[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

I wonder if any one watched the program last week about NASA planning to go back to the moon in 2025. this time they plan to stay there for months hoping to bring back helium-3 as an energy source for the Earth. but what if He-3 is the power source of the moon itself, would the moon then be destroyed and never be seen again [] []

[Seany]

Hmm.. I haven't seen that program, but I really want to now!

Nasa can still easily go to the moon, but they are probably preparing the technology to bring back Helium-3 - I have never heard of this before, until now.

I'm curious of how they are actually going to bring back the Helium-3, although I expect that it will be pretty light. Also, by 2025, we would probably have used up alot of our fuels, so this sounds like a great idea to me.

The power source of the moon itself? I'm not sure what you are on about. Of course, if there are living things there, that need Helium-3 to survive on, we will be destroying the environment for them, and those living creatures will die.

However, apart from the living things or anything, I don't see how taking the gases are going to affect the moon. The moon itself does not need the Helium-3 to keep orbiting our Earth. And even if there are some nasty side-effects that occur to the moon by us taking this Helium-3, I highly highly doubt that the Moon will blow up - this being a very unlikely outcome.

The moon does not respire, like us living things. Same as our Earth. If we take oxygen or carbon dioxide from the earth, and take it all out to space, the Earth will not blow up or destroyed. We, humans and animals and other living things, will die however. This will be the outcome of taking those gases away.

This will be the same for the moon, although I think that there aren't any living things there, thus not having any effect on the moon.

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

well, you see how the Earth has its own minerals within its structure starting from the crust and then going down to the core, so if helium-3 is actually part of the structure of the moon would we not affect the physical state of the planet, of course not in the short term and not if only a small amount is used but in the long term what would happen?
in the program it also mentioned that only 1kg of helium-3 is needed to supply the Earth with energy for the next 10 or so years so i guess it wouldnt have much of an adverse effect.

[Seany]

1 kg? That must store a heck of alot of energy..

How is this 1kg going to be marketed and sold? Into little tiny gases or something?!

Also, seeing Helium-3, I assume is a gas, I don't think that they will retrieve this from the Moon in it's physical state. I think it will be from their atmosphere, but I may be wrong.

[another_someone]

Haven't watched any program, since I don't own a TV (and haven't done so this past 10 years); but reports of NASA going back to the moon are widely available.  Exact timetables are not yet in place, but around 2020 is the timeframe they are looking at, and yes, it is now for long term stays.

Not sure what the He³ is about.  He³ is not a fuel, except maybe is some exotic nuclear fusion reactor; but analysis of He³ would be useful in understanding the history of the rocks on the moon.

[Seany]

Yes - atleast we can now use up our fuels with ease []

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

another-someone He-3 as you have said is a nuclear fusion reactor. scientist on earth tried to fuse He-2 with hydrogen to model the power of the sun and to see if we could use the same nuclear fusion process to power the needs of the Earth but one the scientists realized that the neutrons produced from the latter fusion reaction would simply destroy the reaction vessel being used. another scientist, however, realized that using He-3 and isotope of He-2 wouldnt creat the problem mentioned, they realized that they were traces of He-3 in the samples of rocks that had been brought back from the first trip to the moon and thats where the story of going back begins. we could argue that we're not only using up the resources on Earth but are planning to destroy any life that may possibly exist on the moon?? very controversial i believe!!

seany as you've correctly pointed out we ARE going to be using the resources much faster and with less concern!!!!!! but the sucess of the mission to the moon could put in dengre not only us but the moon. its pretty sad i think

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

by the way another-someone i must admit you dont need TV when you've got internet []

[Seany]

Yes.. But TV is still very interesting! []

[Seany]

another-someone He-3 as you have said is a nuclear fusion reactor. scientist on earth tried to fuse He-2 with hydrogen to model the power of the sun and to see if we could use the same nuclear fusion process to power the needs of the Earth but one the scientists realized that the neutrons produced from the latter fusion reaction would simply destroy the reaction vessel being used. another scientist, however, realized that using He-3 and isotope of He-2 wouldnt creat the problem mentioned, they realized that they were traces of He-3 in the samples of rocks that had been brought back from the first trip to the moon and thats where the story of going back begins. we could argue that we're not only using up the resources on Earth but are planning to destroy any life that may possibly exist on the moon?? very controversial i believe!!

seany as you've correctly pointed out we ARE going to be using the resources much faster and with less concern!!!!!! but the sucess of the mission to the moon could put in dengre not only us but the moon. its pretty sad i think

I don't think it's sad. Firstly, I really doubt there is life on the Moon, although there is an equal amount of chance of there being one, but it is just my opinion.

Secondly, by removing 1kg of He-3, it will do a very low amount of damage overall to the moon, whether it is from the moon's crust itself, mantle, or just sheer gas in the atmosphere. Even 1 ton of He-3, I think, will do hardly any damage to the moon.

Lastly, we are running out of options for our energy sources. All our sources will probably run out within 50 years, so we need to develop one quickly. People are trying to make energy from water, by removing Hydrogen from water, but we need fuel to supply the energy to do this, which is back to square 1.

Just one curiosity, does He-3 give any bad effects to the Earth, like coal, oil, and gases give off greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Or any harmful ones, such as Carbon Monoxide..

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

interesting enough it's harmfull at all!!!

[Seany]

Could you rephrase your above post? I don't understand it. []

[Seany]

Did you mean, "Interestingly enough, it's not harmful at all" ?

[lyner]

Chemically, it's inert.
I would love to know why it collects in moon rocks - as it's inert, I should have thought it would have drifted off very readily and gone back out into space along with all the other gases.
Is it some clever quantum thing at low temperatures when the surface is in the dark for weeks on end, during the lunar night?
Or is it the Earth's rich and dense  atmosphere that is the exception and causes the light element to float away from the surface? The lunar surface, presumably, has traces of lots of other ('gas') molecules stuck to it in the same way as He3. We are, I suppose, only talking about tiny amounts, even if there is a lot more than down here.
I missed the Horizon prog, unfortunately.
btw, what is its half life?

[another_someone]

Most helium is a product of alpha emissions - but that is more commonly He⁴, not He³, so I am not sure where the He³ on the moon might come from.

[another_someone]

Ok, referring to good old Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

More abundant helium-3 is thought to exist on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system's gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula), although still in low quantities (28 ppm of lunar regolith is helium-4 and 0.01 ppm is helium-3).
Helium-3 undergoes the following aneutronic fusion reaction, among others, although this is the one most promising for power generation:

    2H + 3He → 4He (3.7 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)

The appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Most proposed fusion processes for power generation produce highly energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive with their bombardment, and power generation must occur through thermal means. In contrast, helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which results in direct electricity generation.

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

Did you mean, "Interestingly enough, it's not harmful at all" ?

yes sorry missed the NOT there !!! OOpss

[Negin -(Universe) (OP)]

I persume there is a common factor between the atmosphere of the moon and the earth that keeps He-3 whithin the planets' surface???

[another_someone]

I persume there is a common factor between the atmosphere of the moon and the earth that keeps He-3 whithin the planets' surface???

There is no atmosphere on the moon.  Anything that exists on the moon must be in the rocks - so too the helium.  It is true that helium is normally regarded as a gas, but gasses are absorbed to a limited amount by the solids that surround them, just as liquids will dissolve small amounts of gas, so too will solids.

[lightarrow]

So, He³ is the new NASA excuse to go to the moon and make plants there?
Who they want to convince? Not me, at least.