Quote: Originally Posted by Jay Canuck
what is going on up on the moon that is so important that the U.S has to go back?
For forty years...nothing...thus why we did not go back.
However, we have advanced technologically over those 40 years and now have the technology to capitalize on a near zero gravity environment for exploration and developmental purposes.
I have still not seen tangible proof from NASA to justify a human presence on the moon.
Money is tight, we are in a recession, $12 Trillion deficit
And we want to spend money we don't have to vacation on the moon? Been there....done that
Yet on the same day the President in Tampa, commits 8 billion dollars in funding for high speed rail that has a terrible record of existing off the tax payer, Amtrak comes to mind.
When the United States gives up on technology and programs that keep our nation in the lead in terms of space exploration and rocket science we have raised the white flag to other nations and admit we not longer wish to be the best. As for the moon itself, want to know why there is a good reason for going there..
Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron. It is rare on Earth, and is sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system's gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula), though still low in quantity (28 ppm of lunar regolith is helium-4 and 0.01 ppm is helium-3).[1]
The helion, the nucleus of a helium-3 atom, consists of two protons but only one neutron, in contrast to two neutrons in ordinary helium. Its existence was first proposed in 1934 by the Australian nuclear physicist Mark Oliphant while based at Cambridge University's Cavendish Laboratory, in an experiment in which fast deuterons were reacted with other deuteron targets (the first demonstration of nuclear fusion).[2] Helium-3, as an isotope, was postulated to be radioactive, until helions from it were accidentally identified as a trace "contaminant" in a sample of natural helium (which is mostly helium-4) from a gas well, by Luis W. Alvarez and Robert Cornog in a cyclotron experiment at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in 1939.[3] The presence of helium-3 in underground gas deposits implied that it either did not decay or had an extremely long half-life compatible with a primordial isotope.
Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fusion fuel for fusion power uses. Tritium decays into helium-3 with a 12 year half-life. Tritium produced for other uses evolves helium-3 which can be recovered. Irradiation of lithium in a nuclear reactor — either a fusion or fission reactor — can also produce tritium, and helium-3 after decay.
When we give up on the potential for FUTURE power needs we are ready to depend on other nations for it and have placed the handcuffs of economic slavery on future generations for our short sighted vision. right, we have talked about this issue in terms of the Budget itself and you know as well as I that NASA's budget is one of the smallest for a department in the overall Federal Budget and in terms of the return on the investment as opposed to say High Speed Rail the you get a lot more than your monies worth.
Liberal is quite correct that NASA has been re-tasked in it's budget to scientific study of near earth climate change matters rather than long range space exploration. Even though the budget has been raised an additional 1 billion dollars a year, that money will NOT go to the development of a heavy lift rocket such as the ARES V but rather it will go to what I posted above and looking for private ventures as well as foreign ventures to do it for us. Thats called OUTSOURCING!!!!! In case your wondering, the two private ventures that have had the most success are Rocket X and Virgin Galactic both of which have ZERO capablity for heavy lift and are no where near able to support the needs of NASA for many many years , so that leaves, China and Russia and France to do our work for us. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that people would be supportive of a policy that is not only dangereous to national security but also costs American Jobs by the thousands.
