Mining the moon, motives and future living

In space besides the motivational drive to boldly mimic previous heros visiting places no other human has been before. There has to be some sort of benefit to traveling to a hazardous place. There in the not so distant future predicts that space tourism will take off. Hopefully will help finance the infrastructure of regular trips to orbit for the public to have zero G fun. Along the way extra cargo can be transported to a habitable environment for people to stay. In time zero G provides excellent conditions for manufacture in the pharmaceutical industry or electronics industry. If all goes well, maybe the motive to travel to other destinations will be a possibility.
In consideration to travel beyond the planet there seems to be a need to find other materials, when the local stock of minerals has run out. The motive to visit and create a moon-base there, will require a few things. Its essential to find a water source allowing the inhabitants to grown food there or to create rocket fuel for any spacecraft. Already top layer of the moon’s surface may hold far more water than previously thought, according to a new study.The newly released study has found that water was most likely formed on the surface of the Moon by the constant stream of charged particles ejected from the Sun. The finding “represents an unanticipated, abundant reservoir” of water on the moon, according to researchers from three U.S. universities, who formally reported their results Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Researchers announced the discovery after using infrared and mass spectrometry to analyze lunar samples from Apollo. The team found large amounts of hydroxyl inside aglutinate glass, which is a bonded hydrogen and oxygen atom. How the solar hydrogen combines with oxygen in the regolith grains to make the molecules is unclear.
In 2009, NASA bombed the moon -- part of its Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission -- and observed grains of water ice in the remnants of the resulting plume, as well as light metals such as sodium and mercury, and volatile compounds like methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
While the study does not suggest a large amount of readily available water, it may be possible to mine water from the soil or to break up the molecules into their constituent oxygen and hydrogen atoms to create rocket fuel—potential requirements for a lunar base. “With the cost of $25,000 for taking one pint [half a liter] of water to the moon, it is essential that we develop processes of producing water from the materials on the moon,” said Dr. Lawrence Taylor, a University of Tennessee geochemist who advised Apollo astronauts gathering lunar samples.
The researchers concluded in the Nature Geoscience study that positively charged subatomic hydrogen proton particles coming from the solar wind -- a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun's upper atmosphere -- appear to have combined with oxygen on the moon's surface to form the OH hydroxyls.

The result is an "unanticipated, abundant reservoir" of OH and water in the dust, soil, broken rock and other loose material on the lunar surface. As well as hydroxyls researchers have found an abundant source of Helium 3 for which over the millions of years have deposited on the moon. A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986, have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Recently, companies as Planetary_Resources have also stated to be interested in mining helium-3 on the moon. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3), and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining.
The price of the isotope helium-3 has skyrocketed from $150 per liter to $5,000 per liter.Helium wasn't technically "discovered" on Earth until about 1895, despite being abundant in the universe. Almost all of the global supply of helium is located within 250 miles of Amarillo, Texas; it's distilled from accumulated natural gas and extracted during the refining process. Since the 1920s, the US has considered its helium stockpile as an important strategic natural resource, amassing some 32 billion cubic feet in an underground bunker in Texas, but for several years now, it's been selling off that stockpile bit by bit to interested industrial buyers. Liquid helium cools infrared detectors, nuclear reactors, and the superconducting magnets used in MRI machines, too. The fear is that, at current consumption rates, that underground bunker will be empty within 20 years, leaving the earth almost helium-free by the end of the 21st century.
The prospect of fusion using helium-3, a rare helium isotope that is missing a neutron. Physicists have yet to achieve pure helium-3 fusion, but the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor soon to be built in 2019 is the best candidate to succeed. The basic reasons for Helium 3 is that using it along with other hydrogen isotopes will give less harmful neutrons in the reaction. The less neutron bombardment the longer the inner chamber will last, which will effectively be cheaper in the cost of maintenance.
The moon could also be a source for rare earth elements, such as europium and tantalum, which are in high demand on Earth for electronics and green energy applications (solar panels, hybrid cars), as well as being used in the space and defense industries.
China is the largest exporter of rare earth elements, but there are growing concerns over supply vulnerability as China drastically reduces its rare earth exports. Scientists know that there are pockets or rare earth deposits on the moon, but as yet they don't have detailed maps of those areas. Potassium, phosphorus and thorium are other elements that lunar rocks have to offer a potential mining venture.
The process of mining will also be need to revised Associate Professor of Engineering at University of New South Wales. Leonhard Bernold spoke of a close pneumatic system where by using the power of suction to extract the minerals. Possibly a directed gas supply is forcing loose rocks out for the suction pipe to extract while filtering and recycling the gas for more extraction. Once contained the sand-like particles can he heated and various elements can be removed and separated for their important uses. If such a machine could be made, it is more likely to be a automated system to reduce human risk as lunar rock is abrasive and could easily wear out a space suit.

The benefits of mining the moon for a potential fuel source have never disappeared, considering Nasa finding water on the moon is the first step to colonizing any area. This whole venture actually requires several different emerging events to successfully happen. The success of space tourism for an orbital infrastructure (possibly the need for a rocket engine to fly from aerospace to outer space), a need for fusion fuel  which requires fusion power to work (hopefully by 2019) and the hugh investment for a company or group to try and extract minerals from the moon. Potentially there is motive already mine the moon with out fusion fuel as I wrote an article about helium running out, which is essential for most things including cryo research and electronics manufacture. The pros and cons of mining other areas besides Earth become more favorable. If there are things to look forward to it will be success or failure of tourism in space that might indicate where the next frontiers of industry will be heading...

Atomic Propulsion, the science of moving

In the early days of nuclear power things was optimistic on the uses of this technology, crazy experiments include the firing of an atom bomb above the heads of human observers. A large cannon to fire nuclear bombs and of course Atomic powered engines for submarines large boats and Airplanes. The idea of making atom cars powered by uranium-235 dated back to at least 1941 when Dr R M Langer, a CalTech physicist, espoused the idea in the January edition of Popular Mechanics. He was followed by William Bushnell Stout, designer of the Stout Scarab and former Society of Engineers President, on 7 August 1945 in the New York Times. By 1951 the problem of shielding the reactor had rendered the idea impractical.

Naval reactors undergo repeated power changes for ship maneuvering, unlike civilian counterparts which operate at steady state. Nuclear safety, radiation, shock, quieting, and operating performance requirements in addition to operation in close proximity to the crew dictate exceptionally high standards for component manufacturing and quality assurance. The internals of a Naval reactor remain inaccessible for inspection or replacement throughout a long core life -- unlike a typical commercial nuclear reactor, which is opened for refueling roughly every eighteen months.


Nuclear jet engines was the heart of propulsion system for a new type of long distance bomber. There were two types of systems competing for the potential contract of the new bomber. The direct Cycle nuclear engine designs were proposed in the late 40s by the same people who worked on atomic bomb designs. Direct cycle nuclear engines would resemble a conventional engine, except that there would be no combustion chambers. The air gained from the compressor section would be sent to a plenum that directs the air into the nuclear reactor core. An exchange takes place where the reactor is cooled, but it then heats up the same air and sends it to another plenum. The second plenum directs the air into a turbine, which sends it out the exhaust. The end result is that instead of using jet fuel, an aircraft could rely on chemical reactions for power.
Another proposed design utilized an indirect cycling method to utilize nuclear heat for thrust. Indirect cycling involved thermal exchange outside of the core. The compressor air would be sent to a heat exchanger. The nuclear reactor core would heat up pressurized water or liquid metal and send it to the heat exchanger as well. That hot liquid would be cooled by the air; the air would be heated by the liquid and sent to the turbine. The turbine would send the air out the exhaust, providing thrust.

Several experimental aircraft were created and launched with both the indirect and direct cycle engines.

An NB-36 made nearly 50 record-setting flights between 1956 and 1957, according to aircraft historian Raul Colon's article "Flying on Nuclear, The American Effort to Built a Nuclear Powered Bomber." However, the Air Force scrapped any future plans due to public concern over nuclear engines in the air and better-designed conventional engines.

Project Orion was a study of a spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft (nuclear pulse propulsion). Early versions of this vehicle were proposed to have taken off from the ground with significant associated nuclear fallout; later versions were presented for use only in space. The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 12 to 19 mi/s (19 to 31 km/s) in typical interplanetary designs, with mega-newtons of thrust. The craft would be propelled by pulsed explosions, the craft it self would have a protective shielding which would ensure a relatively safe environment. The shielded side would include a shock absorbing pusher plate.
Exposure to repeated nuclear blasts raises the problem of ablation (erosion) of the pusher plate. However, calculations and experiments indicate that a steel pusher plate would ablate less than 1 mm if unprotected. If sprayed with an oil, it need not ablate at all (this was discovered by accident; a test plate had oily fingerprints on it, and the fingerprints suffered no ablation). The absorption spectra of carbon and hydrogen minimize heating. Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion. The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project.

Theoretically the nuclear propulsion systems of the past might have advanced Air travel. Although its use of direct nuclear heat to provide the energy for a jet engine might have irradiated the air, causing possible environmental dangers. Nuclear power have been successfully installed in submarines and aircraft carriers, so why not airplanes?. Radiation shielding in light aircraft has been a major problem as conventional lead shielding is always heavy, also the thrust capacity provided was minimal at best. Considering these negative factors are problems of the past and new materials in metrology and electronics. I am convinced that an nuclear power converted to electrical power could provide a better indirect system to provide a heat source.
The same heat that could provide a jet engine its power or even a faster efficient ram jet, which could possibly take the craft to fly to the edge of space several times the speed of sound. Also the next generation of plasma ion propulsion engine, which uses a lot of electrical power can provide a working alternative to traditional space rockets. The slow change to move away from fossil fuels and crude oil will probably delay the technology of nuclear power. Public confidence in Atomic power has been an all time low due to the inferior pressured water reactor. Despite our current nuclear reactors there are relatively safe alternatives, politics had put a stop to this technology and kept it in the early stages round the era of the cold war. Eventually when people have the money and resources, they might think differently to nuclear propulsion systems. India and china have already expressed interest in thorium reactors, which seem the best solution to the power crisis. It might be a matter of time to merge old and new technologies to mobile setting, hopefully within my own timeline.