Refer to link: why will the US spend $100,000,000 on the 1st Moon venture to gather H3?

Question

it's a go: the united states is allotting ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS (less, though, than what is spent each day on the Iraq farce) to NASA for its first journey to the Moon to "capture" H3 to use here on earth to make hydrogen easily, for alternate fuel. and so the story goes.

look at this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnvQk65Oi0CfonwCYkxBRMgjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070806220053AASiiIi

when there are now cars made that run on our own air, why does $$$ have to be wasted on theory?

how will all this H3 get transported back to earth?

how will H3 be magically taken out of some of the rocks on the Moon (SOME OF THEM, MIND YOU) at less cost than what it costs to gather them up from the moon and transport them back here?

why does NASA get funded so well when we know so little about the resources that our own earth has staring us right in the face?

DO NOT ANSWER YET: look for more below:

Answer 1

@ crabbby_b

Relax, you're among friends here.

Indifference to crabby, Tritium( ³H ) is in fact Hydrogen. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen where a normal hydrogen atom has only a proton in it's nucleus. Tritium has a proton and 2 neutrons in it's nucleus. I'm not certain that it is any easier to coerce tritium into a fusion reaction but I am sure that the energy release is substantially higher with isotopes.

This is not to fuel a car. this is an effort to fuel a fusion reactor which as yet has not been done. Tritium is kinda rare on earth so even a far fetched source like the moon is probably worth a looksee.

A fusion reactor would be cheap as h**l with no (that's right i said "NO") waste apart from several atoms worth of helium. not even enough to fill a party balloon.

The larger question I think is why go to space at all. The short answer is "Discovery" keep in mind that when the electron was discovered in 1897 it had no practical use. And here we are a hundred and 10 years later in a world governed by electronics. This very communication is only possible because of it.

We don't know what we'll find out there. Probably a lot of useless stuff but within that we'll also find things that will ultimately be well worth the trip.

Answer 2

katz149 is dead on.

Bombs like Hiroshima (uranium) and Nagasaki (plutonium) were fission bombs. The big Thermonuclear city killers are Fusion bombs. Every nuclear reactor today is a fission reactor. They all use plutonium and have a significant amount of radioactive waste. Controlled fusion reactions have only been done in the lab. There's a lab in California researching it now but it is a great deal more difficult to fuse atoms than to tear them apart which by the way is the difference between fission and fusion.

Answer 3

Try learning some science.  Its helium 3, not hydrogen 3.  and it isn't intended for use in cars.  Helium 3 is the ideal fuel for a fusion reactor.  The project is to test methods of extracting it from lunar soil.

Why do this?  Simple: fusion represents the potential fo ran unlimited, non-polluting source of enrgy.  The amount of He3 required to run a reactor would be small--easily transportable to Earth--and cost-effective even with current space technology, because you get so much enrgy out of it (many times th e amount that is derived from uranium or plutionium in a conventional nuclear plant)--and it produces zero radioactive waste.  Nor can a fusion reaction get out of control like the Chernobyl disaster.

This is part o f a long term international effort on the part of many organizations and countries to develop fusion technology.  

BTW--that's $100 MILLION, not billion. $100 Billion is the estimated cost for the entire "return to the moon program" over the next 15 years or so--this is jsut one experiment.

Next time, try getting the facts right before you sound off.

Answer 4

a car that runs on air   hmmm how does thwe air get compressed?   coal powered electric plants...  nice rant

Answer 5

I am so tired about people complaining about NASA.  Do you know the medical and technological breakthroughs NASA has made on its often shoe string budget?

If I remember my facts NASA's budget was $16 Billion this year.  The is a drop in the bucket to what we spend on the military, education and a whole host of other programs.

I saw a documentary on H3 and was fascinated by it.  The long term effects of this energy source could be off the chart, if only half of what they think about it is true.  And, the moon is supposedly loaded with it and it is easily mined.

We should be increasing NASAs budget, not decreasing it.  Returning to the moon and then onto Mars could be done much faster, if the funding was there to push it along.

Kennedy and Johnson got us to the moon in 9 years from scratch.  Money and political will are the only things holding us up on this.

Answer 6

I think a better question would be why do the US spend billions on military related operations every year instead of education