Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

[Guest dr. strangelove]

In the NGD section some talk about going back to the moon and setting up a permanent base there came up, and I asked "Unless we get a fusion reactor that needs lunar helium 3 to run, what is the reason to go back to the moon on a permanent basis?"

 

Sounds like a fair question here so I'll ask it here.

 

As our demand for certain metals used in high technology grows, and we begin to encounter a scarcity of them on earth that leads to the term "Conflict metals" being used I suppose we could look to the moon for a new source of them, but until the cost of a desktop computer or laptop reached 10,000$ due to the rarity of these metals I don;t know if that will be a viable motivation.

 

A lunar observatory would be great for astronomy and science but again will it be an effective incentive for a project that will cost untold billions?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

As far as stepping stones to the Big Black, the moon has some advantages over asteroid mining (and vice versa).

Lunar conditions are fairly well understood, so there's less research budget needed.

Lunar gravity, small as it is, allows for the adaptation of many designs from terrestrial machines that don't work right in full zero-g

and the Moon makes a nice big catchers mitt for payloads being lobbed homewards for use back on the Blue Marble, if we ever do get harvesting operations going

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

So far every thing we know about biology in different gravities is from studying things (1) in Earth Normal gravity or (2) in Ziggy. We have absolutely no idea how humans will react to prolonged Moon or Mars gravity. A lunar base, we can study people, rotate them home quickly if problems develop. Mars gravity can be better simulated on the Moon or apparently the ISS, which is where I would have studied it but I wasn't asked.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Quarantine. You want to experiment with nanotech that can cause a grey ooze situation if you get it wrong? Fine, put a quarter of a million miles, some hard radiation, and harder vacuum between us and you.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Environmental concerns. Your manufacturing process pollutes? Fix it so it doesn't, or move it outside the atmosphere.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

If we are ever going to be a multiplanet species, we need to start somewhere. The Moon is three days away, Mars nine months. Which would be better for our field test / prototype settlement?

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

A lunar observatory would be great for astronomy and science but again will it be an effective incentive for a project that will cost untold billions?

 

The lunar farside is the perfect place for ultra-sensitive radio astronomy because it is completely isolated from Earth's radio noise.

[sinanju]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Practice. If you can establish a lunar colony that can extract raw materials and produce its own air, water, and food from the environment, it becomes a far cheaper operation--and proves the technology for other bases elsewhere in the system.

 

A staging ground. Once you're on the moon (or in earth orbit, really), you're halfway to anywhere in the system. All the heavy lifting (har har) has been done. The more resources you can extract and make use of (see my first point), the less we have to lift from earth, whether for the lunar colony itself or to supply more distant outposts.

[Guest dr. strangelove]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Mccoy makes a lot of excellent points, I di think he could have made them in one post by editing, but I'd still give him rep for his points. I made some of them, like we know nothing about the effects of prolonged exposure to 1/6th g, myself a while back when we debated asteroid vs. moon mining.

 

 

In addition to experimenting with nanotech on the moon as a failsafe we could conduct genetic engineering experiments on possibly useful yet possibly harmful microbes there.

 

We might not want to store nuclear wastes on the moon in case the dumps explode and blow the moon out of orbit, though.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Mccoy makes a lot of excellent points, I di think he could have made them in one post by editing, but I'd still give him rep for his points. I made some of them, like we know nothing about the effects of prolonged exposure to 1/6th g, myself a while back when we debated asteroid vs. moon mining.

 

 

In addition to experimenting with nanotech on the moon as a failsafe we could conduct genetic engineering experiments on possibly useful yet possibly harmful microbes there.

 

We might not want to store nuclear wastes on the moon in case the dumps explode and blow the moon out of orbit, though.

I did one point one post for the ease of anyone responding.

 

More to the point, we don't want to store nuclear waste on the Moon because no transportation is 100% safe, imagine a Challenger-style accident with a cargo ship load of old control rods.

[Guest dr. strangelove]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

I did one point one post for the ease of anyone responding.

 

More to the point, we don't want to store nuclear waste on the Moon because no transportation is 100% safe, imagine a Challenger-style accident with a cargo ship load of old control rods.

 

 

McCoy, the nuclear waste thing was a joke. Look up "Space: 1999".

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

McCoy' date=' the nuclear waste thing was a joke. Look up "Space: 1999".[/quote']

Don't have to look it up, watched the premiere of the pilot. Stupid idea then, stupid idea now, but if it's not nipped in the bud someone will suggest it seriously.

[Christopher]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Quarantine. You want to experiment with nanotech that can cause a grey ooze situation if you get it wrong? Fine' date=' put a quarter of a million miles, some hard radiation, and harder vacuum between us and you.[/quote']

Would that really help? Only as long as it is not semi-sentient/self-adapting goo.

It might be easier to do "nuclear decontamination" up there, but otherwise it's only giving the goo a place to reproduce without us being able to interfere.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Would that really help? Only as long as it is not semi-sentient/self-adapting goo.

It might be easier to do "nuclear decontamination" up there, but otherwise it's only giving the goo a place to reproduce without us being able to interfere.

Until it runs out of organic matter, or water, or we open the doors and let the vacuum in. Or if we do need to nuke it from orbit, no collateral damage.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

I say staging ground. Build an industrial base on the moon with rapid prototyping machines, flexible CNC systems, and other such multipurpose equipment. Use it to build a broader industry base. Use THAT to build spacecraft that don't have to struggle out of Earth's gravity well. Also do radio astronomy and long baseline interferometric optical astronomy, using locally built equipment.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Don't have to look it up' date=' watched the premiere of the pilot. Stupid idea then, stupid idea now, but if it's not nipped in the bud someone will suggest it seriously.[/quote']

 

Of course it was stupid. But given NIMBY, not too stupid to happen.

[Cancer]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

I remember pre-Challenger disaster there were lots of folks who suggested shooting nuclear waste to the Moon (or the Sun). I must have seemed foresighted to have mentioned the dangers of a launch. So far my other point hasn't come up (the other point was: What if we want it back some day?). I have some suspicions that one may crop up too.

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

I remember pre-Challenger disaster there were lots of folks who suggested shooting nuclear waste to the Moon (or the Sun). I must have seemed foresighted to have mentioned the dangers of a launch. So far my other point hasn't come up (the other point was: What if we want it back some day?). I have some suspicions that one may crop up too.

Yep. Why I also oppose doing anything like dropping it into the Marianas Trench or for that matter melting it into a salt dome.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Yep. Why I also oppose doing anything like dropping it into the Marianas Trench or for that matter melting it into a salt dome.

 

Which is why Yucca Mountain remains the most sensible near-term solution, and somebody with authority and guts need to tell Nevada's state government to stuff it. The flat fact is that the waste is NOT safe where it is right now, but we CAN safely transport it to a suitable repository. The argument against Yucca from some quarters about "But we can't be CERTAIN it will be absolutely leak-proof for the next billion plus years!" is complete bogus. Yucca Mountain doesn't have to perfectly retain the waste for a billion years, only for a few decades until we decide that we have a new use for it.

[Old Man]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Which is why Yucca Mountain remains the most sensible near-term solution' date=' and somebody with authority and guts need to tell Nevada's state government to stuff it. The flat fact is that the waste is NOT safe where it is right now, but we CAN safely transport it to a suitable repository. The argument against Yucca from some quarters about "But we can't be CERTAIN it will be absolutely leak-proof for the next billion plus years!" is complete bogus. Yucca Mountain doesn't have to perfectly retain the waste for a billion years, only for a few decades until we decide that we have a new use for it.[/quote']

 

I mostly agree, although I can't remember if that facility is designed in such a way that the waste can be removed easily.

[Guest dr. strangelove]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

You know, on the nuclear waste issue, the solution is so simple that I think some people must not want it solved. There is a safe, simple and effective way to dispose of nuclear waste, and it's called vitrification.

 

In a nutshell, you reduce your waste to a powder and mix it with sand at a very high dilution rate, then you melt the sand into solid glass blocks and burty them in a desert. The dilution lowers the radiation and fusing it into glass keeps it from leaking.

 

In america you'd set up a vitrification plant in a desert where you have a lot of sun and sand, use arrays of solar mirrors to focus the sun onto a singe spot and use the heat to melt the sand/waste mix.

[sinanju]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Yep. Why I also oppose doing anything like dropping it into the Marianas Trench or for that matter melting it into a salt dome.

 

Yeah, I like Robert Heinlein's suggestion: mix the nuclear waste into glass. Make blocks. Stack them in some inhabitable piece of useless desert. Build a fence around it. Put lots of signs around it saying (in multiple languages), "If you cross this line, you will die." Let nature take its course. When, eventually, we discover a use for all that nuclear waste, retrieve it and put it to good use.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Pro tip for SF readers. If Robert Heinlein thinks it's a good idea, check the data.

 

And now that we have the Internet, it's easy!

Conclusions

This report presents information in occurrence reports, other documents, and insights from waste vitrification projects. The study shows that significant progress is

being made in the development and application of melter systems for treating waste

forms. It also demonstrates that the vitrification of low-level waste can be complex

because of its heterogeneous and organic makeup; thus the planning and management of low-level waste vitrification projects need much of the careful consideration

given to high-level waste projects.

Many other problems and issues remain in the vitrification of radioactive waste

and significant lessons learned are evolving. A more detailed study is planned, as

Phase 2 of this project, that incorporates root cause analyses, investigates operational

safety, and broadens to encompass other waste treatment technologies and cost/benefits. A lessons learned workshop with domestic and international experts is also

planned

 

 

This is a 1999 report summarising 20 years of work on the vitrification of low-level radioactive waste only. Many technical issues emerged, not all of which are resolved, and many things went wrong. (Molten radioactive waste pouring out of the facilities and into nearby rivers, that kind of thing.) In the state of the technology, things will continue to go wrong if vitrification is adopted on a large scale. We need more research, and more trials.

[Beast]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

to get great gobs of energy you are going to have to use a turbine system

having 1 here on earth first might help

going with a decay system.like what powers some probes is not going to cut it

Fusion will require a power source in place before any power from the fusion reactor takes place

 

why not just ship up a nuclear reactor like 1 for a sub

assemble on the moon then fuel it

it may take a few trips

might even be able to use something up there for shielding

we have people right now that can run a sub power plant and can build those

[McCoy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

I mostly agree' date=' although I can't remember if that facility is designed in such a way that the waste can be removed easily.[/quote']

IIRC the Yucca Mountain sight is designed so that the canisters melt their way into the salt.

 

Silliest idea I ever heard was build a reactor on Mars, stack all the nuke waste around it, then pull the control rods and allow it to "China Syndrome" to the core. Intent was to start some vulcanism as part of a terraforming project.

 

So much wrong I literally don't know where to begin.