The Base Race: An Introduction to Moon Colonization, 2004-2030
Top Comments
All Comments (92)
-
Its goan get heated hoter then the cold war.
-
Usa will be the first to go to the moon.
-
No, that was for the same amount of energy, the same 15 Tw the US uses, the same 15 Tw that would be satisfied by 25 tons of He3 a year.
Nuclear power is useful in cases where you need a compact but powerful energy source. This is why military ships often use nuclear power. Fusion reactors, if they can be as compact as fission reactors, would be excellent for this sort of thing. No nuclear waste, nothing to build a dirty bomb out of.
And yeah, spaceships too.
-
Yes, He3 will be a future resource for us and the rest of the world. But haven't you people considered Hydrogen fuel cell as a resource for our cars? This can be used even on the moon if people figure out how to re-use the waste thats been used to make the electricity to power the car. So we can mine not only He3 but O, H, and other gases.
-
@SailorBarsoom He3 may require more processing than solar energy, but He3 produces more enrgy, and and handelled right, it has little to no pollution when being converted to fusion energy. And you didn't address the issue, of He3 becoming an alternative fuel source for our space crafts, which I have posted in a couple of posts now. Solar energy simply can't produce as much energy as fossil fuel does, at least not in a conventional time frame.
-
OK, you made me google. I did google, and I ran some numbers. Here's what I came up with:
Meeting all US energy needs, including fossil fuel replacement, requires 25 tons of He3 every year. This requires processing over 833 million tons of Lunar regolith every year.
To meet the same needs with powersats requires processing less than 22 million tons of Lunar regolith every year.
I can post my numbers, but it'll take several posts (it's more than 500 characters).
-
@SailorBarsoom "Solar: exists now" Dude you just proved my point. Solar energy exists now, yet it has little to no effect on our economy, it costs more than it produces, which is why we are still dependent on oil, and which is why it will never replace oil. 25 tons of He3 can power the U.S. for an entire year, wanna guess how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S for an entire year? It would take 100s of sq. miles of it! And it won't even power our spacecrafts/stations.
-
Solar: exists now
Fusion: might exist in 20 years
But fusion can replace oil faster than solar? Uh-uh. It can't even start to try in less than 20 years, and that's if everything goes right.
Fusion would be very useful, and I'd love to see it happen. And someday, I'm sure it will. But I reject the idea that we can't do anything until then.
-
@SailorBarsoom Glad you brought that up, fusion can also be used to power ships, not just cities, unlike solar sails. Fusion is the energy of the future, it can be used to even power interstellar spacecrefts if we can harness its full potential. Solar energy won't be able to replace oil in a short time frame, instead, it would drag on for at least 50 years, before becoming at all economical. Plus it can't provide an alternative fuel to chemical rockets, unlike fusion.
Excellent video. I truly hope that nations cooperate and build an international moon base.
velveetaslingshot 2 years ago 15
No laughing matter, it's actually real. There are far more plentiful resources that are more ethical, powerful, safe on the moon than fuels found here on earth. However true we still haven't mapped the entire ocean floor but geologist and scientist have have strong understanding of fuels found on ocean floors. Why you do think there they are spending trillions upon trillions of dollars on space exploration? To make money, you must invest money first. Don't be naive.
ecsancho 2 years ago 4