The moon as a possible energy source?

by Big Tex 60 Replies latest social current

• 

  BluesBrother

  "And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike.

  I guess this was the saddest line in the article. It seems that if we are not beholden to the Middle East States, we are going to be beholden to someone else, who follows the old maxim that "Greed is good"

  Personally, I come somewhere between Sunnygal and Gita on this issue. Surely it makes more sense to develop the alternative resources here on Earth, no doubt at less cost than the cost of the space program

  I fear that Elsewhere may be right. History has way of repeating itself

  Big Tex. Thanks this was an interesting article and new to me

  Blues, often called a "Tree huggin liberal"
• 

  gitasatsangha

  .
  Imagine the moon with the Pepsi logo beamed onto it....
• 

  gitasatsangha

  Imagine the moon with the Pepsi logo beamed onto it...

  I heard a rumour a few years ago that Pizza Hut tentatively looked into what it would cost to project their logo on the moon using a high powered laser. Supposedly there wasn't a laser (declassified anyway) strong enough for the job. I don't know if that is true or not, but Pizza Hut was into non-traditional advertising at the time, and they did have their logo put on the Proton rocket that launched the Zvezda node to ISS.

  IMHO, I don't think a company would actually try projecting on the moon because of the negative backlash it would rightly generate. I imagine a poor poet looking out to the full moon for inspiration and seeing in red glowing light "BUY TAMPAX." On the other hand I can see a one particular corporation that makes a billion a year and doesn't mind intrusive sales putting its own messages on the surface. Watchtower Laser! :-)
• 

  xjw_b12

  one shuttle could hold 30 tons of helium 3,

  Helium 3, an isotope of the familiar helium used to inflate balloons and blimps,

  Helium 3 is lighter than regular helium,

  With 30 tons of helium aboard the shuttle, once it was within the earth's atmosphere, would it be able to land, or would it just float away ?
• 

  sens

  Imagine the moon with the Pepsi logo beamed onto it....

  cool.
• 

  Sunnygal41

  Gita, thanks for the apology.

  No one is about to mine up all the moon and make it look like a ritz cracker with a bite out of it.

  How do you know????????? Look what we've done to earth with our strip mining and cutting the rainforests down! Who would have thought 40 years ago that someday we'd have very little rainforest left? No one can say that it will never happen. There are some real atavisitic folks out there, willing to sell their grandma if they can get enough for her! When I first read this post from Big Tex, that was exactly what I was thinking: looking out my window, expecting to see that beautiful silvery planet, and seeing a big, dark spot that has been stripped of its surface so it doesn't shine anymore.........we see what happens with impacts from meteorites..........that's where we get the fanciful "man in the moon" face we tell our children about..............the moon has a glistening silicate surface.........scrape it away and it's going to show! As someone already said, the moon provides the tidal ebb for us, and it's mass anchors us in our place around the sun............I wonder what Stephen Hawking would have to say............hmmmm, there's an idea, I ought to write him and ask.............surely one of the world's smartest scientist could project correctly the damage that would be done.............

  Gita, now who's being poetic?

  (Note: there is no "dark side" of the Moon; all parts of the Moon get sunlight half the time (except for a few deep craters near the poles). Some uses of the term "dark side" in the past may have referred to the far side as "dark" in the sense of "unknown" (eg "darkest Africa") but even that meaning is no longer valid today!)
• 

  Big Tex

  Thanks Abaddon. I appreciate the lesson. Very interesting information that I was not aware of.

  He3 requires lower temperatures to fuse, from memory.

  I really appreciate the clarification. Reading the article, I was not really sure how the helium 3 would be used. So it would still be a fusion process? But again, from what I understand, cold fusion has not been proven to be technologically sound. Has it? I mean, the theory is supposed to be accepted, but the actual mechanics have seemed to prove elusive.

  I still think the future holds great promise. I'm not saying technology will solve all the problems we have, but imagine the impact clean energy would have on the world.
• 

  RandomTask

  Well half of the moon is dark to us, because of the moon's orbit and rotation on its axis the one side always faces the earth and the other into outer space. When we see a full moon on the eearth, that side is completely dark.

  I don't think you are grasping the enormity of the moon, that it would be nearly impossible to "strip-mine" the moon into a dark shell of its former self and no-one is suggesting that this happen either.

  Part of the great thing about technological progress and reaching out into space especially is just how much it DOES benefit the human race as a whole. Capitalism and greed and even war has been largely responsible for the high standard of living we do have at the present time. The space program has been responsible alone for thousands of inventions and new methods that have improved human life just in the past 40 years. I mean, think of it. Out of all the ages in human history, which time would you rather be living in? For me it would be none other than the present day. The problems that we have cannot and will not be solved by throwing every last dollar, resource and bit of human energy at them, I believe our only chance is to constantly progress and focus our energies on expanding our knowledge of the universe.

  And in terms of "ruining the earth", it helps to take a more balanced approach on just how our earth is being ruined by seeking out many sources on the subject. Remember that scientists are also not immune to the HUMAN feeling of greed, large corporations don't have a monopoly on it. If saying something will get a scientist more grant money to continue his or her reasearch for another 5 years then you bet they will say what they need to say to do it. Some might say that we have made strides in pollution control in the past few decades. No, we aren't pollution-free yet, but reports of us being on the brink of global catastrophe are a bit exaggerated.
• 

  IronGland

  As someone already said, the moon provides the tidal ebb for us, and it's mass anchors us in our place around the sun............I wonder what Stephen Hawking would have to say............

  lol--put down the bong. Do you have any idea how much mass would need to be removed to affect the moons orbit or to decrease it's affect on tides etc..?
• 

  Satanus

  it's mass anchors us in our place around the sun

  No it doesn't. The earth would orbit just fine without the moon. We are already anchored, thank you very much.

  SS