-
Lemme know when we find the abundance to make that study worth while. I still say anti-matter is the way to go, we just have to get the refining process down.
-
It's very abundant on the moon.
-
That's the first I'm hearing of it. That would be like the California gold rush all over again.
-
My information is likely a few years out-dated... But this is pretty much it.
-
Edited by Sierra-Noble: 12/1/2013 6:51:27 AMDamn, get your space pickaxe.
-
Well... Unfortunately the the problem becomes not how to harvest it... But how to harvest it without starting a war...
-
So many countries have claimed the moon or parts of and there isn't a real system in place for space property yet. I'm just waiting for a terrorist to threaten nuking the moon. Talk about a wave of terror! That was a joke.
-
-
-
It really wouldn't.
-
You do know that even a small amount can power a large city for a year?
-
Edited by annoyinginge: 12/1/2013 8:01:08 AMIn theory, there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy per cubic meter of vacuum. But this doesn't mean it's a good energy source, because we can't actually use any of it. In the same way, there may be loads of energy locked away in helium-3, but if we don't have fusion reactors - and we don't - it's entirely useless. So forgive me for preferring solar power. Y'know, something which actually works.
-
He3 would work...
-
That's not even an argument.
-
Got any data to support that?
-
[quote]About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. To put it in perspective: that's about the weight of a fully loaded railroad box car, or a maximum Space Shuttle payload. [/quote] From same source I have link to another person.
-
This man is correct. Mining He3 will be a much better use of their time.
-
You missed the part where we can't actually use any of this energy.
-
Because... we don't have reactors... something that can be built and developed much more easily than what is proposed here.
-
We "don't have" fusion reactors in the same way we "don't have" hyperspace travel and time machines. You're talking about technology which doesn't even exist. As opposed to solar panels and satellites and wireless power transmission, all of which are very much real.
-
Edited by Vicex: 12/1/2013 4:30:33 PMJust because we don't have something doesn't mean one should "give up". ...and the development of fusion reactors is not on the same level as time travel or hyperspace travel- the fact that you imply they are is unsettling.
-
That was plainly hyperbole. Stop making up points to quibble over to hide from the fact you haven't got a leg to stand on in the main argument. Put simply, there are two possibilities, X and Y. Technologically speaking, Y is further from our grasp, so it makes sense to turn our immediate attention to X. And to clarify, Y is fusion and X is space solar power.
-
Edited by Vicex: 12/1/2013 4:46:59 PM[quote]That was plainly hyperbole. Stop making up points to quibble over to hide from the fact you haven't got a leg to stand on in the main argument.[/quote] That was pitiful. [quote]Put simply, there are two possibilities, X and Y. Technologically speaking, Y is further from our grasp, so it makes sense to turn our immediate attention to X. And to clarify, Y is fusion and X is space solar power.[/quote] Fusion power may be "further from our grasp" but not by much.. and certainly not enough to rule out a known solution. The question is, which is more cost-effective.
-
"That was pitiful" wasn't even an argument, though you do get points for a statement which describes itself. And fusion is further from our grasp, thus we should focus on the one which is more likely to work, which is space solar. ...Actually, you know what, screw this. Really, this entire argument is a waste of time. I very much doubt either of us actually has a problem with the other method, we're simply two dumb apes which have fallen into the argument trap. This isn't about power generation at all, we simply want to get the last word in and "win" a pointless and extremely dull debate. So, feel free to not reply, or agree to stop, or claim victory, or string together whatever insults spring to mind - I'm done here.
-
[quote] ...Actually, you know what, screw this. Really, this entire argument is a waste of time. I very much doubt either of us actually has a problem with the other method, we're simply two dumb apes which have fallen into the argument trap.[/quote] Pretty much- being on edge, this isn't hard for me to do right now.