Last Friday, I went to see “Moon,” starring Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey. It’s about a guy who has a miserable dead-end job mining helium-3 on the Moon.
This is science fiction: scene from “Moon”
Maybe the NASA PR people went to the movies too. Today we learn that geologist Harrison Schmitt (who landed on the Moon in 1972 aboard the Apollo 17) is excited about the prospects of finding helium-3 on the Moon.
Schmitt, a former astronaut, noted that the moon’s soil is rich in helium-3, which comes from the outer layer of the sun and is blown around the solar system by solar winds.
The element is rarely found on Earth, unlike on the moon, where it is heavily accumulated because it is pushed away by the Earth’s magnetic poles.
Helium-3 is highly sought for nuclear fusion, and though the technology is still in its infancy, the element “will ultimately be quite valuable on Earth,” Schmitt said.
“It’s not the only solution to the accelerating demand for energy that we are going to see on Earth, but it’s certainly one of the major potential solutions to that demand.”
Reserves of helium-3 on the moon are in the order of a million tons, according to some estimates, and just 25 tons could serve to power the European Union and United States for a year.
I remember watching the fusion reactor that GE had on display at the 1964 New York World’s Fair. It didn’t have any containment for the reaction, so it just made a loud “pop” every 15 minutes. We’re been waiting for fusion power ever since– I hope they solve the containment problem soon. Magnetic field containment tends to use more power than a fusion plant can produce.
The most practical fuel for fusion reactors is actually hydrogen-2, which is found in very large quantities on Planet Earth. Even if you had to go to the Moon for fuel, there is no reason to send people to do the mining.
UPDATE: The unmanned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has acquired high-resolution images of the historic Apollo mission landing sites, including the 40-year-old Apollo 11 site.
Related One Utah posts:
NASA Abandoning Plans for Bush’s Moon Base (May 4, 2009)
Obama Should Cancel Bush’s Moon Mission (December 13, 2008)
#1 by Larry Bergan on July 16, 2009 - 1:38 pm
Looks like an interesting movie. Did you like it Richard?
#2 by Richard Warnick on July 16, 2009 - 1:44 pm
It was worth going to see. By design, “Moon” is different– duller than most sci-fi films. The acting was very good, and the plot had a few implausibilities as you might expect.
Not any more implausible than NASA’s manned Moon program, though.
#3 by Shane Smith on July 16, 2009 - 1:54 pm
I am really torn by this. On the one hand the amount of pure science potential is impressive, and who knows, maybe it really will solve actual problems.
On the other hand, It seems like a lot of work to get an unknown amount of a material that we may not be ready to use in a process that has unknown dangers just to make energy. Seems like for the same amount of work and money we might be better off improving solar or something…
…but the part of me that loved “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” really wants to start launching rockets.
#4 by Richard Warnick on July 16, 2009 - 2:12 pm
Fusion reactors are actually very safe. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. If containment fails, then the reaction fizzles– like that GE World’s Fair exhibit.
When are they going to make Heinlein’s classic into a movie? Apparently Tim Minear has written a screenplay.
#5 by Shane Smith on July 16, 2009 - 2:48 pm
No, fusion reactors actually take most of my worry about nuclear energy away, they are very safe.
But we haven’t run them large scale for any real time have we? Who would have thought the internal combustion engine would turn out to be the threat it is today?
I wish I could tell you when TMIAHM would become a movie. At one time the excuse was that a weightless environment production set couldn’t be done, and the special effects seemed too hard. Seems like a poor excuse now doesn’t it?
One of my favorite works ever. The fact that you actually want to sit right down and cry over a computers fate is a pretty remarkable testament to what a good story it is.
…instead they make transformer movies. May the gods have mercy on us.
#6 by M. Simon on July 16, 2009 - 4:42 pm
With Polywell Fusion you don’t have to go to the moon for fuel. The oceans are full of fuel.
#7 by Larry Bergan on July 17, 2009 - 12:14 am
NASA spent a heck of a lot of money, but they were magnificent back in the day.
#8 by Larry Bergan on July 17, 2009 - 12:42 am
No doubt about it, our exploration of space has been a great thing for science. The first pictures taken from space represented the earth looking at itself for the first time.
I would say that the programs that brought advances in computers in the space race were by far the most important programs. I think Richard is right, robotics is the way to go and can also greatly affect science advances.
I don’t think we should start mining the moon. That’s crazy talk without getting busy on making any kind of renewable energy here.
#9 by Larry Bergan on July 17, 2009 - 12:57 am
Polywell Fusion.
8340 hits on Google. Not too impressive.