With reference to the Russian Clipper project...

I don't think it'll make the 2013/2015 timeframe anymore. I'm assuming that these are dates quoted by the Russians? If so, then they will most likely need to update their timeframe, because ESA was given NO BUDGET to work with the Russians on the Clipper project. And without ESA money, Clipper will now be funded solely by the Russians - 2013 looks very optimistic now doesn't it?!

can be but they don't need ESA if they use privat companies
if you have big companies who are wiling or privat companies wiling
to do it they will have it in no time.

if they can convince shell , bp , ect who know that oil is running low and they realise that helium 3 is there replacement of oil they will invest major capital in to this projects .

ER....BIG PROB i have with this.....

Theyre talking about mining the moon. AKA removing mass from it. Now what exactly does the moon control? tides. Make it lighter and what do we get? Fracked up tides thats what. global flooding/drought. Bad plan.

Originally posted by Shadow88
ER....BIG PROB i have with this.....

Theyre talking about mining the moon. AKA removing mass from it. Now what exactly does the moon control? tides. Make it lighter and what do we get? Fracked up tides thats what. global flooding/drought. Bad plan.

well we place equipment there and the amounts we can harvest from the moon will be less we will place settlements there.

also don;t be woried about the moon losing mass. it will be replenished and you know there are many impacts on the moon which also makes the moon loose some of it mass but it will then be replenished.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
if they can convince shell , bp , ect who know that oil is running low and they realise that helium 3 is there replacement of oil they will invest major capital in to this projects .

We have enough oil for decades, probably over 100 years.
Oil companies are making a killing, to them, it would just be stupid spend billions of dollars to mine the moon. Hell, the only reason they spend money on "green" energy sources is because it looks good, its good PR, you dont want to advertise yourself with a commercial showing a smoke stack.

Originally posted by Shadow88
ER....BIG PROB i have with this.....

Theyre talking about mining the moon. AKA removing mass from it. Now what exactly does the moon control? tides. Make it lighter and what do we get? Fracked up tides thats what. global flooding/drought. Bad plan.

Your kidding right?
If you think we could even make a dent then your seriously misunderstanding how big the moon is. Its 2000 miles across...We can mine it for centuries and centuries and it will have Zero, effect on our tides.

Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?

Originally posted by Frosty
Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?

What do you mean non-existant? It's very present!

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by Frosty
Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?

What do you mean non-existant? It's very present!

Ok, how about: Who has a trillion dollars to mine an existant non-energy source?

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Frosty]

How is this legal?

Space is global property, you can't put weaponize it, you can't own it, and you can't mine and sell it. Just like antarctica.

Originally posted by Nygdan
How is this legal?

Space is global property, you can't put weaponize it, you can't own it, and you can't mine and sell it. Just like antarctica.

i have no clue at all

though it can be mined as long as the profit from raw material goes to charitable organizations that benefit the global community, and the material gets distributed equally.

Originally posted by Nygdan
How is this legal?

Space is global property, you can't put weaponize it, you can't own it, and you can't mine and sell it. Just like antarctica.

if you have the money and the need for weapons in space other type of space related weapons they will be there.

stopping it can't be done its all ready full of weapons.

Space is the next frontier....

.....who gave America to the Americans, or Australia to the Australians?

In this instance first in first served i believe...first to get there and start settling....well, posession is 9/10ths of the law...

This is bullshiz. And lots of bullshiz. Hot and sticky bullshiz.
First off, I respect Russian science and engineering very much. Problem is, they don't have the economy to DO ANYTHING!!!
Selling rides to Western tourists and pop stars aboard Russia's Soyuz, proud pinnacle of Soviet technology is a desperate measure. Its humiliating.

Helium 3 is a proposed fuel for use in nuclear fusion reactor. BIllions have been poured into development over the last 50 years, and ITER, a prototype and the current state of the art will finish research only after 2030. After a demonstration plant, commercial power might be availble sometime after 2050. We are having a hell of a difficult time using the easiest fuels, deuterium and tritium; He3 is more efficient, but also MUCH more difficult to use in that they require higher reactor temperature and pressure. There is no demand for He3 right now. This entire deal is simply a PR scheme to bolster the struggling Klipper.

Lastly, mining He3 will not affect the moon's mass appreciably. Hell, if Phobos or Deimos had He3 and we mined them, they would not give a D*** either. Put things into perspective...1 semi of He3 can power the US for a year!

[edit on 28-1-2006 by SkyBlueTwo]

Originally posted by Murmur
Bullshiz? i think not. This is actualy a very smart move on the part of the russians a mine on the moon is an excellent way of developing and testing technology for mining other materials in space a wise investment in the future of their nation.

Why does everyone here, including yourself, think the Russians are made out of gold? Do you think they have trillions of dollars to do this?

He3 can also be used as fuel for rockets, a source of rocket fuel that dosnt require you to ship it out of earths gravity well offers a
number of advantages to the nation that controls it.

No it cannot. The member above your post stated that it clearly is not applicable in a fusion reactor. The fusion of 3He is much hotter than the conventional proccess.

The amount of energy put into most magnets to contain hot gases is much more than the energy harnessed from the reactor, or is so great that the idea of using the reactor to supply electricity to homes is non-existant. 3He is the same way but much hotter.

Russians were not even able to put man onto Moon during Cold War, when their economy was much better, and almost 30% of GDP was directed to military and space exploration. And now someone tries to tell us they will have moonbase in 10-15 years? Do you even imagine how small were the Apolo capsules and how much more money and efforts it would take to send people, minig equipment, and such things to the moon surface? Russians were not even able to build their ISS modules without US financing.
And considering He3 as fusion fuel..., correct me if I'm wrong but I thing hydrogen (deuterium and tricium) is much better suited for fusion (fusion occurs at lower temperature) and is much cheaper to produce (from water). So why mine He3, when the problem is not fuel, but reactor construction?