(10-10-2013, 11:16 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: -snip-

(10-09-2013, 11:38 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: The problem with mining ³He from the moon is we need an inexpensive and safe system to transport 70 tonnes (assuming that's metric tonnes, that's 70,000 kilograms or 154324 pounds!) of the stuff from the moon to the earth. Granted we only have to do that once every two and a half to three years, but that's a LOT of stuff. The space shuttle could get 24 metric tonnes to low earth orbit, but getting to low earth orbit and getting back to the earth from the moon are two totally different things.

Thankfully, the moon's escape velocity is about a fifth of the earth's, which makes the total delta-v required to actually get from the moon to the earth a LOT lower than the trip from the earth to the moon -- iirc it's something in the range of 40,000 lbs of propellant to bring an Apollo spacecraft off the moon's surface and back home as opposed to six million pounds to get it there.

Yeah.

We're gonna need a cheaper boat.

QUICK EDIT: Let's throw some numbers with dollar signs in there as well. An inflation-adjusted cost for a Saturn V rocket to lift a 100,000 pound (45,000 kg) payload into a translunar injection orbit (translation: you will go to the moon today) is $1,160,000,000 USD. If anyone can find estimates on global annual spending on electricity generation, those numbers would be awesome.

(10-09-2013, 02:20 PM)Krank Wrote: Does anyone else see the dangers in this? Aside from immediate danger to the miners and transporters, I am talking about long term here. The Earth relies on the moon. The gravitational pull and pull back creates the tidal effect in our oceans. If we start removing stuff from the moon, over a period of time it will start to loose mass. The gravitational pull/pull will lessen and the tide will start being affected. The tides directly effect ocean currents which is massive manipulator for the planet's weather systems. In other words, if we take enough material from the moon without replacing it we would be effectively killing our own planet in the process.

(10-09-2013, 06:07 PM)Krank Wrote:

(10-09-2013, 04:55 PM)Agmen of Eladesor Wrote: No, no dangers whatsoever... Remember, we're not talking about removing 1 million tons from the moon per year, only 70 ...

Have you studied ANY science or math whatsoever?

So you think I am some uneducated child or something?

Everyone here seems to forget how big business works. Say humanity does get to the moon and can cost effectively mine HE3, do you honestly think they would ONLY mine a certain amount each year and stop? I don't think so. The cost of maintaining a mining base on the moon (whether automated or manned) would entice whatever company sponsored said activity to mine out the fuel as fast and as much as possible. It probably would be into the millions of tons per year.

Besides, as long as the oil companies have their hands into the governments of the world, it won't come to light anyway. You'll be lucky if your great grand children see it happen.

(10-09-2013, 11:35 AM)SMGSterlin Wrote: WOO! ANOTHER FORM OF CREATING ENERGY THAT WILL COST CRAP TONS OF MONEY!

Meanwhile, there's people hungry, on the street, unable to find jobs, etc...

Priorities...

(10-09-2013, 11:38 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: QUICK EDIT: Let's throw some numbers with dollar signs in there as well. An inflation-adjusted cost for a Saturn V rocket to lift a 100,000 pound (45,000 kg) payload into a translunar injection orbit (translation: you will go to the moon today) is $1,160,000,000 USD. If anyone can find estimates on global annual spending on electricity generation, those numbers would be awesome.

(10-10-2013, 11:16 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: LOL that reaction is exactly why they get away with what they do. everything that people can't handle about the true scientific devolpment of the US airforce and DARPA turns into a conspiracy theory. When you actually learn about these things you get the info that is needed to make a real judgement. They don't want civilians or other governments having this technology, and events like 9/11 were done to allow them to pass a bunch of 'laws' to let them clamp down on civilian development. Would you want just anyone havning access to FTL capability? or antimatter warheads? How would we regulate or control such things in the public? Well they wouldnt so its kept classified. Yes, it is a conpsiracy. Thats what you call it when a bunch of people do stuff behind the backs of others. It sounds crazy because they inject truth into media, and use it to build up a mental resistance in the minds of the public. Public opinion on this matter is highly engineered by intel agencies, and such reaction is the desired result. Honestly the majority of the population can't understand any of this technology so they just ignore what's happening.