Um, no, it would be like refining from oil-sands, only about an order of magnitude worse for wear and tear on the equipment due to regolith's known properties as an abrasive.
Space Travel and Economies of Scale
- Thread starter asnys
- Start date
The helium is adsorbed, it would be de-adsorbed if the regolith were strongly heated. Sunlight is easy to concentrate.
Thing is, fusing 3He with deuterium is orders of magnitude more difficult than fusing tritium with deuterium. If a device is built which achieves a triple product which enables a net energy gain from 3He-2H fusion, then the same device might just as well burn 2H and 3H (deuterium and tritium).
The wild cards in the business, such as polywell and focus fusion, are trying to bypass the bremsstrahlung problem by utilizing non-equilibrium temperatures and a very strong magnetic field, respectively.
If they succeed, they're unlikely to "just" succeed in enabling 2H-3He fusion, they might as well produce conditions suitable for H-11B fusion, which is of course actually exactly what they're doing. There is no scarcity of boron nor of hydrogen. What I'm saying is that there is a window in how our knowledge of physics might develop that would lead to 3He being something fantastic that we would go to the moon to acquire, but that window isn't as big as people tend to imagine.
Look at the graph, higher = higher cross section, a reaction happens more often, the mixture is more reactive.
Right = temperature is higher, which is more difficult to achieve. Note the scales.
Thing is, fusing 3He with deuterium is orders of magnitude more difficult than fusing tritium with deuterium. If a device is built which achieves a triple product which enables a net energy gain from 3He-2H fusion, then the same device might just as well burn 2H and 3H (deuterium and tritium).
The wild cards in the business, such as polywell and focus fusion, are trying to bypass the bremsstrahlung problem by utilizing non-equilibrium temperatures and a very strong magnetic field, respectively.
If they succeed, they're unlikely to "just" succeed in enabling 2H-3He fusion, they might as well produce conditions suitable for H-11B fusion, which is of course actually exactly what they're doing. There is no scarcity of boron nor of hydrogen. What I'm saying is that there is a window in how our knowledge of physics might develop that would lead to 3He being something fantastic that we would go to the moon to acquire, but that window isn't as big as people tend to imagine.
Look at the graph, higher = higher cross section, a reaction happens more often, the mixture is more reactive.
Right = temperature is higher, which is more difficult to achieve. Note the scales.
A better proposal would be to set a fixed subsidy for upmass that is distributed to the launch companies in proportion to the percentage of the upmass launched. The more mass launched, the lower the subsidy per unit, so the subsidy naturally fades itself out over time.
You still have to get it into an enclosed space to bleed off the helium, which requires breaking it up (unless you were planning on just using loose rocks on the surface), which puts a hell of a lot of wear-and-tear on the equipment.
Regolith consists of a high proportion fine dust.
Though, if you read the rest of my reply you'll see how much I believe in the whole 3-He hype.
Though, if you read the rest of my reply you'll see how much I believe in the whole 3-He hype.
The huge advantage of 3he+2h is that all the reaction pructs are charged. D+T results in a neutron, which cant be contained, thus massively iradiating your machine. Which is why fusion isnt nearly as clean as its proponents was to make it out to be.
Helium 3 Deuterium is much, much cleaner that way.
Tallest Skil
Banned
NASA spends $150-$170 billion dollars on spaceflight every decade. Even $50B spent on reducing costs to 1/10th the current value would yield savings extremely quickly. So why isn't this done?
People claim a space elevator is infeasible.
Ludicrous, I say. It's one of few–if not the–ONLY option. Yeah, maintenance. Apparently it would reduce cost-to-space far over tenfold. Just hike up the price to exactly tenfold to cover maintenance costs. Boom. Tidy profit, ludicrous amount of commerce, new golden era of spaceflight.
I plan to stick around for a good long while, and I better darn well get to the moon cheaply before I need my first self-grown organ replacement.
And is reckoned to contain, at its most abundant, no more than 50 parts-per-billion. In addition, regolith dust does naturally billow a bit, as described here, so keeping out of places you don't want it might be a bit harder than you might expect.
It isn't a completely aneutronic reaction, 5% or so of the energy will come in the form of neutrons due to 2H-2H side reactions.
Far less than the 80% neutronicity of the 3H-2H reaction, but still enough neutrons to rapidly destroy a machine that isn't built with special materials to cope with them. However, like I stated earlier I think it is likely the discussion is moot since 3He-2H occupies a small "window" quite close to p-B11.
If the bremsstrahlung problem could be solved, using p-B11 would be far better than 3He-2H, since it is significantly less neutronic and the produced neutrons would have less power. Even so, focus fusion plans to use Be for their electrodes, since Be won't be activated.
Note that neutrons by themselves aren't "unclean", if and what kind of waste they result in depends fully on what material they're absorbed by. In the 2H-3H case (D T), the neutrons are needed to produce more tritium, so the neutrons will primarily hit a blanket of lithium and beryllium containing material, perhaps FLiBe, which is a mixture of the fluorides. No radioactive waste is generated by that part of the process (3H is radioactive but is also burned). It is however important to note that some of the neutrons will hit other parts of the reactor. By choosing the right materials the activation won't case much long-lived radionuclides, but yes, a fusion reactor is a radiation hazard.
It's just that it'd be far less of radiation hazard compared to even the cleanest of fission reactors, and the radioactive parts, if they were somehow scattered across the landscape, would become harmless in a few decades, as opposed to tens of thousands of years.
---
I think proton-chain fusion from the big yellow ball will prove more important in the long run, the fusion-in-a-box era is just to survive long enough to get up there.
it's fusion reactors waste is save after 210 years, not like Plutonium waste of fission reactors what is dangerous for millions of years....
they experiment with that under Polywell reactors
another "McGuffin" to get on moon is rare earths.
that is trace mineral used in Computers, Flatscreen TV, mobile phones, Solarcells and in All modern rechargeable batteries
now like the name say is rare earths, rare indeed and first Nation China monopolized there resource for them self.
while others like Bolivia think loud about a OPEC version for rare earths.
and Car industry wann use rechargeable batteries, there is not enough rare earths for all those electric cars
So what has the Moon to do with rare earths ?
it's soil is made from that stuff !
back to cheap rocket launch
there a interesting US army Rocket program called: MNMS (pronounced M&M's
)www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/MNMS.pdf
and this promo Video
it offer very Low cost for 10 kg payload in low orbit, at price of one million U$
Well, the KREEP is, to a certain degree. I don't know how high concentrations one would find though.
Technically, even the rarest rare earth element (Tulium) is far more common than say, silver. The thing is, those pesky elements doesn't seem like to form highly concentrated minerals. Scandium is worst in this aspect, it is useful in aluminum alloys, fuel cells and so on and about three times more common than lead in the Earth's crust. But do we find any Scandium ore? Nope. It is a byproduct at best.
back to cheap rocket launch
there a interesting US army Rocket program called: MNMS (pronounced M&M's
www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/MNMS.pdf
and this promo Video
it offer very Low cost for 10 kg payload in low orbit, at price of one million U$
lol!
It's had worse effects: it put NASA in a position to decide everything about commercial spaceflight.ANTIcarrot said:
It also maintained absolutely enormous sunk costs of ground personnel, none of whom are actually essential.Even allowing the lifters are no cheaper than a Saturn V (& I don't believe that for a second), bringing per kilo costs down is dead easy...
Changing the law so a commercial launch operator had to deal with sensible safety considerations, could get lifters licenced by FAA/NTSB instead of NASA, & could actually get insurance...IMO the payloads are there, if the costs aren't insane.
Start with that, you'll see lifters that are cheaper to build & fly, & bigger.
Which begins to make both SPS & O'Neill habs practical. (IMO, tho, building from NEAs makes way more sense than lifting it out of Earth's 11kps gravity well.)That's the usual absurd argument.ccdsah said:
If you really want to solve our problems of hunger & poverty, globally, putting Man in space is the ideal way: the resources are functionally unlimited.More to the point, we've always been explorers. I daresay when Columbus sailed, there were problems in Europe...
I'd wager there were problems even when H. sap. first left Africa--& I'll bet there were the same, "What's wrong with staying here?" complaints then, too.
There's something else most are forgetting: Mercury, Gemini, & Apollo were never about commercial spaceflight. They were about prestige. Want cheaper lifters? You need to figure out a reason for PRC or Japan or India to want lots of launches. Now it's the U.S. with the advantage, instead of the $1/day Chinese peasant making shoes... Add a global recession, to make USG think they need job creation at almost any cost....
Last edited:
Columbus couldn’t send robotic ships to Cathay. We can sent robots to Mars, and have, too. Exploration does not necessarily entail a human putting his boot on a piece of ground (be it ice, crag, desert, lunar regolith, or Martian regolith), and say something historic. We haven’t needed to do that to collect good data since the beginnings of spaceflight.
I'd wager there were problems even when H. sap. first left Africa--& I'll bet there were the same, "What's wrong with staying here?" complaints then, too.
The problem is the SLS and orion are not designed to facilitate large scale human habitation in space. They are designed as, first and foremost, vehicles designed to (1) send a crew of 4 to trans-lunar and cis-lunar space, and beyond, and return them, (2) reutilize shuttle heritage so that (3) the pork barrel stays filled up congressional hill way. What SLS is doing is comparable to 4 H. sap. being sent across the desert/sea to land on some shore/cross desert, leave some footprints and feces, and then return, while every other H. sap. stays in Africa.
The problem is more fundamental, and rooted in supply/demand, as well as initial investment, and a whole host of other factors.
Right, now they only have to reduce the costs by 10 times while maintaining that payload to be competitive with big rockets on a $/Kg scale, because 10 Kg for $1M is like $100,000/Kg.back to cheap rocket launch
there a interesting US army Rocket program called: MNMS (pronounced M&M's
www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/MNMS.pdf
and this promo Video
it offer very Low cost for 10 kg payload in low orbit, at price of one million U$
Robots & remotes can't do what Jack Schmidt did on 17, either: pick up something that looks interesting & end up making a major discovery.SAVORYapple said:
You're making the same argument as the opponents to Columbus in another form.
Where did I defend either one?SAVORYapple said:
What I want is something like DC-3s for space. What I want is for O'Neill habs to take up so much room in L4/L5, we've got to start putting them in Mars & Jupiter orbit. What I want is to take the people of Earth & turn it into a park.
You're all thinking too small for me.
Of course, it allows that 10 Kg satellite to be put into its desired orbit immediately, and not have to piggyback on another launch into a compromise orbit. Thats also the reason why Pegasus, despite costing 40 million dollars all told to put a puny 400 kg payload into LEO, is actually being purchased for launch.
Robots & remotes can't do what Jack Schmidt did on 17, either: pick up something that looks interesting & end up making a major discovery.
Hah. Yes, they can. For the price of sending a man to mars, using inefficient and bureaucratic NASA contracting/development, we could send a whole automated laboratory instead. Of course, I fully realize that you might be able to send a man to mars for just 5 billion dollars, when Falcon Heavy gets up and running. But that’s not the point
.No. I’m playing the devil’s advocate, as well as trying to get you to change your reasons for supporting manned spaceflight. Not because it’s going to be able to beat robotics for scientific development, because it’s not, at least, not anymore. What manned spaceflight is going to do is hopefully allow us to start setting space, to live in large O’Neill habitats.
I want those just as much as you do, but those are not to be, not soon. Besides which, O’Niell is badly designed and suffers from a number of design and engineering flaws, as well as some truly catastrophic failure modes.
Unfortunately, why we can’t get DC-3s in space now is lack of launch market. Its flat, and there is not that much demand. Which leads back to the whole reason we haven’t been able to build a airliner type LEO shuttle.
$30 million is closer, and that's with all the extras, you can launch for as little as half that. In addition, it has a payload of over 400 kg, which allows for a much more reasonable size of satellite than 10 kg.
Last edited:
yes, true, but 10 kg satellites, I'm thinking, will be harder to target with ASAT weapons, as well as being capable of flexibility if a common design can be reached, lowering costs through mass production.
That is just so staggeringly ill-informed....Genmotty said:
The amount of solar energy, just in immediate earth orbit, is equal to over eighty times the entire U.S. annual consumption.
The amount of ore in just one asteroid of about 1km diameter could equal the entire production of steel in the U.S. for a year--& there are over 100,000 asteroids known--known!--to be at least that size.
(Ceres alone is 600km!)Oh, BTW: there are a number of uses of vacuum down here on earth, so (if you can trap & retrieve it) there are, in fact, uses for that high-quality "nothing", too...
Ridiculous.Genmotty said:
The moon has 14-day "nights". And the delta-vee cost is absurd compared to NEA capture & construction in L4/L5.You're talking like the Europeans did just after Columbus: there's nothing in the New World but empty space.
(Some gold, maybe, if we're lucky.) Enough of anything to make the wealthiest nation on the planet? Nah, no way in hell.Just reaching L4/L5 can offer dozens of "nations" with equal opportunities. Start tapping the ice on Luna or Mercury (that maybe, maybe, makes sense--until we've got power satellites & beam-powered intersystem craft), never mind tapping the solar power at Venus or Mercury orbit, or the electric power generated by Jupiter, or the liquid hydrocarbons on Titan...
You haven't read Jerry Pournelle's A Step Farther Out. Or Harry Stine's Third Industrial Revolution. The possibilities are enormous.Genmotty said:
Not the deepest, no, but the conshelf wouldn't be a bad idea. Nor, BTW, would developing ocean thermal conversion, which can be built in any deep water in the tropics (Namibia, Ethiopia, Brazil--or especially, Mexico...), or in high latitudes (like, say, the Alaska Panhandle, Labrador, Finland, Kamchatka, Cape of Good Hope...)Genmotty said:
I doubt it, & IMO mining operations on the moon are a poor choice for the delta-vee costs, if no other reason.Athelstane said:
Agreed. I'm seeing the TVA or Hoover/Boulder Dam or Telstar as a model: paid for by the government, sold to private operators who pay it back with interest--even with the government remaining a (minority) partner.Athelstane said:
That may be. I still maintain manned flight is preferable. Ideally, you send a manned mission with extensive telefactors.SAVORYapple said:Hah. Yes, they can. For the price of sending a man to mars, using inefficient and bureaucratic NASA contracting/development, we could send a whole automated laboratory instead. Of course, I fully realize that you might be able to send a man to mars for just 5 billion dollars, when Falcon Heavy gets up and running. But that’s not the point
Fair enough. I'll defend manned science flights, but ultimately, I think science will never persuade anybody. It's got to be about self-interest. It's got to be about profit. Columbus didn't sail because he wanted to chart the Atlantic or the New World, & F&I didn't finance it for that--it was for the profit: to break the monopoly on spice shipment taxes. Spaceflight must be sold on the same basis: jobs & profits. Otherwise, we're all talking out our asses.SAVORYapple said:
I have a real fear if we don't do it soon, the green loons will kill off our ability to do it at all.SAVORYapple said:
If they do, if they sell enough people on the "only one Earth, we can't leave" nonsense, IMO humanity is cruising for the worst catastrophe in its history. It's liable to make the Black Death look like a head cold. (I am not exaggerating even a little.)Not an engineer, so I'll defer.SAVORYapple said:Besides which, O’Niell is badly designed and suffers from a number of design and engineering flaws, as well as some truly catastrophic failure modes.
TBH, I don't care, so long as something like it gets built. For starters, I'd be happy with hollowed-out asteroids.To which I'd add, "Are the opportunities & resources available there large?"
HELL YES!!
Talking about the resources in space, Heinlein said it best: "It's raining soup. Grab a bowl."