In the mind of Newt......................

[BlueStreak]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...colony-by-2020


Apparently not only is he St. Ronnie back from the dead, but he is also the ghost of JFK. He has also decided that not only is the nomination in the bag, but he has won both the election and re-election as well.

Now, to put a cherry on top; We are discussing the building of "moon based mining colonies"---by the end of Newts second term, of course.

Mining what? And just where is all of that (in)famous conservative concern for the cost, viability and sensibility of such a "Grandiose" adventure?

Boy Howdy, is this election shaping up to be a doozy!

Cue up the Muzak and summon Nurse Rachett, the Inmates are taking over the asylum.

Dave

[Oerets]

Let him get going good with the ideas, he's got a big enough mouth for both feet.




Barney

[piece-itpete]

Nothing wrong with moon mining. Reminds me of an old tag line I saw elsewhere - 'Earth First! We'll mine the other planets later'

It would be for Helium 3, a fusion fuel:


"....

An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.

.....


Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.

Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development and starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion.

.........

For an investment of less than $15 billion--about the same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska Pipeline--private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon the next chapter in human history.

......"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/1283056

I'm not a fan of Newt, but the space program is the only way to save the planet. I doubt though that it would happen soley with private money though.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Nothing wrong with moon mining. Reminds me of an old tag line I saw elsewhere - 'Earth First! We'll mine the other planets later'

It would be for Helium 3, a fusion fuel:


"....

An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.

.....


Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.

Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development and starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion.

.........

For an investment of less than $15 billion--about the same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska Pipeline--private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon the next chapter in human history.

......"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/1283056

I'm not a fan of Newt, but the space program is the only way to save the planet. I doubt though that it would happen soley with private money though.

Pete

Pete, ya gotta love the breadth of your horizons. The guy who bruises his knuckles restoring antique land yachts also dreams of space colonies. I don't say that critically. You are much cooler than Newt. (How's that for damning with faint praise. )

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Yes we will go back to the moon to mine, but invest in renewable energies is a bad idea?


Anyone else see a contradiction in this?


The human race might need a colony on the moon for when we run out of a planet that is livable.


Barney

[piece-itpete]

I don't have a problem with renewables, but they are strictly stopgap measures that make life more expensive (hardest on the poor), and I believe takes our eyes off the only long term solution.

We have the 'extra' resources now, but might not in yay number of years. I sound like a broken record. We need to go now, we need to do it now.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, ya gotta love the breadth of your horizons. The guy who bruises his knuckles restoring antique land yachts also dreams of space colonies. I don't say that critically. You are much cooler than Newt. (How's that for damning with faint praise. )

Regards,

D-Ray

Hey, faint praise is better than none lol. Thanks. Since I'm cooler than Newt maybe I'll actually get away with asking my wife for an open marriage

Pete

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Nothing wrong with moon mining. Reminds me of an old tag line I saw elsewhere - 'Earth First! We'll mine the other planets later'

It would be for Helium 3, a fusion fuel:


"....

An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.

.....


Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.

Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development and starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion.

.........

For an investment of less than $15 billion--about the same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska Pipeline--private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon the next chapter in human history.

......"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/1283056

I'm not a fan of Newt, but the space program is the only way to save the planet. I doubt though that it would happen soley with private money though.

Pete

And I thought Dave knew everything..... Can't believe he had to ask this question.

Anyone ever read Philip K Dick's "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch"? It's all in there...man....!

[Bigerik]

Great post, Pete! Surprising, coming from a Republican.

It was a Democrat who put us on the moon, and a Republican who stopped us going there....

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Great post, Pete! Surprising, coming from a Republican.

It was a Democrat who put us on the moon, and a Republican who stopped us going there....

Took an outsider to notice that! Good point....




Barney

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Took an outsider to notice that! Good point....




Barney

Amazing what you learn when you listen to those outsiders....