Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar economy
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:47:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar economy >> https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
A "lunar economy" sounds silly. There's nothing up there but dirt and radiation.
May as well plop your business in the middle of a desert, or
antartica, or on a barge offshorse.
I was once involved with some utopians who wanted to set up an ideal
society, New Island, on a barge in the Gulf of Mexico. Same idea. It
sounded dreadful so I declined. But at least the barge would have had
air and rain and a way to paddle home.
On 11/01/2025 3:58 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:47:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar economy >>> https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
A "lunar economy" sounds silly. There's nothing up there but dirt and
radiation.
And a whole lot of helium-3.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-4001
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 3:58 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:47:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar
economy
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
A "lunar economy" sounds silly. There's nothing up there but dirt and
radiation.
And a whole lot of helium-3.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-4001
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
How are you going to get that power
source to the moon? And if you can do that, why not use that to provide
lunar power needs? Or is it that you're going to do something like
charge a large bank of capacitors from solar cells on the moon? How are
you going to get those capacitors and solar cells to the moon? And so on.
By the way, whoever wrote that abstract didn't bother checking it: "...
from 3He, fusion power can be provided to terrestrial electrical needs
and to interplanetary travel." Did they /really/ mean "terrestrial" electrical needs? Or did they intend to say "lunar" electrical needs?
You might also like to consider a couple of comments from <https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface>:
"...Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion
Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the helium fusion reaction with a net power output."
"Not everyone is in agreement that Helium 3 will produce a safe fusion solution.
In an article entitled "Fears over Factoids" in 2007, the
theoretical physicist Frank Close famously described the concept as "moonshine"."
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 3:58 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:47:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar economy
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
A "lunar economy" sounds silly. There's nothing up there but dirt and
radiation.
And a whole lot of helium-3.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-4001
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required. How are you going to get that power >source to the moon? And if you can do that, why not use that to provide
lunar power needs? Or is it that you're going to do something like
charge a large bank of capacitors from solar cells on the moon? How are
you going to get those capacitors and solar cells to the moon? And so on.
By the way, whoever wrote that abstract didn't bother checking it: "...
from 3He, fusion power can be provided to terrestrial electrical needs
and to interplanetary travel." Did they /really/ mean "terrestrial" >electrical needs? Or did they intend to say "lunar" electrical needs?
You might also like to consider a couple of comments from ><https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface>:
"...Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another >leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion
Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the >helium fusion reaction with a net power output."
"Not everyone is in agreement that Helium 3 will produce a safe fusion >solution. In an article entitled "Fears over Factoids" in 2007, the >theoretical physicist Frank Close famously described the concept as >"moonshine"."
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all,
if it worked.
How are you going to get that power
source to the moon? And if you can do that, why not use that to provide
lunar power needs? Or is it that you're going to do something like
charge a large bank of capacitors from solar cells on the moon? How are
you going to get those capacitors and solar cells to the moon? And so on.
By the way, whoever wrote that abstract didn't bother checking it: "...
from 3He, fusion power can be provided to terrestrial electrical needs
and to interplanetary travel." Did they /really/ mean "terrestrial"
electrical needs? Or did they intend to say "lunar" electrical needs?
You might also like to consider a couple of comments from
<https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface>:
"...Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another
leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion
Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the
helium fusion reaction with a net power output."
"Not everyone is in agreement that Helium 3 will produce a safe fusion
solution.
We do have an unlimited supply of people willing to express opinions
about stuff they known very little about. Some - like Cursitor Doom -
seem to search out the most fatuous misinformation they can find and
repost that.
In an article entitled "Fears over Factoids" in 2007, the
theoretical physicist Frank Close famously described the concept as
"moonshine"."
https://hb11.energy/
is perhaps also moonshine, but they do seem to be attracting investors. Boron-hydrogen fusion does have the advantage of not generating
neutrons, so the hardware would last a lot longer if they ever got it to
work (and the prospects are rather better than they are for cold fusion).
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all,
if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall.
On 11/01/2025 21:04, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all, >>> if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall.
To be fair they were perfectly good electrochemists but out of their
depth where calorimetry was concerned. I'm still just about prepared to >believe that they really did see something very odd but irreproducible.
They published prematurely for fear of another real muon catalysed cold >fusion method stealing their thunder. Unwisely as it turned out.
You couldn't buy palladium or heavy water for months after their paper
was first published since everybody and their dog had a go at it. No-one
else could make it work although some are still trying.
is perhaps also moonshine, but they do seem to be attracting investors.Perhaps you'd like to predict when /you/ think that fusion energy will
Boron-hydrogen fusion does have the advantage of not generating
neutrons, so the hardware would last a lot longer if they ever got it to >>> work (and the prospects are rather better than they are for cold fusion). >>
become commercially available, and what form it will take. That should
be easy enough as you obviously know a lot about fusion energy.
I predict that fusion power will be commercially viable in about 50
years from now (according to its proponents looking for venture capital)
and also that this prediction is time invariant.
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all,
if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall.
is perhaps also moonshine, but they do seem to be attracting investors.
Boron-hydrogen fusion does have the advantage of not generating
neutrons, so the hardware would last a lot longer if they ever got it to
work (and the prospects are rather better than they are for cold fusion).
Perhaps you'd like to predict when /you/ think that fusion energy will
become commercially available, and what form it will take. That should
be easy enough as you obviously know a lot about fusion energy.
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all,
if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall.
How are you going to get that power
source to the moon? And if you can do that, why not use that to provide
lunar power needs? Or is it that you're going to do something like
charge a large bank of capacitors from solar cells on the moon? How are
you going to get those capacitors and solar cells to the moon? And so
on.
By the way, whoever wrote that abstract didn't bother checking it: "...
from 3He, fusion power can be provided to terrestrial electrical needs
and to interplanetary travel." Did they /really/ mean "terrestrial"
electrical needs? Or did they intend to say "lunar" electrical needs?
You might also like to consider a couple of comments from
<https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface>:
"...Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another
leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion
Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the
helium fusion reaction with a net power output."
"Not everyone is in agreement that Helium 3 will produce a safe fusion
solution.
We do have an unlimited supply of people willing to express opinions
about stuff they known very little about. Some - like Cursitor Doom -
seem to search out the most fatuous misinformation they can find and
repost that.
In an article entitled "Fears over Factoids" in 2007, the
theoretical physicist Frank Close famously described the concept as
"moonshine"."
https://hb11.energy/
is perhaps also moonshine, but they do seem to be attracting investors.
Boron-hydrogen fusion does have the advantage of not generating
neutrons, so the hardware would last a lot longer if they ever got it to
work (and the prospects are rather better than they are for cold fusion).
Perhaps you'd like to predict when /you/ think that fusion energy will
become commercially available, and what form it will take. That should
be easy enough as you obviously know a lot about fusion energy.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 21:04:16 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all, >>> if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall.
Cold Fusion is mostly bad calorimetry.
But really, Sloman has declared you to be ignorant, so back off and
beg forgiveness.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:37:45 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:04, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 13:11, Bill Sloman wrote:To be fair they were perfectly good electrochemists but out of their
On 11/01/2025 7:29 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
Everything I've read about fusion power states that to start it an
immense amount of power is required.
Then you haven't read much. Cold fusion wouldn't take much power at all, >>>> if it worked.
Is that the best you can do? You'll get a reputation for trolling, or
perhaps you've got a signed picture of Fleischmann and Pons on your wall. >>
depth where calorimetry was concerned. I'm still just about prepared to
believe that they really did see something very odd but irreproducible.
They published prematurely for fear of another real muon catalysed cold
fusion method stealing their thunder. Unwisely as it turned out.
You couldn't buy palladium or heavy water for months after their paper
was first published since everybody and their dog had a go at it. No-one
else could make it work although some are still trying.
is perhaps also moonshine, but they do seem to be attracting investors. >>>> Boron-hydrogen fusion does have the advantage of not generatingPerhaps you'd like to predict when /you/ think that fusion energy will
neutrons, so the hardware would last a lot longer if they ever got it to >>>> work (and the prospects are rather better than they are for cold fusion). >>>
become commercially available, and what form it will take. That should
be easy enough as you obviously know a lot about fusion energy.
I predict that fusion power will be commercially viable in about 50
years from now (according to its proponents looking for venture capital)
and also that this prediction is time invariant.
This is progress! It used to be 30 years in the future.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 08:29:57 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/01/2025 04:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 11/01/2025 3:58 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:47:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Intuitive Machines set for second landing, looking to build a lunar economy
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/intuitive-machines-set-for-second-landing-looking-to-build-a-lunar-economy/
A "lunar economy" sounds silly. There's nothing up there but dirt and
radiation.
And a whole lot of helium-3.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-4001
The He3 concentration in moon dirt is estimated at up to 15 PPB, and conjectured that it could hit 50 PPB in some places.
One would have to sift through a lot of dirt to get a gram of He3, and
you'd need robots, not human miners with picks and wheelbarrows.
Even if He3 fusion worked, mining it on the moon and shipping it back
to earth would probably be a huge net loser.
But NASA is in the business of losing money. They are always looking
for ways to do that better.
Perhaps you'd like to predict when /you/ think that fusion energy will
become commercially available, and what form it will take. That should
be easy enough as you obviously know a lot about fusion energy.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 109:35:28 |
Calls: | 8,692 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,259 |
Messages: | 5,948,494 |