Helium Farming

[dashofweak]

So, using what information I know I will present the topic:

 

Right now we are in an energy war, everyone searching for the best way to power our ever growing technology. There is still one energy source that we can't safely or practicaly use yet: fission. The same process that takes place in the sun could power us forever. But there is one element that we are using up and are running out of that creates fission: helium. Our biggest source of helium is Texas, and the avaliblity of helium is running low to its biggest enemy: birthday parties. So if humans figure out fusion where will we get more? Simple: the moon. Currently the moon has more helium than the entirety of earth. So when fusion is figured out helium mining on the moon will become a lucrative buisness. But this does bring up some questions, what country or company would mine the moon? What kinds of people would mine it. How would it get back to earth and what impacts would it have on the moon?

 

Please discuss or add more questions, I am exceptionally curious

[BTGBullseye]

First off, the USA was the only country to land a person on the moon, however treaties forbid any earth-based country from claiming the moon. Companies would have to go through so much red tape to get there, and then finance it, that it would be infeasible for anything short of a megacorp, and they wouldn't see the initial investment pay off fast enough to justify doing it.

 

In short, it wouldn't happen for a very long time, even if it was lucrative. Probly won't happen until easily reusable reentry and space transport vehicles are invented.

[dashofweak]

While that may be true keep in mind that fission would probably allow for cheaper entry and re-entry into space. Making helium that much more desirable

[BTGBullseye]

Only if purely energy-based thrusters, that can match the thrust-to-weight ratio of current orbital propulsion systems, ever successfully makes it past the "wouldn't it be nice if" stage.

 

Once you're in space, then it's great for getting around in a place where you don't have to push against planetary gravity and atmosphere, but that isn't what a reentry vehicle does.

 

The biggest benefit I can see coming from high-power reactors on space vehicles is an electromagnetic shield to protect against radiation. (something that we really DO need to be able to get people outside of our planet's EM bubble without having them melt from a solar burst)

[dashofweak]

Only if purely energy-based thrusters, that can match the thrust-to-weight ratio of current orbital propulsion systems, ever successfully makes it past the "wouldn't it be nice if" stage.

 

Once you're in space, then it's great for getting around in a place where you don't have to push against planetary gravity and atmosphere, but that isn't what a reentry vehicle does.

 

The biggest benefit I can see coming from high-power reactors on space vehicles is an electromagnetic shield to protect against radiation. (something that we really DO need to be able to get people outside of our planet's EM bubble without having them melt from a solar burst)

 

Well that is speaking in terms of space only, but also if we could figure this out on Earth, we wouldn't have to worry about energy any longer, because we'd have all the energy we need for factories, cities, ect. and we could stop using things like coal or natural gas. Fission has much more practical uses stationary anyways

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, but even fusion is dangerous... Sitting there essentially with a mini-sun, ready to explode... Thorium reactors are by far less dangerous, less expensive, require less fuel, and require less space than an equivalent power generator and support facilities for a fusion system. (mathematically speeking, and we already know how to do everything with the thorium reactors)

[Alyxx Thorne]

It might be possible in the future but I think it would be unfair for a single country to claim the moon. It would be nice if it could benefit all of us.

[BTGBullseye]

I think it would be unfair for a single country to claim the moon.

There is an international agreement preventing any one entity from claiming the entire moon, and any country from putting military assets on the moon.

[ShakyOregon]

Only if purely energy-based thrusters, that can match the thrust-to-weight ratio of current orbital propulsion systems, ever successfully makes it past the "wouldn't it be nice if" stage.

 

Once you're in space, then it's great for getting around in a place where you don't have to push against planetary gravity and atmosphere, but that isn't what a reentry vehicle does.

 

The biggest benefit I can see coming from high-power reactors on space vehicles is an electromagnetic shield to protect against radiation. (something that we really DO need to be able to get people outside of our planet's EM bubble without having them melt from a solar burst)

 

Yeah pure energy thrusters are a long ways off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster

 

Or we could use Ion but thats also still in development.

 

So if we are going to nuclear route why not Orion

 

but really standard liquid fuel rockets are the best we got so far and there is a good amount of ice water on the moon buried beneath regolith. So creating our own fuel on the moon is a option. Although startup costs would be insane.

[BTGBullseye]

Or we could use Ion but thats also still in development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_with_electric_propulsion

 

"Ion" thrusters have been in use since 1964.