Why obama has destroyed out NASA.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=all
cience : Space
Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel
John Lasker 12.15.06
NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry.

Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -- futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades away from commercial deployment.

Helium-3 is considered a safe, environmentally friendly fuel candidate for these generators, and while it is scarce on Earth it is plentiful on the moon.

As a result, scientists have begun to consider the practicality of mining lunar Helium-3 as a replacement for fossil fuels.

"After four-and-half-billion years, there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's influential NASA Advisory Council, its preeminent civilian leadership arm.

The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3.

Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through the Taurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico).

The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which targets Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong.

Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters.

At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced small-scale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one milliwatt of power on a continuous basis.

While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away.

The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year.
NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020.

Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3.

"We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."

Russian space geologist Erik Galimov told the Russian Izvestia newspaper that NASA's plan to colonize the moon will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out."

Schmitt told a Senate committee in 2003 that a return to the moon to stay would be comparable "to the movement of our species out of Africa."

The best way to pay for such a long-term mission, he said, would be to mine for lunar helium-3 and process it into a fuel for commercial fusion .

In a 1998 op-ed for Space News, Schmitt criticized the 1979 United Nations- sanctioned Moon Treaty, which forbids ownership of lunar territory by individuals or separate nations.

"The mandate of an international regime would complicate private commercial efforts," Schmitt wrote. "The Moon Treaty is not needed to further the development and use of lunar resources for the benefit of humankind -- including the extraction of lunar helium-3 for terrestrial fusion power."

Schmitt declined to comment for this article. But Kulcinski said their lunar helium-3 research is entirely separate from their NASA duties.




I knew that there had to be a great reason obama started limiting and weakening the NASA SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM.. Helium 3 harvesting from the moon's surface could solve our fuel needs for ten thousand years or possibly more! Now we see why obama has been dismantling our shuttle program! I've been discussing this as his reason for a few years now with my friends.
Just imagine, one shuttle load would power the entire United States for a full year!
Helium 3 mining could be worth many, many hundreds of trillions of dollars.
I started looking for reasons that obama would start dismantling and not funding NASA AND THIS IS IT IMHO.
Everything the guy does is against our future interests!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Now we see why obama has been dismantling our shuttle program! I've been discussing this as his reason for a few years now with my friends.
Just imagine, one shuttle load would power the entire United States for a full year!
Helium 3 mining could be worth many, many hundreds of trillions of dollars.
I started looking for reasons that obama would start dismantling and not funding NASA AND THIS IS IT IMHO.
Everything the guy does is against our future interests!--Tyr


The Bush Administration cancelled the Space Shuttle program in the wake of the Columbiaaccident.

On January 14, 2004, President Bush gave a speech (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404) in which he announced "a new focus and vision for future exploration."
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-bush-cancelled-space-shuttle.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48346414


New Mars rover hunts for life by 'cooking' rocks
When rocks are heated up to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, secrets may be revealed
NASA / JPL-Caltech
Technicians and engineers carefully install the 88-pound (40-kilogram) SAM instrument on the Curiosity rover. The picture was taken at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., on Jan. 6, 2011.By Elizabeth Howell

updated 2 hours 20 minutes ago 2012-07-26T23:41:15
The recipe for seeking habitability on the Red Planet using NASA's next rover will start with a pinch of Mars — either a few grains of soil or a wisp of atmosphere.

Scientists will then follow a simple recipe: Place the Martian bit into the rover's Sample Analysis of Mars (SAM) instrument, cook to up to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (980 degrees Celsius), then measure the result.

The new rover, Curiosity, is the centerpiece of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission, which launched in November 2011 and is due to land on Mars Aug. 6. The $2.5 billion project is aiming to learn whether Mars is, or ever was, hospitable to life.

NASA tried an experiment similar to SAM almost 40 years ago on its Viking Mars landers, and the results are still being debated today. For example, the landers' discovery of chlorine compounds in the soil was initially believed to be cleaning fluid contamination, but a 2011 study hypothesized these could have been leftovers of organic life.

SAM, says NASA, will produce far more precise results.

"The surface experiments on Viking were designed to do a home-run-swing-for-the-fences life detection experiment," said Ashwin Vasavada, MSL's deputy project scientist. "SAM is significantly more capable than Viking ... it can find much smaller molecules and it can detect things more sensitively." [11 Amazing Things NASA's Huge Mars Rover Can Do]

The microwave-size experiment package, wedged in the front of the Mini Cooper-size rover, is so complex that NASA considers SAM itself more complicated than many of its spacecraft.

.Samples inside the package must first be "cooked" in an oven, then analyzed using instruments commonly found on the shelf of respectable scientific laboratories on Earth.

"Different constituents in that sample will break down at different temperatures and become gas," said Vasavada.

Clay, Vasavada said as an example, begins to break down at 530 degrees Fahrenheit (277 degrees Celsius). Therefore, a puff of water appearing on a Martian sample cooked to that temperature would imply that it is partly made of clay.

SAM includes a gas chromatograph made up of six different tubes; each one is able to pick up a different kind of compound.


I bet they are looking for helium 3 more than anything else...--Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

Tyr, please keep in mind that the moon's supply of Helium 3 is speculative. In addition, in order to best utilize it, we need fusion reactors and those are still a long way away from becoming a reality.
Not saying I don't want the U.S. maintaining center stage in space exploration but we aren't in a position to do it at the moment based on speculation, non-existent technology, and one hell of a costly bill to pay for lunar mining capabilities. I can't even imagine what that would cost to make a reality.

My suggestion: Prove we can manufacture power using Fusion safely and reliably first then go hell bent for the moon.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-bush-cancelled-space-shuttle.html

My understanding was the Constellation program was to replace the Shuttle program but --read this--------------------------------------------obama cancelled the Constellation program!---------------------------------------
Obama cancelled that not Bush.. And NASA has recieved far less funding! With obama instructing NASA to be a part of the muslim outreach program of all things!--Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

With obama instructing NASA to be a part of the muslim outreach program of all things!--Tyr
I will usually argue with your zany Obama/Muslim conspiracies but in this case you are correct.
That's actually a fact!

:laugh:

[Anton Chigurh]

I knew that there had to be a great reason obama started limiting and weakening the NASA SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM.. Helium 3 harvesting from the moon's surface could solve our fuel needs for ten thousand years or possibly more! Now we see why obama has been dismantling our shuttle program! I've been discussing this as his reason for a few years now with my friends.
Just imagine, one shuttle load would power the entire United States for a full year!
Helium 3 mining could be worth many, many hundreds of trillions of dollars.
I started looking for reasons that obama would start dismantling and not funding NASA AND THIS IS IT IMHO.
Everything the guy does is against our future interests!Umm.... This doesn't have and couldn't have anything to do with the shuttle, since it is and always was, totally incapable of travel to the moon. Furthermore, the phasing out of the shuttle fleet started WAY back, during Bush's tenure. Because they are ancient and costly.

World Net Daily really is a stupid source of information.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, please keep in mind that the moon's supply of Helium 3 is speculative. In addition, in order to best utilize it, we need fusion reactors and those are still a long way away from becoming a reality.
Not saying I don't want the U.S. maintaining center stage in space exploration but we aren't in a position to do it at the moment based on speculation, non-existent technology, and one hell of a costly bill to pay for lunar mining capabilities. I can't even imagine what that would cost to make a reality.

My suggestion: Prove we can manufacture power using Fusion safely and reliably first then go hell bent for the moon.


http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/227-helium-3-fusion.html


Professor Dennis Kulcinski

Prof. Kulcinski has a working helium-3 fusion reactor in his lab:
Professor Kulcinski's lab is running the only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world. He has an annual research budget that is barely into six figures and allows him to have five graduate research assistants working on the project. Compared to what has been spent on other fusion projects around the world, the team’s accomplishments are impressive. Helium-3 would not require a tokomak reactor like the multibillion-dollar one being developed for the international ITER project. Instead, his design uses an electrostatic field to contain the plasma instead of an electromagnetic field. His current reactor contains spherical plasma roughly ten centimeters in diameter. It can produce a sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second producing about a milliwatt of power while consuming about a kilowatt of power to run the reactor. It is nuclear power without highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Already a working reactor going and considering the multi hundred trillion dollars to be harvested the money to research and go get it is there as well my friend.
Produces about a milliwatt of power while consuming only a kilowatt of power. Thats quite a ratio ,is it not?
And this is only a prototype, one would expect later even better results IMHO.
Who cares 30 or 50 years away, the earth should still be here if we havent nuked it into oblivion by then .--Tyr

[red state]

:flyflag:

I like the word "OBLIVION".

[Noir]

...some posts just beggar belief.

[Noir]

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/227-helium-3-fusion.html
Produces about a milliwatt of power while consuming only a kilowatt of power. Thats quite a ratio ,is it not?

You are aware that a milliwatt is a thousandth (1x10^-3) of a Watt , and a Kilowatt is one thousand (1x10^3) Watts?

i.e. there is a 10^6 differnce in consumption and production. So currently you are putting in a million times more energy that you are getting out...yeah, quite a ratio...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Umm.... This doesn't have and couldn't have anything to do with the shuttle, since it is and always was, totally incapable of travel to the moon. Furthermore, the phasing out of the shuttle fleet started WAY back, during Bush's tenure. Because they are ancient and costly.

World Net Daily really is a stupid source of information.


What does muslim outreach have to do with shuttle, NASA or anything regarding the space research program and/or exploration? Why did obama divert it that direction if not to further weaken it and take it off course.
To mine and bring back helium 3 we need a shuttle that could make multiple trips to and from the moon, so why scrap the shuttles we have , then why scrap the Constellation program that was designated to furnish the replacements? My point still stands methinks. Obama wants America out of the race but China, Russia and India are all in and gaining fast.-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

What does muslim outreach have to do with shuttle, NASA or anything regarding the space research program and/or exploration? Why did obama divert it that direction if not to further weaken it and take it off course.
To mine and bring back helium 3 we need a shuttle that could make multiple trips to and from the moon, so why scrap the shuttles we have , then why scrap the Constellation program that was designated to furnish the replacements? My point still stands methinks. Obama wants America out of the race but China, Russia and India are all in and gaining fast.-TyrNonsense. Utter crap.

What part of "the shuttles could never go to the moon" do you not understand? They are ORBITERS.

[Anton Chigurh]

Reagan/Bush Used NASA for Muslim Outreach Before Obama (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/24268/sadly-obama-not-1st-to-use-nasa-for-islamo-outreach-reagan-bush-were/)



First person account. Know who she is?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are aware that a milliwatt is a thousandth (1x10^-3) of a Watt , and a Kilowatt is one thousand (1x10^3) Watts?

i.e. there is a 10^6 differnce in consumption and production. So currently you are putting in a million times more energy that you are getting out...yeah, quite a ratio...

What you fail to get is that helium 3 has already been proven to have the capacity to fuel for tens of thousands of years our nation. We just have to find enough of it and the moon has a huge supply!
The moon which practicly sits on us! This helium 3 is our future and that is why America is being cut out of the equation.
Dont worry about the math ,his first reactor is a very small prototype. They already know helium3's potential as a fuel.
You should perhaps reread my first post in which it states a shuttle load could power our nation for a year!-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

What you fail to get is that helium 3 has already been proven to have the capacity to fuel for tens of thousands of years our nation. We just have to find enough of it and the moon has a huge supply!Nonsensical pie in the sky crap.

Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any lunar mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3) (http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9311-2.pdf)

Alternatively, we DO make H-3 out of tritium.... But the amount of tritium production needed far outstrips any benefit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nonsense. Utter crap.

What part of "the shuttles could never go to the moon" do you not understand? They are ORBITERS.

Not crap, the intent is to divert NASA away from space. That is unless you think we will reach out in space in that muslim outreach program. :laugh:
As to the shuttle , I've never said they would be used, just that moving NASA away from shuttle technology when a shuttle will be necessary to go to and from the moon to get and bring back helium 3.
So why abandone--shuttle- technology?
Whats utter Crap? the helium3 , its use, it being abundant on the moon, what?
Try researching and you find that China, Russia and India are already onboard to try to mine the moon for helium3.
Think they are chasing a wild goose ? I dont..-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Not crap, the intent is to divert NASA away from space. That is unless you think we will reach out in space in that muslim outreach program. :laugh:
As to the shuttle , I've never said they would be used, just that moving NASA away from shuttle technology when a shuttle will be necessary to go to and from the moon to get and bring back helium 3.
So why abandone--shuttle- technology?
Whats utter Crap? the helium3 , its use, it being abundant on the moon, what?
Try researching and you find that China, Russia and India are already onboard to try to mine the moon for helium3.
Think they are chasing a wild goose ? I dontWhen you read then parrot nonsense from WND, your posts are parroted nonsense and utter crap.

[Thunderknuckles]

What you fail to get is that helium 3 has already been proven to have the capacity to fuel for tens of thousands of years our nation. We just have to find enough of it and the moon has a huge supply!
The moon which practicly sits on us! This helium 3 is our future and that is why America is being cut out of the equation.
Dont worry about the math ,his first reactor is a very small prototype. They already know helium3's potential as a fuel.
You should perhaps reread my first post in which it states a shuttle load could power our nation for a year!-Tyr
No doubt that Fusion will change human civilization. The problem we have is that we have to put much more energy in than what we get out. I have no doubt it can be done. We just have to prove it first before making a mad dash.

[Noir]

What you fail to get is that helium 3 has already been proven to have the capacity to fuel for tens of thousands of years our nation. We just have to find enough of it and the moon has a huge supply!
The moon which practicly sits on us! This helium 3 is our future and that is why America is being cut out of the equation.
Dont worry about the math ,his first reactor is a very small prototype. They already know helium3's potential as a fuel.
You should perhaps reread my first post in which it states a shuttle load could power our nation for a year!-Tyr

Don't worry about the math? I think i will worry about the math, and as you are someone who sees 'Kilowatts in, milliwatts out' as 'quite a ratio' i think you should concern yourself much more with basic mathematics.

Nevermind that the moon 'sits on us' ...at near 400,000 Kilometeres away, good grief.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nonsensical pie in the sky crap.

Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any lunar mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3) (http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9311-2.pdf)

Alternatively, we DO make H-3 out of tritium.... But the amount of tritium production needed far outstrips any benefit.

Ok, have it your way. Russia , China and India are investing and planning on going on a wild goose chase to the moon to harvest bullshit..-:rolleyes:-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Don't worry about the math? I think i will worry about the math, and as you are someone who sees 'Kilowatts in, milliwatts out' as 'quite a ratio' i think you should concern yourself much more with basic mathematics.

Nevermind that the moon 'sits on us' ...at near 400,000 Kilometeres away, good grief.

Are you for real? In space they measure distance in lightyears genius, the moon sits practicly on top of us when talking about space travel! In Space a 1000 light years in distance is not a great distance ! And you foolishly declare 400,000 kilometers a great distance, my God that's stupid as hell! Good grief!!! Light travels at over 186,000 miles a second, you do the math on the distance it travels in a year! A lightyear distance is considered very very short..
I understood the math on the power ratio as well. What you foolishly think is that because something doesnt start at 100% capacity its useless or not functionable. That would toss out 99% of everything IMHO.-Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

Are you for real? In space they measure distance in lightyears genius, the moon sits practicly on top of us when talking about space travel! In Space a 1000 light years in distance is not a great distance ! And you foolishly declare 400,000 kilometers a great distance, my God that's stupid as hell! Good grief!!! Light travels at over 186,000 miles a second, you do the math on the distance it travels in a year! A lightyear distance is considered very very short..
I understood the math on the power ratio as well. What you foolishly think is that because something doesnt start at 100% capacity its useless or not functionable. That would toss out 99% of everything IMHO.-Tyr
Tyr, you're starting to foam at the mouth.
Stop talking theory and deal with reality. Travelling at light speed is not even a consideration. We must deal with what we can do now and that is that travelling to the moon takes 3 days, 4 days for an actual landing.
In theoretical space time this distance is not even the width of a human hair. In human reality, it is an enormous undertaking.

[Missileman]

Are you for real? In space they measure distance in lightyears genius, the moon sits practicly on top of us when talking about space travel! In Space a 1000 light years in distance is not a great distance ! And you foolishly declare 400,000 kilometers a great distance, my God that's stupid as hell! Good grief!!! Light travels at over 186,000 miles a second, you do the math on the distance it travels in a year! A lightyear distance is considered very very short..
I understood the math on the power ratio as well. What you foolishly think is that because something doesnt start at 100% capacity its useless or not functionable. That would toss out 99% of everything IMHO.-Tyr

Our fastest ever spaceship would take over 13,000 YEARS to travel a light year. In a universal sense, a light year is a small distance, but to human beings it is an impossible span.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, you're starting to foam at the mouth.
Stop talking theory and deal with reality. Travelling at light speed is not even a consideration. We must deal with what we can do now and that is that travelling to the moon takes 3 days, 4 days for an actual landing.
In theoretical space time this distance is not even the width of a human hair. In human reality, it is an enormous undertaking.

I never stated it wasnt an enormous undertaking. I did state the enormous potential. Also it may turn out to be vastly more Helium 3 there than was previously estimated or even that they deliberately held back the true number if it was an extremely much larger number.
I've only been studying deep space discoveries, black holes , neutron stars, spiral galaxies, dark matter etc. for a few decades so my space knowledge isnt exactly lacking.
Remember back when man lived in caves? Well , we arent in caves anymore and we had better find and learn what we can harvest from our solar system for man to survive because this planet has a finite amount of resources!
I'm wondering if Mars has helium 3 and how much myself.
These doubting Thomases are the same that stated man would never fly, never go to the moon, never just about any advancement that mankind has ever made !
Even at average of 5 days a trip a shuttle could do at least 4 a month . Estimate was one shuttle load could power the entire United States a year! Thats 48 years of fuel in one year of 5 day missions. In a decade that would be 480 years of fuel at the first rate of usage even with small increase in use that would be about 400 years of fuel in a decade.
True, all theory except the helium3 is real, is there and has magnificent potential . That part is real my friend!-Tyr

[fj1200]

My understanding was the Constellation program was to replace the Shuttle program but --read this--------------------------------------------obama cancelled the Constellation program!---------------------------------------
Obama cancelled that not Bush.. And NASA has recieved far less funding! With obama instructing NASA to be a part of the muslim outreach program of all things!--Tyr

And one of the very few times that he's actually looking into privatization.



The idea of outsourcing a portion of NASA's manned space program to the private sector gained momentum after recommendations from a presidential panel appointed last year. The panel, chaired by former Lockheed Martin Corp. Chairman Norman Augustine, argued that allowing companies to build and launch their own rockets and spacecraft to carry American astronauts into orbit would save money and also free up NASA to focus on more ambitious, longer-term goals.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Our fastest ever spaceship would take over 13,000 YEARS to travel a light year. In a universal sense, a light year is a small distance, but to human beings it is an impossible span.

Yes but Im not talking about us traveling at the speed of light. I was correcting his assertion that my comment of the moon sitting practicly on us was ridiculous as ridiculous itself. For I was speaking in space travel the distance is miniscule. Thats why I pointed to the lightyear as a distance of measurement used when speaking of distances in space--the subject was the moon's distance from earth. The moon's distance in space terms could and should be described as practicly sitting on us IMHO. He tried to scoff at that description which was silly on his part IMHO.
SURE ITS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS TO MATTER AS IT APPROACHES THAT SPEED? Only thing we know that travels at that speed is energy not matter. Man will never get anywhere close to traveling at light speed for qanumber of reasons.-Tyr

[Noir]

Are you for real? In space they measure distance in lightyears genius, the moon sits practicly on top of us when talking about space travel! In Space a 1000 light years in distance is not a great distance ! And you foolishly declare 400,000 kilometers a great distance, my God that's stupid as hell! Good grief!!! Light travels at over 186,000 miles a second, you do the math on the distance it travels in a year! A lightyear distance is considered very very short..
I understood the math on the power ratio as well. What you foolishly think is that because something doesnt start at 100% capacity its useless or not functionable. That would toss out 99% of everything IMHO.-Tyr

Obvious troll is obvious, not understanding milli and Kilo could be the talk of an idiot, but the above post could only be idiocy by intent, you've wasted enough of my time, good day.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obvious troll is obvious, not understanding milli and Kilo could be the talk of an idiot, but the above post could only be idiocy by intent, you've wasted enough of my time, good day.



Equally obvious is just how shortsighted you are. That ratio from a prototype was of nuclear fusion not nuclear fission. A daunting task to produce and control nuclear fusion but the potential is off the charts for it has no radioactive by products.
Really? What are you doing here but wasting(killing )time?
Here is a short explaination to enlighten you on both fusion and fission.-Tyr

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch23/fission.php
Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear Fission Nuclear Fusion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Fission

The graph of binding energy per nucleon suggests that nuclides with a mass larger than about 130 amu should spontaneously split apart to form lighter, more stable, nuclides. Experimentally, we find that spontaneous fission reactions occur for only the very heaviest nuclides those with mass numbers of 230 or more. Even when they do occur, these reactions are often very slow. The half-life for the spontaneous fission of 238U, for example, is 1016 years, or about two million times longer than the age of our planet!

We don't have to wait, however, for slow spontaneous fission reactions to occur. By irradiating samples of heavy nuclides with slow-moving thermal neutrons it is possible to induce fission reactions. When 235U absorbs a thermal neutron, for example, it splits into two particles of uneven mass and releases an average of 2.5 neutrons, as shown in the figure below.

The absorption of a neutron by 238U induces oscillations in the nucleus that deform it until it splits into fragments the way a drop of liquid might break into smaller droplets

More than 370 daughter nuclides with atomic masses between 72 and 161 amu are formed in the thermal-neutron-induced fission of 235U, including the two products shown below.

Several isotopes of uranium undergo induced fission. But the only naturally occurring isotope in which we can induce fission with thermal neutrons is 235U, which is present at an abundance of only 0.72%. The induced fission of this isotope releases an average of 200 MeV per atom, or 80 million kilojoules per gram of 235U. The attraction of nuclear fission as a source of power can be understood by comparing this value with the 50 kJ/g released when natural gas is burned.

The first artificial nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi and co-workers beneath the University of Chicago's football stadium and brought on line on December 2, 1942. This reactor, which produced several kilowatts of power, consisted of a pile of graphite blocks weighing 385 tons stacked in layers around a cubical array of 40 tons of uranium metal and uranium oxide. Spontaneous fission of 238U or 235U in this reactor produced a very small number of neutrons. But enough uranium was present so that one of these neutrons induced the fission of a 235U nucleus, thereby releasing an average of 2.5 neutrons, which catalyzed the fission of additional 235U nuclei in a chain reaction, as shown in the figure below. The amount of fissionable material necessary for the chain reaction to sustain itself is called the critical mass.

The Fermi reactor at Chicago served as a prototype for larger reactors constructed in 1943 at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington, to produce 239Pu for one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. As we have seen, some of the neutrons released in the chain reaction are absorbed by 238U to form 239U, which undergoes decay by the successive loss of two �/i>--particles to form 239Pu. 238U is an example of a fertile nuclide. It doesn't undergo fission with thermal neutrons, but it can be converted to 239Pu, which does undergo thermal-neutron-induced fission.

Fission reactors can be designed to handle naturally abundant 235U, as well as fuels described as slightly enriched (2-5% 235U), highly enriched (20-30% 235U), or fully enriched (>90% 235U). Heat generated in the reactor core is transferred to a cooling agent in a closed system. The cooling agent is then passed through a series of heat exchangers in which water is heated to steam. The steam produced in these exchangers then drives a turbine that generates electrical power. There are two ways of specifying the power of such a plant: the thermal energy produced by the reactor or the electrical energy generated by the turbines. The electrical capacity of the plant is usually about one-third of the thermal power.

It takes 1011 fissions per second to produce one watt of electrical power. As a result, about one gram of fuel is consumed per day per megawatt of electrical energy produced. This means that one gram of waste products is produced per megawatt per day, which includes 0.5 grams of 239Pu. These waste products must be either reprocessed to generate more fuel or stored for the tens of thousands of years it takes for the level of radiation to reach a safe limit.

If we could design a reactor in which the ratio of the 239Pu or 233U produced to the 235U consumed was greater than 1, the reactor would generate more fuel than it consumed. Such reactors are known as breeders, and commercial breeder reactors are now operating in France.

The key to an efficient breeder reactor is a fuel that gives the largest possible number of neutrons released per neutron absorbed. The breeder reactors being built today use a mixture of PuO2 and UO2 as the fuel and fast neutrons to activate fission. Fast neutrons carry an energy of at least several KeV and therefore travel 10,000 or more times faster than thermal neutrons. 239Pu in the fuel assembly absorbs one of these fast neutrons and undergoes fission with the release of three neutrons. 238U in the fuel then captures one of these neutrons to produce additional 239Pu.

The advantage of breeder reactors is obviousthey mean a limitless supply of fuel for nuclear reactors. There are significant disadvantages, however. Breeder reactors are more expensive to build. They are also useless without a subsidiary industry to collect the fuel, process it, and ship the 239Pu to new reactors.

It is the reprocessing of 239Pu that concerns most of the critics of breeder reactors. 239Pu is so dangerous as a carcinogen that the nuclear industry places a limit on exposure to this material that assumes workers inhale no more than 0.2 micrograms of plutonium over their lifetimes. There is also concern that the 239Pu produced by these reactors might be stolen and assembled into bombs by terrorist organizations.

The fate of breeder reactors in the United States is linked to economic considerations. Because of the costs of building these reactors and safely reprocessing the 239Pu produced, the breeder reactor becomes economical only when the scarcity of uranium drives its price so high that the breeder reactor becomes cost effective by comparison. If nuclear energy is to play a dominant role in the generation of electrical energy in the 21st century, breeder reactors eventually may be essential.

Although the "pile" Fermi constructed at the University of Chicago in 1942 was the first artificial nuclear reactor, it was not the first fission reactor to exist on Earth. In 1972, a group of French scientists discovered that uranium ore from a deposit in the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, contained 0.4% 235U instead of the 0.72% abundance found in all other sources of this ore. Analysis of the trace elements in the ore suggested that the amount of 235U in this ore was unusually small because natural fission reactors operated in this deposit for a period of 600,000 to 800,000 years about 2 billion years ago.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Fusion

The graph of binding energy per nucleon suggests another way of obtaining useful energy from nuclear reactions. Fusing two light nuclei can liberate as much energy as the fission of 235U or 239Pu. The fusion of four protons to form a helium nucleus, two positrons (and two neutrinos), for example, generates 24.7 MeV of energy.

Most of the energy radiated from the surface of the sun is produced by the fusion of protons to form helium atoms within its core.
Fusion reactions have been duplicated in man-made devices. The enormous destructive power of the 235U-fueled atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which killed 75,000 people, and the 239Pu-fueled bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later touched off a violent debate after World War II about the building of the next superweapon a fusion, or "hydrogen," bomb. Alumni of the Manhattan project, who had developed the atomic bomb, were divided on the issue. Ernest Lawrence and Edward Teller fought for the construction of the fusion device. J. Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi argued against it. The decision was made to develop the weapon, and the first artificial fusion reaction occurred when the hydrogen bomb was tested in November 1952.

The history of fusion research is therefore the opposite of fission research. With fission, the reactor came first, and then the bomb was built. With fusion, the bomb was built long before any progress was made toward the construction of a controlled fusion reactor. More than 40 years after the first hydrogen bomb was exploded, the feasibility of controlled fusion reactions is still open to debate. The reaction that is most likely to fuel the first fusion reactor is the thermonuclear d-t, or deuterium-tritium, reaction. This reaction fuses two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H), to form helium and a neutron.

If we consider the implications of this reaction we can begin to understand why it is called a thermonuclear reaction and why it is so difficult to produce in a controlled manner. The d-t reaction requires that we fuse two positively charged particles. This means that we must provide enough energy to overcome the force of repulsion between these particles before fusion can occur. To produce a self-sustaining reaction, we have to provide the particles with enough thermal energy so that they can fuse when they collide.

Each fusion reaction is characterized by a specific ignition temperature, which must be surpassed before the reaction can occur. The d-t reaction has an ignition temperature above 108 K. In a hydrogen bomb, a fission reaction produced by a small atomic bomb is used to heat the contents to the temperature required to initiate fusion. Obtaining the same result in a controlled reaction is much more challenging.

Any substance at temperatures approaching 108 K will exist as a completely ionized gas, or plasma. The goals of fusion research at present include the following.

•To achieve the required temperature to ignite the fusion reaction.
•To keep the plasma together at this temperature long enough to get useful amounts of energy out of the thermonuclear fusion reactions.
•To obtain more energy from the thermonuclear reactions than is used to heat the plasma to the ignition temperature.
These are not trivial goals. The only reasonable container for a plasma at 108 K is a magnetic field. Both doughnut-shaped (toroidal) and linear magnetic bottles have been proposed as fusion reactors. But reactors that produce high enough temperatures for ignition are not the same as the reactors that have produced long enough confinement times for the plasma to provide useful amounts of energy.

A second approach to a controlled fusion reactor involves hitting fuel pellets containing the proper reagents for the thermonuclear reaction with pulsed beams of laser power. If enough power was delivered, the fuel pellets would collapse upon themselves, or implode, to reach densities several orders of magnitude greater than normal. This could produce a plasma both hot enough and dense enough to initiate fusion reactions.

[fj1200]

When this:

I started looking for reasons that obama...
is your starting point anything that comes after is tainted.

[red state]

My cousin's husband has been an engineer for NASA 25 years + and if this ole red neck can understand the lingo of an extremely intellectual Southerner who has earned many degrees/honors, [they] were actually considering such operations with the Space Shuttle to where the boosters would carry the Shuttle (a smaller shuttle quite probably) completely out of the reach of Earth's "influence". From there thrust technology, much like what was used in the 60's, would then be used to navigate [and exit] the resistance of the lunar pull. The only problem with this, was not leaving the moon, BUT in re-entering the Earth's atmosphere (which takes almost as much fuel as leaving the Earths secondary gravitational level which is much like different depths of the sea. The only difference is that UNLIKE diving in the sea, space is as though you're diving down TWICE. A solution to this was an additional BOOST that would need to be 'acquired'...much like pioneers traveling a desert and refilling canteens. If there are no 'watering holes' you either die or find a fort as soon as possible. HA! Another factor is 'WOULD'...would it be worth the fuel in redesigning such a craft when VERY small loads (other than a few sample minerals and such) could be brought back. Keep in mind that this would be a smaller shuttle. This isn't much improvement really but ANY improvement to the 40+ year old premise of how we traveled in space would be an improvement. I've said for YEARS and years, if it ain't broken....don't fix it! I would have loved numerous landings on the moon WITH OLD FASHION EQUIPMENT that actually WORKED! I can't imagine how many loads of material we could have had up there by now where we'd probably have a military post (the ONLY military post if lil' libbie loser lemmings didn't think that out of 'fairness' we should instead make OUR post an international one. Whatever the case, it is truly sad that B.O. has definitely killed any possibility of that happening or any other possibility of ANYTHING happening now (unless some ole, evil RICH guy gets something going on) BUT, the way things are going under B.O., our ole RICH guys will be under some other flag if and when they get the notion to actually inhabit the moon and not use billions of dollars studying the effects that space has with mice on viagra. Lets face it, ten years after the original flight it was an antique. Using the Space Shuttle (the same design anyway) that cost so much to maintain and actually use, with all the advancements we've had since then in other areas, is like hitching your horse up to pull a car. Simply put, using one specific design for decades was not the best idea. As stated by one of our BEST in the Air Force has said: " I have worked on the venerable F-14 Tomcat and I saw how difficult it was to upgrade one system at a time on a craft. While the Navy struggled to keep the Tomcat [relevant], the newer aircraft were leaps and bounds better in every conceivable way. Every new aircraft allowed lessons to be learned so we could fuse it with new technology making it so much better. Not saying there were not problems with newer designs, the F-18, for example, had quite a few problems but with every new craft, there is an opportunity to put it all together and make something magnificent. NASA lost that opportunity for three decades!" Aerospace engineer David Kagan who knows US space planning inside and out for YEARS said that during the glorious Apollo Moon missions NASA did indeed propose a mission to land astronauts on a near-Earth-asteroid using the tried-and-proven Apollo/Saturn V space vehicle that was shot down because, at the time, we had only one thing in mind and that was to put up spy satellites. Ultimately, the Space Shuttle Program was an horrific thing to accept when considering that so many lives [our best] had to be lost just to keep us locked in "LEO" Low Earth Orbit for so long...why, I, RED STATE, call that a National tragedy. Worse than this, however, is the threat and cost we ALL suffer under a National Trojan who is currently seeking re-election and the destruction of our GREAT Nation.

Look, I, RED STATE, could personally care less about the insignificant amounts of natural resources from the moon....and neither does China. I'll probably be labeled an idiot by the passive libbies for saying this but; the main objective in space travel is DEFENSE...or should I say OFFENSE for those like India, Russia, China and others. We MUST obtain a better means of travel to claim the moon and lay claim to its better parts, just as our British linage saw the need to 'establish" themselves militarily so that they could THEN take their time in utilizing such natural resources. We can NOT allow ourselves to be excluded from the moon or be forced to accept the 'scraps' and set up camp on the 'Dark Side' where very little can be accomplished in aiming nuclear weapons or other 'observational' posts. We have already claimed certain areas but, when you snooze you loose and we all know the saying: "finders keepers". With B.O., we've definitely lost something...something very grand. Yes, we have satellites BUT the number one rule militarily is to NEVER, EVER, find yourself 'out flanked' and if we are limited to satellites, with attacks from Earth, as well as Russian launch pads from the moon, we WILL be out flanked in the worse possible way.

My cousin-N-law would have a cow for me saying this but it is one liberal trait that I've held on to over these many years and that is the belief that the Space Shuttle was used for WAY too long without any significant improvements and WAY too much money was poured in that program as WASTE. It shouldn't have been scrapped but, by God, it should have been GREATLY improved decades ago....especially after all the little problems that often turned out to be major or even life threatening problems. With the space shuttle, it would seem that we had reached our full potential in space travel and with B.O., it seems that we've reached our full potential as a Nation who's future prosperity and preservation of liberties seem to be as IMPOSSIBLE as traveling at the speed of light.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When this:

is your starting point anything that comes after is tainted.

Thats right, we must not question dear leader, right? Yet you maintain you arent an obama blind bot.-:laugh2:
So looking for the reason he acts the way he does is stupid , right?
Dont dare question his motives, right?
Yep, you are a "comrade" in hiding....
Or would that better fit if I typed , liberal?
As stated before you act far too much like your hero, CH..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Thats right, we must not question dear leader, right? Yet you maintain you arent Strawman #1
So looking for the reason he acts the way he does is stupid , right?
Dont dare question his motives, right?
Yep, you are a Strawman #2a....
Or would that better fit if I typed , Strawman #2?
As stated before you act far too much like your Strawman #3..-Tyr

Question him all you like but you have a stated premise and you will look to ANY evidence that supports your premise and then state that it is proof. When evidence is presented that Bush was the one who actually ended the shuttle program you quickly shifted to BO ending Constellation. Never mind the blue ribbon commission that presented the option that BO endorsed. It was even endorsed by Sally K. Ride who I'm sure is pro-space exploration.

... of course now you'll call it the hezbo-lesbo conspiracy. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, please keep in mind that the moon's supply of Helium 3 is speculative. In addition, in order to best utilize it, we need fusion reactors and those are still a long way away from becoming a reality.
Not saying I don't want the U.S. maintaining center stage in space exploration but we aren't in a position to do it at the moment based on speculation, non-existent technology, and one hell of a costly bill to pay for lunar mining capabilities. I can't even imagine what that would cost to make a reality.

My suggestion: Prove we can manufacture power using Fusion safely and reliably first then go hell bent for the moon.


http://www.energydigital.com/global_mining/mining-helium-3-will-transform-dark-side-of-the-moon

Projections estimate that on a commercial basis helium-3 would be worth around $40,000 per ounce. Roughly 100 tons of Helium-3 could power the entire population of Earth for a year and scientists estimate that the Moon could contain approximately 1 million tons—10,000 years worth of energy. But is mining the Moon realistic, and who would spearhead such a risky endeavor?

Google announced the “Google Lunar X PRIZE” competition in 2007, in which the Internet giant challenged privately funded spaceflight teams from across the globe to send a robot to the moon’s surface. The first successful team will win $30 million in prizes. As of February 2011, 29 teams from various nations are officially competing for the prize, and several will be launching within the next two years.

Caterpillar—a top name in mining machinery and equipment—has invested in Carnegie Mellon University’s Astrobotic Technology, a company vying for the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Already having experience in automated machinery, Caterpillar will use the partnership with Astrobotic to propel its own lunar program. Caterpillar Automation Systems Manager Eric Reiners says,“Caterpillar makes sustainable progress possible by enabling infrastructure development and resource utilization on every continent on Earth. It only makes sense we would be involved in expanding our efforts to the 8th continent: the Moon.”The governments of Russia, China and India have all made public comments on exploiting the Moon’s resources, and the Russian space company RSC Energia has proposed a permanent lunar base to be completed by 2025 as a hub for helium-3 mining operations.

Lets see, 1 million tons= 2 billion pounds x 16 = 32 billion ounces
32, 000,000,000 x $40,000 an ounce= 128 trillion dollars worth.
This also could be drasticly low if the current estimates find the helium 3 levels on the moon are far greater . Imagine a 3 or 4 fold increase in supply there or even more! Russia, India and China are not in on the game(RACE TO GET IT) because its a pipe dream.
Now we can see a reason why obama turned our NASA to muslim outreach instead!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Ya ya----vote for Romney.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ya ya----vote for Romney.

Really? Who mentioned Romney here in this thread/topic other than you?
All my comments had a bearing on the subject being discussed -helium3 and its possible future harvesting from the moon to be used here as a fuel source for the entire planet.. Up to a 10,000 year supply no less .
Would help if you read the linked source or commented on the topic .-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Why obama has destroyed out NASA.

The title of your thread sorta blew your secret agenda.

[logroller]

What's all this helium3 and trash talk about? Havent you guys seen back to the future-- we just need to talk to doc brown about the mr fusion home energy reactor. I think that was 2015, we'll be fine.

[Anton Chigurh]

This nonsensical thread started with a WND article from 2006 which was proven false... Then the whole MYTH about Helium3 was DEBUNKED, and somehow this stupid shit gets a bump?:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100128-nuclear-fusion-power-lasers-science/


for National Geographic News

Published January 28, 2010

Using the most powerful laser system ever built, scientists have brought us one step closer to nuclear fusion power, a new study says.

The same process that powers our sun and other stars, nuclear fusion has the potential to be an efficient, carbon-free energy source—with none of the radioactive waste associated with the nuclear fission method used in current nuclear plants.

Thanks to the new achievement, a prototype nuclear fusion power plant could be operating within a decade, speculated study leader Siegfried Glenzer, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/budget-cuts-threaten-pursuit-of-nuclear-fusion-as-a-clean-energy-source/2012/06/25/gJQAKlpS2V_story.html

President Obama’s budget request for next year cuts domestic fusion research by 16 percent, to $248 million. It would shutter a fusion lab at MIT, one of four funded by the Department of Energy. It would slash 50 to 100 jobs from the 450 at the Princeton lab. And it would use the $48 million in total savings to boost the U.S. contribution to an international fusion mega-project now under construction in the south of France, called ITER, a project whose estimated costs have grown to $23 billion and whose start date has been pushed back to the next decade.

In a time of flat federal spending, the president has made a choice to fund the international project — whose costs to the United States will grow in coming years, according to Energy Department projections, to as much as $300 million a year — at the expense of the domestic program. (The United States pledged funding to ITER in 2003, joining the European Union, Russia, China, India, South Korea and Japan.)

This would be “devastating” to the community of several hundred U.S. scientists working on fusion energy, said Stewart Prager, the physicist who heads the Princeton lab.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nuclear fusion power is not a pipe dream. It may only be a few decades (20 to 50 years)away from being practical given a fuel like Helium 3 if such can be found in abundance.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/


These introductory educational materials on fusion energy and the physics of plasmas have been created by the Fusion and Plasmas Group of the Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP). CPEP is a non-profit organization of teachers, educators and physicists, with substantial student involvement. CPEP creates educational materials on contemporary physics topics for use in introductory physics classes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One more link that is interesting reading on the subject of nuclear fusion.
Imagine an engine designed to be fueled by this source, can you say starship ?
We may be 20-40- 60 -80- or even a 100 years away from getting there but the rewards reaped if we succeed are almost unimaginable! Remember man only imagined human flight until it was accomplished, now its a given like riding in a car or talking on a cell phone or using the internet!--Tyr

http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/crossfire-fusion-reactor.html

IV. Calculations
The fusion fuels can be composed of light atomic nuclei like hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, and their various isotopes. However, helium-3, hydrogen-1 (boron-11, lithium-6, lithium-7, beryllium-9) are of interest for aneutronic nuclear fusion (low neutron radiation hazards).[5]
1H + 2 6 Li → 4He + (3He + 6Li) → 3 4He + 1H + 20.9 MeV( 153 TJ/kg ≈ 42 GWh/kg)
1H + 7 Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV ( 204 TJ/kg ≈ 56 GWh/kg)
1H + 9 Be → 4He + 6Li + 2.1 MeV ( 22 TJ/kg ≈ 6 GWh/kg)
3He + 3 He → 4He + 2 1H + 12.9 MeV ( 205 TJ/kg ≈ 57 GWh/kg)
1H + 11 B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV ( 66 TJ/kg ≈ 18 GWh/kg)

Aneutronic Fusion is clean and safe, only a minimum of radiation shielding is required. Most of the energy produced by aneutronic fusion is in the form of charged particles instead of neutrons, which can be converted directly into electricity by making they work against electric/magnetic fields that can potentially exceed 90% efficiency.[13]

[Anton Chigurh]

Nuclear fusion power is not a pipe dream.No kidding. Nobody's disputed that.

But it will be Deuterium as the fuel, not nonsensical pie in the sky H-3. Your ignorance of this subject is almost as towering as the moon itself.

Crap posted by you in this thread that has been proven wrong:

1.) Obama had nothing to do with the shuttle program being cancelled.

2.) Shuttles cannot go to the moon as you were asserting, they weren't designed for that and are completely incapable of it.

3.) H-3 is not abundant on the moon as your 2006 WND nonsense claimed, and we CAN make it here on earth if it was a viable fuel for fusion. It's not.

4.) H-3 pales in comparison to Deuterium both as a fusion fuel and for abundance.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/fusion_dt/fusion_dt.html

A Few Problems with DT Reactions - And Solutions
One problem in using this reaction is the release of the neutron. This poses a problem because neutrons often "stick" to other nuclei, usually causing the nuclei to become radioactive or to initiate new reactions. For example, some neutrons can be absorbed by the walls of a reactor, creating a radioactive waste for disposal later on. This is one problem scientists face in the construction of possible fusion reactors.
Another problem is acquiring some of the fuel. Deuterium can be found on Earth, although in a very small quantity (.015% of natural hydrogen is deuterium). However, this small amount is more than enough to suppy energy for thousands of years at our current energy demands. One gallon of sea water has the energy content of 300 gallons of gasoline. Tritium, on the other hand, is radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years; therefore tritium does not last long enough to acquire in significant amounts naturally. Fortunately, both problems are solved by using the neutron in another reaction like this:

6Li + n 4He + T
The lithium absorbs the neutron and generates a tritium while releasing a bit more energy in the process. There is plenty of lithium available in nature.
However, the neutron problem is not totally eliminated through the above solution. Not all neutrons will fuse with the lithium, and instead fuse with other parts of the reactor, possibly inducing radioactivity. Neutron multipliers may be used in a reactor to compensate for this neutron loss, or reactions that yield more neutrons might be implimented, such as 7Li + n 4He + T + n. As for limiting the amount of high-level nuclear waste, careful selection of the materials used are expected to minimize the handling and disposal of such radioactive material. For example, the development of advanced, low-activation materials (like vanadium-based materials), or through the use of neutron-free reactions, could be implimented in future reactors.

Other Possible Reactions
There are other reactions besides the D-T that would work, incuding D+D, T+T, and D+3He reactions. The D+3He reaction in particular is a promising reaction, in that this reaction is the easiest "aneutronic" reaction, producing 4He and a proton. Aneutronic means it does not produce a neutron. This is good because radioactive waste caused by neutron absorption is eliminated. This is considered a more advanced fuel, however, and will most likely not be used in the first generation of commercial power plants.

I make no claim of any special expertise in this subject. I do however believe that oil will be replaced as our major fuel! The sooner the better IMHO. Deuterium and Tritium are both required with the problem of much much more radioactive waste than is created when the fuel is Helium 3. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No kidding. Nobody's disputed that.

But it will be Deuterium as the fuel, not nonsensical pie in the sky H-3. Your ignorance of this subject is almost as towering as the moon itself.

Crap posted by you in this thread that has been proven wrong:

1.) Obama had nothing to do with the shuttle program being cancelled.

2.) Shuttles cannot go to the moon as you were asserting, they weren't designed for that and are completely incapable of it.

3.) H-3 is not abundant on the moon as your 2006 WND nonsense claimed, and we CAN make it here on earth if it was a viable fuel for fusion. It's not.

4.) H-3 pales in comparison to Deuterium both as a fusion fuel and for abundance.

And your expertise relating to this subject is exactly what ?-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

You should study Deuterium much further than the student research paper you linked. The theoretical problems they discuss there don't actually exist.

Again and for the last time: H-3 isn't abundant on the moon or on the earth. Even if it were abundant on the moon, we have zero way of harvesting it. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any lunar mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3) (http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9311-2.pdf)

We can MAKE it out of tritium.... But the amount of tritium production needed far outstrips any benefit.

There's no magic bullets in energy production, s0n.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should study Deuterium much further than the student research paper you linked. The theoretical problems they discuss there don't actually exist.

Again and for the last time: H-3 isn't abundant on the moon or on the earth. Even if it were abundant on the moon, we have zero way of harvesting it. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any lunar mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3) (http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9311-2.pdf)

We can MAKE it out of tritium.... But the amount of tritium production needed far outstrips any benefit.

There's no magic bullets in energy production, s0n.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so quick on the D-T bandwagon there son...Lots of other problems with D-T fuel fusion-Tyr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

D-T fuel cycle
Diagram of the D-T reactionAccording to the Lawson criterion, the easiest and most immediately promising nuclear reaction for fusion power is:
Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium) is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen and is commonly available. The large mass ratio of the hydrogen isotopes makes their separation easy compared to the difficult uranium enrichment process. Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) is also an isotope of hydrogen, but it occurs naturally in only negligible amounts due to its half-life of 12.32 years. Consequently, the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle requires the breeding of tritium from lithium using one of the following reactions:


The reactant neutron is supplied by the D-T fusion reaction shown above, and the one that has the greatest yield of energy. The reaction with 6Li is exothermic, providing a small energy gain for the reactor. The reaction with 7Li is endothermic but does not consume the neutron. At least some 7Li reactions are required to replace the neutrons lost to absorption by other elements. Most reactor designs use the naturally occurring mix of lithium isotopes.

Several drawbacks are commonly attributed to D-T fusion power:

1.It produces substantial amounts of neutrons that result in the neutron activation of the reactor materials.[6]
2.Only about 20% of the fusion energy yield appears in the form of charged particles with the remainder carried off by neutrons, which limits the extent to which direct energy conversion techniques might be applied.[7]
3.It requires the handling of the radioisotope tritium. Similar to hydrogen, tritium is difficult to contain and may leak from reactors in some quantity. Some estimates suggest that this would represent a fairly large environmental release of radioactivity.[8]
The neutron flux expected in a commercial D-T fusion reactor is about 100 times that of current fission power reactors, posing problems for material design.

[Anton Chigurh]

3.It requires the handling of the radioisotope tritium.Which, is exactly what we would be making H-3 out of, were we to do so. If you've been reading.

I'm on no bandwagon. I merely pointed out that if we DO achieve fusion on a useable scale, Deuterium WILL be the fuel. Because it is the only one we can make cheaply, and the only one whose elements are vastly abundant on earth.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which, is exactly what we would be making H-3 out of, were we to do so. If you've been reading.

I'm on no bandwagon. I merely pointed out that if we DO achieve fusion on a useable scale, Deuterium WILL be the fuel. Because it is the only one we can make cheaply, and the only one whose elements are vastly abundant on earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings us back to this linked info from 2011, certainly not debunked back in 2006.-Tyr
Also the possibility that there exists far more helium 3 there than estimated, since our son has been depositing it there for over 3 billion years.-Tyr

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-21/tech/mining.moon.helium3_1_helium-3-nuclear-weapons-fusion-research?_s=PM:TECH

Could the moon provide clean energy for Earth?
NUCLEAR WEAPONS

LinkedIn July 21, 2011|By Steve Almasy, CNN

Gerald Kulcinski, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, holds the grid for his team's fusion device.Gerald Kulcinski has a big problem.
The nuclear engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin needs a rare element to fuel his research into a fusion reactor.But the cost of the isotope -- helium-3 -- is rising faster than a rocket headed to space. A few years ago it was $1,000 a gram, this year it is $7,000 and next year, well, he assumes it will be tens of thousands of dollars.There are only about 30 kilograms of 3He on Earth, Kulcinski said. Most helium-3 comes as a byproduct of tritium, used in nuclear weapons, so the exact figure is secret.
Governments covet helium-3 because it works well in sensors that detect the presence of nuclear material, such as the ones that scan incoming cargo at the nation's borders and ports.

"Worldwide demand is very high, the supply is fixed and going down, and those of us who are trying using helium-3 for research purposes are paying very high prices," said Kulcinski, who is the director of the Fusion Technology Institute. "It'll basically shut off university activity pretty soon because we won't be able to afford it."

The Kulcinski team's approach toward creating fusion is unique. Ninety-nine percent of research is geared toward using deuterium and tritium together. But using helium-3 instead of tritium would be much safer and drastically cut the chance of nuclear weapons proliferation. If 3He-3He fusion works, there would be no radioactive waste.
A breakthrough would be huge, but the team needs more years and more helium-3.
The thing is that there are tons of helium-3 -- on the moon. About 1 million tons, Kulcinski said, adding that we also have a pretty good idea as to where the 3He is on the moon.

We would know precisely how many trillions of dollars of the stuff is there if someone goes back to the moon and establishes a base there.
"A few years ago we thought we were going back soon but that's all changed now," he said.
NASA at a crossroads Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt said the United States is behind in the race to return to the surface of the moon. Schmitt, who is the author of "Return to the Moon," has come to the conclusion that NASA's best days are a part of history and it would be best to start over.