx).


I expect that it will be the policy for designers to miniaturize the machinery a lot before going anywhere. So I still say: several of the components they will want to use haven't been invented yet,

What components? Be specific.


so it's way too soon to propose even a rough launch schedule. If they rush the program, the typical NASA "go fever" will probably cause fatal disasters.

You don't think the Apollo program was rushed? It was.


We should probably know more about our own planet before we go into space exploring others anyways. The oceans make up for 70% of the planet and we have explored only 5% of it.

The oceans will be considerably more difficult to colonise than other worlds, at least below the surface. I'm certainly not opposed to the exploration and colonisation of our oceans, but I think extraterrestrial destinations should be our priority.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

With the important exception of scientific data related to humans living and working in interplanetary space and on Mars.

Which is ultimately only relevant if you consider colonizing mars an ends unto itself.


Planets tend not to be conducive to the long-term survival of a species, and by colonising additional planets we will be increasing our long-term survival chances, because the odds of two, three, four planets being struck with civilisation wrecking disasters at the same time is geometrically unlikely.

Which does nothing for anyone on earth when the cataclysm hits does it?


Yes, it is different and certainly worthwhile, but that does not negate the value of learning how the human body responds to interplanetary and Martian environmental conditions.

Again, only valuable if your treating space colonization as an ends unto itself.


I disagree that resources are sufficient as a general rule. They may be sufficient at current usage rates under the dreadfully unequal capitalist system, but we must keep in mind future needs and desires, and start work now.

Currently i think fixing up our major inefficiencies and finding ways to further draw resources from the planet will yield greater dividends than space colonization.


A recipe for indefinite postponement. No thanks.

My thoughts on indefinite postponement are simple.
"Whatever."


As I've pointed out, developing a better society is not incompatible with forwarding our "manifest destiny". In fact I believe the two are co-dependant.

Let me be honest, most people I've gotten into discussions about this topic specifically consider continuing space exploration as means to stifle social development. And ultamitely i think your thinking in the same way they are, treating space colonization as an ends unto itself, and thus treating human lives as a means to satisfy that end.

Every bit of resources spent on space colonization for space colonizations sake is something not spent improving earth, ultimately a waste of resources for everyone on earth.
Now stancels talk of harvesting helium-3 from the moon looks intresting, but that is because it offers a clear benefit to actual people. When drawing resources from space becomes economically feasiable we should, but if it is not space should not be a concern outside of scientific research.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Which is ultimately only relevant if you consider colonizing mars an ends unto itself.

Well, duh. That's the whole point. Haven't you ever heard of not putting all your eggs in one basket?


Which does nothing for anyone on earth when the cataclysm hits does it?

Maybe not, but at least in such an event the human species will endure.


Again, only valuable if your treating space colonization as an ends unto itself.

Which is what we should be doing, post-haste.


Currently i think fixing up our major inefficiencies and finding ways to further draw resources from the planet will yield greater dividends than space colonization.

There's only one planet Earth, but there's thousands of asteroids that nobody will miss. Personally I think strip-mining Earth to support its population kind of defeats the point.


My thoughts on indefinite postponement are simple.
"Whatever."

That's because you lack vision, a most terrible impairment indeed.


Let me be honest, most people I've gotten into discussions about this topic specifically consider continuing space exploration as means to stifle social development.

Now how on Earth would that work? I think space colonisation would have precisely the opposite effect - borders are meaningless in space, light-speed delays in communication would encourage independance between the disparate areas of the Solar System, and with a little development any largeish asteroid or small moon can become a sovereign entity, unanswerable to any wannabe imperialists.


And ultamitely i think your thinking in the same way they are, treating space colonization as an ends unto itself, and thus treating human lives as a means to satisfy that end.

Space colonisation as I see it is in the interest of maintaining human life, even in the event of a world-wide distaster. Oh noes, how terrible! If we have independant human colonies, then it'll ruin the primmies' plans to re-wild the Earth when civilisation has been flattened!

Too fucking bad. I happen to like technological society; it has its problems, no doubt, but it also has so much more potential than spending our dwindling years as a species picking berries and sticking spears into boars.


Every bit of resources spent on space colonization for space colonizations sake is something not spent improving earth, ultimately a waste of resources for everyone on earth.

I'd say ensuring the continuation of our species is pretty damned important. Not to mention that space colonisation and development doesn't have to be a one-way street in terms of resource expenditure - I'm pretty I sure I mentioned earlier in this thread about the potential resources that can be gathered from asteroids and comets. If we can concentrate our resource acquisition and manufacturing facilities in orbit or otherwise off-world, then it'll do the Earth's biosphere a whole lot of good.


Now stancels talk of harvesting helium-3 from the moon looks intresting, but that is because it offers a clear benefit to actual people. When drawing resources from space becomes economically feasiable we should, but if it is not space should not be a concern outside of scientific research.

What you don't seem to realise is that we have to "spend money to make money". We need to put in the investment of resources soonish, while said resources are still relatively plentiful.