Why obama has destroyed out NASA.

[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)

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)

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/t...rch?_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.