PDA

View Full Version : Russia to mine Moon


David Bedlam
01-27-2006, 08:51 AM
Taken from The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk)

Russia has staked out plans to recapture its Soviet-era space-race glory and start mining the Moon for a promising energy resource that scientists say could meet the Earth's power needs for more than a thousand years.

Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of Russia's giant Energia Space Corporation, has unveiled plans to build a permanent base on the Moon within a decade and to start mining the planet for helium 3, a sought-after isotope, by 2020.

The idea would be to use helium 3 to power thermo-nuclear power stations, harnessing its potency to achieve nuclear fusion.

The technology to exploit helium 3 is still under development, but it has been touted by a significant academic school of thought as "the ideal fuel of the future" with several countries expressing interest. The race is now on to be the first to make it work.

Russian scientists have come up with the idea of using "lunar bulldozers" to heat the Moon's surface in order to get at the resource, and Mr Sevastyanov has told an academic conference that Moscow is keen to institute regular cargo flights of helium 3 back to Earth as soon as possible.

His heavily state-controlled firm, one of the most powerful in the Russian space sector, is already drafting plans to turn the base and mining proposals into reality. Russia's new space shuttle Klipper would play a significant role in the project, as would the International Space Station.

"We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery ... of the rare isotope helium 3," Mr Sevastyanov said.
"The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind 50 to 100 years at the present rate of consumption. There are practically no reserves of helium 3 on Earth. On the Moon, there are between one million and 500 million tons, according to estimates." Much of those reserves are reported to be in the Sea of Tranquillity.

Mr Sevastyanov predicted that nuclear reactors capable of running on helium 3 would soon be developed and said that just one ton of the isotope would generate as much energy as 14 million tons of oil.

"Ten tons of helium 3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia," he added. However, Russia is not the only country interested in the technology. American scientists have expressed interest in helium 3, arguing that one shuttle-load of the isotope would be sufficient to meet US electrical energy needs for a year.

During the Cold War the space race had more to do with prestige but in an era when the world has become acutely aware of the finite nature of its resources, a new 21st-century race is developing with a very different aim: to secure a new source of energy for future generations. Helium 3's chief advantage is that it is not radioactive, so there would not be a problem disposing of it once it had been used.

But it is not without its sceptics, who argue that it will be too costly and impractical to develop.

The Russian cabinet earmarked £6.1bn last year to restore its cash-starved space agency to its former Soviet glory but whether that is enough to begin realising plans to mine helium 3 remains to be seen.


Sounds like a good idea to me. Next stop, space collonies?

Discuss.

Charles RB
01-27-2006, 09:28 AM
Excellent! Anything that results in non-pollutive fuel, space travel and the possibility of Luna-1 being built is fine by me!

The Xenos
01-27-2006, 09:28 AM
That... is awesome. I got teared up. Sierously. I'm sick of the crap back seat space travel has gotten. If my own damn US government has rather given up on such endevours, then I applaude the Russians who are daring to do such things.

Indigo Al
01-27-2006, 09:40 AM
I hate to say it, but I could see wars started over this..... :(

jerrymcl89
01-27-2006, 12:20 PM
I have no idea whether this plan is even vaguely plausible, but it would be cool if something could make further exploration/colonization of space economically viable.

titanfan
01-27-2006, 02:28 PM
I hate to say it, but I could see wars started over this.....

I think it would be fine. Mainly because, if they can pull this off (cheaply), there is going to be more than enough for everyone. What it would do is make the Middle East poorer than Africa and could possibly destabilize the region.

PatrickG
01-27-2006, 02:29 PM
Funny. I think the less money there is in the middle east, the better off the whole world will be.

Clement
01-27-2006, 06:12 PM
I'm no expert on space travel, but I seem to remember from documentaries about satelitte launches that launching something in space costs about 10 thousand dollars a kilogram. And I'm not expert on mining either, but from what I've seen, mining equipment looks heavy.

also, if they start mining the moon, where are we gonna put all our garbage and old people ?

Buzz Dixon
01-27-2006, 06:21 PM
Clearly you build the mining equipment on the moon, not ship it there.

Also what they're hoping to mine -- helium 3 -- is found in lunar top soil, so gathering it with solar powered remotely operated bulldozers it not that difficult a proposition.

Adem
01-27-2006, 08:04 PM
also, if they start mining the moon, where are we gonna put all our garbage and old people ?

Abandoned mine shafts.

Melchior
01-27-2006, 08:14 PM
What I find odd are the two following facts:

1. Helium-3 has been one of those wonder-fuels for how long now? 4-5 decades? The idea ain't new, wish they didn't hype it so bad in the article....

2. Last I checked, there's still no proper fusion reactors to use the helium-3. So the entire thing is based on the hope that SOMEONE in the next decade or so manages to fix the problems with it. I believe the current most favored method involves a mass bombardment of X-rays on the he-3 pellet.

Clement
01-27-2006, 10:43 PM
Clearly you build the mining equipment on the moon, not ship it there.

Also what they're hoping to mine -- helium 3 -- is found in lunar top soil, so gathering it with solar powered remotely operated bulldozers it not that difficult a proposition.


dude, shit weights the same even if you take it apart. It doesn't matter if you ship a whole bulldozer or if you ship it bolt after bolt and re-assemble it on the moon. if it's 10ks a kilo, it's gonna cost the same no matter how you get it up there.

titanfan
01-27-2006, 11:41 PM
I'm guessing that he meant build the mining equipment on the moon using the raw materials available on the moon rather than ship them.

Forsaken_One
01-27-2006, 11:54 PM
Well unless they're doing this through the UN it just isn't going to happen. As I recall the moon is International territory and the US isn't going to allow anyone other than itself to put a permenant base on there. Especially if it actually got a resource more potent than oil.

I think it would be fine. Mainly because, if they can pull this off (cheaply), there is going to be more than enough for everyone.
See I can't see this. Even if there is enough for everyone right off the bad, what gives you the idea the government/corporation that gets it will actually sell it off at reasonable prices? They'll have a monopoly and I doubt they'll be thinking of giving that monopoly up or not using it to it's full advantage.

It's like, say De Beers found an area that they wholly owned that had more diamonds in it ready for easy mining than all the diamonds currently in the world. Do you think they'd A) share this find with the rest of the world at market prices, horribly devaluing the diamond as the economy becomes flush with them? Or do you think they might B) hide the find and/or only take a few out at a time, keeping the diamond price artificially high?

I'm inclined to believe choice B is closer to the truth. And I'm inclined to believe that anyone who actually managed to mine the moon for this wonder element would probably do about the same.

Buzz Dixon
01-28-2006, 12:38 AM
dude, shit weights the same even if you take it apart. It doesn't matter if you ship a whole bulldozer or if you ship it bolt after bolt and re-assemble it on the moon. if it's 10ks a kilo, it's gonna cost the same no matter how you get it up there.

You only need to send up enough equipment to manufacture a bulldozer.

Consider:

The moon has 1/6 Earth's gravity, the bulldozer does not require the heavy massy and engine necessary on Earth to move large amounts of material.

Terrestrial bulldozers are heavy because they move dirt fast. A smaller, lighter machine can move the same amount of dirt but much more slowly. A remotely operated lunar bulldozer can be in operation for 2 weeks running, assuming it uses solar power and ceases operations in the dark.

From the Apollo missions we know the surface of the moon is rich in helium-3. A small, light bulldozer along the lines of the moon buggy is all that is needed.

Apollo missions were expensive because they were carrying lots of life support for the human crew and needed to travel fast in order to reach the moon and return before those life support systems failed. Smaller, cheaper unmanned rockets can carry equipment to the moon over a longer flight time.

This is all eminently doable.

Larry Dixon
01-28-2006, 11:40 AM
-shakes his fist-

Won't they ever learn? Gerry Anderson warned us! Nuclear material on the moon will cause the moon to be blasted out of orbit!

I weep for poor Moonbase Alpha....

-------

And Buzz, cheers on your observations about the gear. Also add in fuel cell tech: lightweight, stronger juice than similar size batteries, and rechargable with hydrogen---you can run machinery on fuel cells and recharge them with a take-along mini-refinery.

-------

OK, that does it, I'm putting on my copy of MOON ZERO TWO just for nostalgia's sake. I want to see what the future was, again.

SUPERECWFAN1
01-28-2006, 11:48 AM
This sounds great at 1st. But what happens when something goes wrong ? In space , on the moon things can go much worse than we can imagine. I wish them luck with the whole moon mining idea but theres gonna be problems regardless.

David Bedlam
01-28-2006, 01:15 PM
But the sci-fi nut in me wants to know, when we start developing space economicly, how soon till we get to space colonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonies#Orbit)?

Seriosuly, with the size of the earth's population increasing the way it is, we're going to have to find new places to live. So I vote for building some O'Neill Cylinders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder) or Stanford Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus) soon.

Buzz Dixon
01-28-2006, 08:38 PM
Dave, Earth's population growth has been decreasing over the last century, and in major industrialized nations is actually falling at a precipitous rate. Russia, Western Europe, and Japan are all well below population replacement growth rates. The U.S. is just slightly below population replacement birth rate, with newly arrived immigrants and the red states making up for those slackers in the blue states who won't have kids.

Japan is about the worse off of any industrialized nation, and has started admiting immigraonts from Korea and the Philipinnes to offset the problem. At the rate they're going, by 2030 there will be a significantly large non-Japanese population on the islands to seriously change the country's cultural matrix.

As nations industrialize and move away from agrarian societies, the need for large families to supply cheap labor drops off sharply. Even before birth control was introduced, European nations saw their population growth starting to decline as the industrial revolution spread.