Spacefaring, or How We Decide How We Expand into the Solar System
March 28, 2024 8:28 AM Subscribe
Moonshot mania is already blasting off (previously, previouslier), but scientists are worried our celestial neighbor will be strip-mined and built out before it's fully studied. The cosmic land rush to build moon bases and harvest space helium-3 has researchers pleading to protect lunar zones that could hold the key to alien life and the universe's deepest secrets.
Cue the Gil Scott Heron jokes.
Cue the Gil Scott Heron jokes.
Read A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith for a good examination of the practicalities of expanding from Earth. They started writing it with an open/positive mindset and ended up, after a lot of research, being pessimistic. Regardless, the book is a good read.
posted by tbrennen at 10:01 AM on March 28 [7 favorites]
posted by tbrennen at 10:01 AM on March 28 [7 favorites]
For All Mankind makes it look easy!
posted by gottabefunky at 10:06 AM on March 28 [2 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 10:06 AM on March 28 [2 favorites]
I hope and pray that we find ourselves in the situation of worrying about the impact of helium-3 strip-mining.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 10:37 AM on March 28 [4 favorites]
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 10:37 AM on March 28 [4 favorites]
Yeah, if you want to live on the moon, you're going to have to send construction robots to do all the dirty work first. Give the robots a nice long time to build and dig and plant, establish a safe and self-sustaining biosphere, and otherwise get things ready for people to maybe move in. It could take years and years, but that alone, without people, would be an interesting experiment. Any people who did live there might have to live underground to avoid radiation and meteorites and aliens, so probably not exciting. Just a job, five days a week.
posted by pracowity at 10:52 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
posted by pracowity at 10:52 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
I probably know the cynical answer, but I've always been curious why it makes more sense to spend billions, or trillions more likely, to mine helium-3 on the moon than it does to modernize petroleum infrastructure to allow for better helium capture from natural gas.
posted by indexy at 10:58 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
posted by indexy at 10:58 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
I've always been curious why it makes more sense to spend billions...
You're not cynical enough: nobody involved cares if it makes sense.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:47 AM on March 28 [5 favorites]
You're not cynical enough: nobody involved cares if it makes sense.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:47 AM on March 28 [5 favorites]
One of the things I've never heard a good argument against is setting up 'preserves' if we regularly visit/occupy/industrify the moon, or other celestial bodies.
I think it's Kim Stanley Robinson who has a section in one of his books about how pissed a certain group gets over simple footprints on moons or comets, because of the extreme geologic/galactic timetables that take place for those items to form, and how long they've basically been untouched, and that is wrecked by humans in an instant. This was an interesting detail, but like, it cuts both ways. The footprint 'contamination' is also by nature of that timeline, very isolated from what is around it.
But like, because of that same extreme geologic/galactic timetable, it makes 'no go' sections or preserves much more stable for future study. These types of preserves may need to be bigger in certain circumstances (I'm looking at you Europa and Enceladus) because there might actually be contamination issues.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:09 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
I think it's Kim Stanley Robinson who has a section in one of his books about how pissed a certain group gets over simple footprints on moons or comets, because of the extreme geologic/galactic timetables that take place for those items to form, and how long they've basically been untouched, and that is wrecked by humans in an instant. This was an interesting detail, but like, it cuts both ways. The footprint 'contamination' is also by nature of that timeline, very isolated from what is around it.
But like, because of that same extreme geologic/galactic timetable, it makes 'no go' sections or preserves much more stable for future study. These types of preserves may need to be bigger in certain circumstances (I'm looking at you Europa and Enceladus) because there might actually be contamination issues.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:09 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
One dash of Cold War paranoia, one dash of stimulant-enhanced investor FOMO, sprinkle on some sci-fi plotlines.
AFAIK the current practical non-research non-skypie application for He-3 is neutron detectors, which makes me a little worried if suddenly someone wants to detect lots of neutrons.
posted by credulous at 12:14 PM on March 28
AFAIK the current practical non-research non-skypie application for He-3 is neutron detectors, which makes me a little worried if suddenly someone wants to detect lots of neutrons.
posted by credulous at 12:14 PM on March 28
AFAIK the current practical non-research non-skypie application for He-3 is neutron detectors, which makes me a little worried if suddenly someone wants to detect lots of neutrons.
I had no idea! I had assumed we'd still be hoping to use it for fusion. Looking at the ORNL info on detectors, I'm skeptical of their motivation in using He3. Isn't it just them trying to find a use for a byproduct they've got squirreled away? Like, right now, we only need so many neutron detectors, and we only make a tiny amount of He3. It's not a real market. If we get feasible fusion power that relies on He3, it might change the situation (please, please let that be the case and save us all).
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 1:23 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
I had no idea! I had assumed we'd still be hoping to use it for fusion. Looking at the ORNL info on detectors, I'm skeptical of their motivation in using He3. Isn't it just them trying to find a use for a byproduct they've got squirreled away? Like, right now, we only need so many neutron detectors, and we only make a tiny amount of He3. It's not a real market. If we get feasible fusion power that relies on He3, it might change the situation (please, please let that be the case and save us all).
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 1:23 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
Speaking of fusion power and neutrons, I wonder if fusion power advocates have considered that fusion reactors, though they don't generate the sold fuel waste that fission reactors do, will be just as ugly and expensive to clean up at the end of their service lives, after having their innards bombarded by neutrons for 30 years or whatever.
People talking about strip-mining the Moon for He3 to enable fusion power... IDK. I've seen fusion power hovering 20-30 years away for 50 solid years now. I can remember reading a thing (probably in Popular Mechanics) in 1973 about how fusion reactors were going to revolutionize garbage recycling, because you could "burn" the garbage down to its component atomic elements and refine them for re-use. When you've seen 50 years of that, your capacity to enthusiastically envision the fusion-powered future gets diminished.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:57 PM on March 28 [5 favorites]
People talking about strip-mining the Moon for He3 to enable fusion power... IDK. I've seen fusion power hovering 20-30 years away for 50 solid years now. I can remember reading a thing (probably in Popular Mechanics) in 1973 about how fusion reactors were going to revolutionize garbage recycling, because you could "burn" the garbage down to its component atomic elements and refine them for re-use. When you've seen 50 years of that, your capacity to enthusiastically envision the fusion-powered future gets diminished.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:57 PM on March 28 [5 favorites]
Yes, unless you have an a-neutronic fusion reaction, fusion can generate a lot of radioactive waste. The neutrons produced can cause the materials of the reactor to break down over time as they produce unstable isotopes of the atoms in the reactor elements. And I'd think tossing garbage in a fusion reactor would just simply shut the reaction down as it cooled the reacting plasma.
posted by indexy at 2:08 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
posted by indexy at 2:08 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
People talking about strip-mining the Moon for He3 to enable fusion power... IDK. I've seen fusion power hovering 20-30 years away for 50 solid years now.
I get this is the joke and the trope, and yeah. But also, we now today, in the time you inhabit, net positive fusion experiments that have happened, which is good, and puts us in a different bracket of feasibility. More private dollars are being put towards fusion now, than ever before; which could be considered a good bellwether if you're into that kind of measurement.
I can remember reading a thing (probably in Popular Mechanics) in 1973 about how fusion reactors were going to revolutionize garbage recycling, because you could "burn" the garbage down to its component atomic elements and refine them for re-use. When you've seen 50 years of that, your capacity to enthusiastically envision the fusion-powered future gets diminished.
'Plasma' gets thrown around in both of these technologies, but I think you may be referring to Plasma Waste Gasification, sometimes called Plasma Waste Converters, which is a very real thing, but kind of expensive (and arguably, should be used more for all sorts of reasons). This is a non-speculative technology that exists and is in use. The byproducts of such systems are quite useful, and should be used in more settings. The slag especially can be used in making (apparently, decent if not good) home insulation, that is chemically inert, similar to rock-wool. They throw off a ton of heat too, which, if you paired with sand batteries, that heat could be saved and used instead of being a waste product. The main reason they're not used more, is that landfill space (and shipping garbage to the developing world) is still far cheaper. Worse, but cheaper.
posted by furnace.heart at 2:58 PM on March 28
I get this is the joke and the trope, and yeah. But also, we now today, in the time you inhabit, net positive fusion experiments that have happened, which is good, and puts us in a different bracket of feasibility. More private dollars are being put towards fusion now, than ever before; which could be considered a good bellwether if you're into that kind of measurement.
I can remember reading a thing (probably in Popular Mechanics) in 1973 about how fusion reactors were going to revolutionize garbage recycling, because you could "burn" the garbage down to its component atomic elements and refine them for re-use. When you've seen 50 years of that, your capacity to enthusiastically envision the fusion-powered future gets diminished.
'Plasma' gets thrown around in both of these technologies, but I think you may be referring to Plasma Waste Gasification, sometimes called Plasma Waste Converters, which is a very real thing, but kind of expensive (and arguably, should be used more for all sorts of reasons). This is a non-speculative technology that exists and is in use. The byproducts of such systems are quite useful, and should be used in more settings. The slag especially can be used in making (apparently, decent if not good) home insulation, that is chemically inert, similar to rock-wool. They throw off a ton of heat too, which, if you paired with sand batteries, that heat could be saved and used instead of being a waste product. The main reason they're not used more, is that landfill space (and shipping garbage to the developing world) is still far cheaper. Worse, but cheaper.
posted by furnace.heart at 2:58 PM on March 28
Honestly, I think the biggest win will be for semiconductor manufacturing or any other expensive manufacturing process that requires uniformity. My money is on companies building moon fabs before anything involving Helium-3.
posted by lock robster at 3:11 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
posted by lock robster at 3:11 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
I probably know the cynical answer, but I've always been curious why it makes more sense to spend billions, or trillions more likely, to mine helium-3 on the moon than it does to modernize petroleum infrastructure to allow for better helium capture from natural gas.
There's very very little He3 on Earth. You get less-tiny amounts on Luna because it's constantly being deposited by the solar wind.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:39 PM on March 28
There's very very little He3 on Earth. You get less-tiny amounts on Luna because it's constantly being deposited by the solar wind.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:39 PM on March 28
net positive fusion experiments that have happened, which is good, and puts us in a different bracket of feasibility.
Yes, but sadly, getting to the temperatures you need for D-He3 fusion, which has a much lower neutron production rate, requires higher temperatures. Much higher. And going to He3-He3, which can eliminate neutron production, needs higher temperatures still.
If we can get there, we can avoid much of the issue with activation of reactor materials - but we are so very far away from that point.
That said, I don't much care about the reactor material activation issue. Arguing about whether fusion is going to poison our world is a bit like the arguments against wind and hydroelectric. If they could, I really think the birds and the fish impacted would forgive us for saving the planet from the far more pressing and realistic danger of global warming.
(the former electric propulsion researcher in me must also say that the energy density involved in fusion, rather than solar or even fission, would make it possible to actually feasibly explore Mars and beyond)
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:46 PM on March 28
Yes, but sadly, getting to the temperatures you need for D-He3 fusion, which has a much lower neutron production rate, requires higher temperatures. Much higher. And going to He3-He3, which can eliminate neutron production, needs higher temperatures still.
If we can get there, we can avoid much of the issue with activation of reactor materials - but we are so very far away from that point.
That said, I don't much care about the reactor material activation issue. Arguing about whether fusion is going to poison our world is a bit like the arguments against wind and hydroelectric. If they could, I really think the birds and the fish impacted would forgive us for saving the planet from the far more pressing and realistic danger of global warming.
(the former electric propulsion researcher in me must also say that the energy density involved in fusion, rather than solar or even fission, would make it possible to actually feasibly explore Mars and beyond)
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:46 PM on March 28
I probably know the cynical answer, but I've always been curious why it makes more sense to spend billions, or trillions more likely, to mine helium-3 on the moon than it does to modernize petroleum infrastructure to allow for better helium capture from natural gas.
Crewed space exploration is always the solution. Helium-3 was one attempt to come up with the problem. There's no particular supply of He-3 but there's also no particular demand for it, so supplying it in any quantity would crater the price. The fact that it is being touted for two applications--quantum computing and fusion--that don't really exist yet should be a clue.
It can be hard to figure whether people who talk about the potential profitability are perpetuating the scam or have fallen for it. But I think when you worry about the impact of economically useless strip mining in support of non-existent technology you're high on someone's supply.
OTOH I have a friend at NASA working on a part of the moon program and god knows there are worse things for the government to spend money on.
posted by mark k at 8:51 PM on March 28 [4 favorites]
Crewed space exploration is always the solution. Helium-3 was one attempt to come up with the problem. There's no particular supply of He-3 but there's also no particular demand for it, so supplying it in any quantity would crater the price. The fact that it is being touted for two applications--quantum computing and fusion--that don't really exist yet should be a clue.
It can be hard to figure whether people who talk about the potential profitability are perpetuating the scam or have fallen for it. But I think when you worry about the impact of economically useless strip mining in support of non-existent technology you're high on someone's supply.
OTOH I have a friend at NASA working on a part of the moon program and god knows there are worse things for the government to spend money on.
posted by mark k at 8:51 PM on March 28 [4 favorites]
> net positive fusion experiments that have happened, which is good, and puts us in a different bracket of feasibility.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one of those that I know about was done with a system that is mainly useful for modeling thermonuclear explosions and is not even pointed in the general direction of power generation, and also the "net positive" was the fusion yield compared to the input laser energy, not compared to the power that was required to produce that laser energy.
I'm fine with fusion power research projects, but really wish people would refuse to get so enthused about progress that might not even be progress. When somebody has a design for a power reactor that can produce more electricity than is required to get it started (which to recap, existing experiments are not close to that), it will be exciting. Until then the enthusiasm is tiresome.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:51 AM on March 29
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one of those that I know about was done with a system that is mainly useful for modeling thermonuclear explosions and is not even pointed in the general direction of power generation, and also the "net positive" was the fusion yield compared to the input laser energy, not compared to the power that was required to produce that laser energy.
I'm fine with fusion power research projects, but really wish people would refuse to get so enthused about progress that might not even be progress. When somebody has a design for a power reactor that can produce more electricity than is required to get it started (which to recap, existing experiments are not close to that), it will be exciting. Until then the enthusiasm is tiresome.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:51 AM on March 29
MetaFilter: the enthusiasm is tiresome
posted by lucidium at 7:03 AM on March 29 [4 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 7:03 AM on March 29 [4 favorites]
I'm still betting on Union construction crews in GEO building a constellation of space-based solar power satellites, using phase locked loop beamed microwave to earth stations built by hanging rectennas all over decommissioned power plants, where they go to MOONVEGAS for R&R (gambling, hookers, and Chinese food). Once we get gambling, hookers and Chinese food on the moon, domination of the Universe is assured.
posted by mikelieman at 7:43 AM on March 29 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 7:43 AM on March 29 [1 favorite]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one of those that I know about was done with a system that is mainly useful for modeling thermonuclear explosions and is not even pointed in the general direction of power generation
You're not wrong. I worked in support of NIF efforts for a while. Didn't believe in it as a power source then, and I don't now.
The tokamak side of the equation is the one to watch - or maybe somewhere in between (which I also worked on). Tokamak (and their descendants) researchers are the ones who really do want to save the world - and just might manage it. They'd better. Because I despair of getting people to reduce consumption.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:22 AM on March 29 [2 favorites]
You're not wrong. I worked in support of NIF efforts for a while. Didn't believe in it as a power source then, and I don't now.
The tokamak side of the equation is the one to watch - or maybe somewhere in between (which I also worked on). Tokamak (and their descendants) researchers are the ones who really do want to save the world - and just might manage it. They'd better. Because I despair of getting people to reduce consumption.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:22 AM on March 29 [2 favorites]
« Older Folks from round ere ain’t from round ere | Exposed The true story of a lost documentary. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It's plausible that the Artemis program will meet the objectives of the orbital lunar station and the South Polar crewed landing. It's also plausible that the political will runs out before that happens.
But it's a long, long way from Artemis being a crashing success to "bases on the moon," let alone "strip mines on the moon." The technology to let people live off of the Earth has not yet been developed, and before you say "what about ISS," those people are not living in space. They are on a camping trip there.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 8:48 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]