Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Mining the Moon

Lab experiments suggest that future fusion reactors could use helium-3 gathered from the moon.

By Mark Williams

Thursday, August 23, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

At the 21st century's start, few would have predicted that by 2007, a second race for the moon would be under way. Yet the signs are that this is now the case. Furthermore, in today's moon race, unlike the one that took place between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s, a full roster of 21st-century global powers, including China and India, are competing.

Hot gases: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Fusion Technology Institute are testing this fusion reactor, shown with a view of the grid in which interial electrostatic confinement takes place.
Credit: Fusion Technology Institute-University of Wisconsin-Madison

Even more surprising is that one reason for much of the interest appears to be plans to mine helium-3--purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth--from the moon's surface. NASA's Vision for Space Exploration has U.S. astronauts scheduled to be back on the moon in 2020 and permanently staffing a base there by 2024. While the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own--for what it's worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020--will be extracting He3.

The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People's Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.

Nor does India intend to be left out. (See "India's Space Ambitions Soar.") This past spring, its president, A.P.J. Kalam, and its prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made major speeches asserting that, besides constructing giant solar collectors in orbit and on the moon, the world's largest democracy likewise intends to mine He3 from the lunar surface. India's probe, Chandrayaan-1, will take off next year, and ISRO, the Indian Space Research Organization, is talking about sending Chandrayaan-2, a surface rover, in 2010 or 2011. Simultaneously, Japan and Germany are also making noises about launching their own moon missions at around that time, and talking up the possibility of mining He3 and bringing it back to fuel fusion-based nuclear reactors on Earth.

Story continues below

Could He3 from the moon truly be a feasible solution to our power needs on Earth? Practical nuclear fusion is nowadays projected to be five decades off--the same prediction that was made at the 1958 Atoms for Peace conference in Brussels. If fusion power's arrival date has remained constantly 50 years away since 1958, why would helium-3 suddenly make fusion power more feasible?

Advocates of He3-based fusion point to the fact that current efforts to develop fusion-based power generation, like the ITER megaproject, use the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle, which is problematical. (See "International Fusion Research.") Deuterium and tritium are both hydrogen isotopes, and when they're fused in a superheated plasma, two nuclei come together to create a helium nucleus--consisting of two protons and two neutrons--and a high-energy neutron. A deuterium-tritium fusion reaction releases 80 percent of its energy in a stream of high-energy neutrons, which are highly destructive for anything they hit, including a reactor's containment vessel. Since tritium is highly radioactive, that makes containment a big problem as structures weaken and need to be replaced. Thus, whatever materials are used in a deuterium-tritium fusion power plant will have to endure serious punishment. And if that's achievable, when that fusion reactor is eventually decommissioned, there will still be a lot of radioactive waste.

Comments

  • Fusion
    Little helium 3 is available on earth. The pesimists say fusion is 50 years in the future. How far in the future will it be before mining the moon is a practical proposition?  

    We need fusion YESTERDAY!  We should be working hard to exploit boron 11 plus proton fusion.  It is more nearly radiation free than a mix of deuterium and what ever else.  There is gobs of boron and protons available right here on earth. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lowilliams
    08/23/2007
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Fusion
      Seeing how fusion is decades away, it makes more sense to look at e.g. cleaner coal and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. That would free up more time to work out fusion (or something else) for the long run.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      08/23/2007
      Posts:121
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Re: Fusion
        Well, you are, of course, ignoring the 800 lbs gorilla in the room, are you? FISSION. Given that costs are WAY cheaper than the mis-named "Clean Coal" (A marketing ploy), we should be building hundreds of nuclear power plants, now.

        David Walters
        Rate this comment: 12345

        dwalters
        08/29/2007
        Posts:1
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        • Re: Re: Re: Fusion
          Agreed!

          Fusion may never prove generally practical on earth. The materials engineering problems seem insurmountable from an economic perspective. Niche applications seem likely, but we are still probably more than fifty years from it. In the mean time, fission is proven and cost effective. Only political and psychological barriers remain. We have about a century of fossil fuels that we will consume, and during that time, we will improve fission and move to more reliance on it. The most probable source of our energy 150 years from now is likely not yet imagined. And if Aubrey proves prescient, perhaps we will be alive to see it. ;-) (For what little it is worth, I expect to live 50 to 60 more years, which will be long enough to see many new fission power plants go online in the U.S. but perhaps insufficient to see a commercial fusion power source of any size.)
          Rate this comment: 12345

          lschuber
          08/31/2007
          Posts:13
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
        • Re: Re: Fusion
          That's why I said "cleaner coal", not "clean coal" Which isn't a marketing ploy, a DCFC fed with coal is very clean, and allows easy sequestration.

          Nuclear cheap? Well we have all witnessed that lately, with up to 80% subsidies thrown around you should know where it's at.

          And you can't build enough of them to matter anyway.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Siphon
          10/13/2007
          Posts:121
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
    • Re: Fusion
      i do not see why "YESTERDAY"?!? oil is still dirt cheap, till the barrel is under $200-$250 its still workable - and that not gonna happen probably till 2030, besides enough money invested humanity could have (a) working moon mining facility and completed reactors in less then 10 years - but easy... its all a question of cash this days.. its not the 1960's anymore, and it clear that for this purpose there is nothing to expensive ! the nasa's yearly budget is 16bill, the world spending on oil in 2007 in 300bill, now honestly you think by investing lets say a trillion we could not be mining and producing energy in less then 10 years ?!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      siiix
      10/05/2007
      Posts:1
  • Commercial IEC Fusion possible in < 10 yrs?
    I've been researching the work of Dr. Bussard over the last couple weeks.  It is apears he has solved many of the remaining physics issues with IEC Fusion.  However, being an EE by training and experience, the physics are currently beyond me.  I would be very interested in someone else's take on the research.  This is a summary of his work over the last 15 years: http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ctommey
    08/23/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Since When?
    "Since tritium is highly radioactive, that makes containment a big problem as structures weaken and need to be replaced."

    Who changed the specs of the universe? Last I checked, Tritium's half-life was ~12 years, and gave off a beta particle as it decayed. Did beta particles suddenly become more dangerous?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    GWOC
    08/23/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Since When?
      Tritium is radioactive enough to be significantly toxic. A micro-vial of 20cc filled to just atmospheric pressure with tritium would be in the multi-curie range. If inhaled, it has a long enough biological half life to produce real biological damage, like serious cancers or birth defects in offspring.

      The Nuclear Regulatory Commission keeps the stuff tightly license and regulated. The NRC will inspect a prospective commercial licensee's place, and every molecule of tritium or tritiated compounds that will be used has to be accounted for. No use or storage in residential zones is ever permitted. The state of Illinois sued a power company for release of tritium last year.

      http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/03/20/3/index.html


      Rate this comment: 12345

      nascent
      08/23/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • priorities
    It's a really sad comment on our funding priorities that we're spending so little on fusion research that important work like this is having to get by on private donations.  Research on near-term technologies that private industry would be perfectly happy to pay for is being funded by federal money while long-term technologies that can only get done by federal money isn't getting done at all.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jdien
    08/24/2007
    Posts:2
    • Re: priorities
      DoE is spending about $300 million/year on fusion, with most of it going to tokamaks. Bob Bussard, who used to work in that field, used to say that the Soviets gave us the tokamak idea in the hope that it would prevent us from ever achieving practical fusion power.

      Bussard is a pioneer in Inertial Electrostatic Containment fusion. Focus Fusion is another interesting idea, and so is Colliding-Beam fusion. While we can't be sure that any of these will work, they are all a lot more promising than the tokamak. If they do work, we will have 100 MW power plants that will fit in your living room. It is a disgrace that DoE has supplied no funding for any of these. The Colliding Beam work is fortunate to have the support of Paul Allen, but the other two are essentially stymied for lack of $3 or $4 million.

      I am sorry to report that Bob Bussard died yesterday, which will presumably slow IEC fusion even more.

      Rate this comment: 12345

      PhilKC
      10/08/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Darpa Style Contest
    Any Fusion research that doesn't make heavy use of Maxwell's equations combined with Hydrodynamics requiring huge computing facilities gets little respect in much of academia; Little Government money will follow.  IEC fusion is dismissed by those folks by way of bremsstrahlung being called too great, yet it's parameters are never studied in an IEC device. There may be ways out of the Bremsstrahlung problem.

      One possible solution to revive IEC fusion research is to pin those naysayers down on what the energy balance threshold is, then offer a DARPA style contest with a fat $$ award going to that team that exceeds it.   Perhaps something like 1 watt-hour output of protons / He3  for a kilowatt-hour input of electrical energy would warrant an the first award.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    NobleKripton
    08/24/2007
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Darpa Style Contest
    Any Fusion research that doesn't make heavy use of Maxwell's equations combined with Hydrodynamics requiring huge computing facilities gets little respect in much of academia; Little Government money will follow.  IEC fusion is dismissed by those folks by way of bremsstrahlung being called too great, yet it's parameters are never studied in an IEC device. There may be ways out of the Bremsstrahlung problem.

      One possible solution to revive IEC fusion research is to pin those naysayers down on what the energy balance threshold is, then offer a DARPA style contest with a fat $$ award going to that team that exceeds it.   Perhaps something like 1 watt-hour output of protons / He3  for a kilowatt-hour input of electrical energy would warrant an the first award.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    NobleKripton
    08/25/2007
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • DON'T LOSE time and money around the fusion energy illusion and the lunar-helium-3 dream!!!
    .

    I think that fusion energy researches are a GIANT WASTE of TIME and MONEY (several Billion$$$ so far) since the (cold/hot/semi-hot) fusion is ONLY a scientific curiosity that NEVER will have any commercial applications, NOT EVEN if a fusion machine will (finally!) reach a stable, "self-sustained" reaction, because we DON'T NEED any fusion reactor AT ALL as explained in this article:

    http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/003moonhelium.html

    At the (enbarrassing) scenario of the (failed) fusion research, now, somebody (scientists, newspapers, space forums, etc.) have added the "Lunar Helium-3" factor/dream/illusion (something like the lunar poles' water...) despite it's ONLY a THEORY so far, since there is NO EVIDENCE that our moon hides a so giant He3 treasure!

    There are only some scientits who "believe" that... 1. the He3 from the Sun STILL is on the moon surface, after BILLIONS years... 2. millions meteorites crashed on the moon have just "disseminated" the He3 on the surface rather than (as appears more logical) SLINGED this very light element in Space... 3. then, we can (really) find ONE million tons of He3 on the moon!

    Then, they "believe" that, mining tons of Lunar-He3 and bring them to earth, will be "so easy and cheap" that He3-He3 energy could WIN on prices against oil, methane, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal energy!!!

    well, just to inform them... EACH moon mission will cost (at least) $9 billion (including the shared R&D and fixed costs) to bring back to earth LESS THAN 100 kg. of moon rocks at a price of $90,000,000.oo per kg.!!!

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Gaetano Mara...
    08/28/2007
    Posts:91
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: DON'T LOSE time and money around the fusion energy illusion and the lunar-helium-3 dream!!!
      'There are only some scientits who "believe" that...the He3 from the Sun STILL is on the moon surface, after BILLIONS years... millions meteorites crashed on the moon have just ...(as appears more logical) SLINGED this very light element in Space...'

      And yet the US possesses the lunar soil samples brought back by the Apollo missions as hard evidence that He3 does still reside on the moon and those samples are precisely how this moon-mining scenario began.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      nascent
      08/28/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • do you have a NASA source of that?
        .

        do you have a NASA source of that? (with the exact amount of He3)

        of course, the lunar regolith could have some "traces" of He3 and other gases... but we are talking of ONE MILLION tons for indutrial extraction!

        .
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Gaetano Mara...
        08/29/2007
        Posts:91
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        • Re: do you have a NASA source of that?
          Yes. Harrison Schmitt, formerly crew member on Apollo 17 and the only geologist among the Apollo astronauts, currently chairman of the NASA steering committee. Schmitt's estimate of the He3 available on the moon is about half a million tons.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          nascent
          08/30/2007
          Posts:6
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: Re: do you have a NASA source of that?
            Assuming the He3 is up there and readily available, might it not be more practical from an engineering and economics standpoint to build the fusion reactor on the moon and devise a method of transmission of the power to the earth? Perhaps it would prove practical with regard to powering a lunar industrial complex. A few decades seems an appropriate time frame for solving the lunar and space difficulties. Perhaps it will be enough time to develop the fusion technology given low gravity and essentially no environmental hazard concerns. That is, structural considerations will be much easier to deal with at 1/6th the gravity, and when the facility becomes too activated to continue safe operation, we can simply abandon in place. Anyone with any solid knowledge of the challenges associated with a moon-based power facility care to comment? What do the hardcore physicists say about the He3-He3 reaction? My limited knowledge makes me skeptical. Is there a source of D readily tappable at the moon or would we need to collect it and bring it in (from farther out in space or up from earth)?
            Rate this comment: 12345

            lschuber
            08/31/2007
            Posts:13
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
      • excellent article about the Helium-3 from an Oxford elementary particle physicist >>>
        .

        a Google.Groups.Space user has found this excellent article about the Helium-3:

        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/30679

        .
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Gaetano Mara...
        08/30/2007
        Posts:91
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        • Re: excellent article about the Helium-3 from an Oxford elementary particle physicist >>>
          This is the same article by the same Oxford physcist, Frank Close, that the Tech Review piece here explicitly mentions and then shows to be based on invalid assumptions, since Close assumes that only Maxwellian, tokamak-based fusion is possible -- rather than inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC), which the folks described in the TR article here are doing. 

          Other paths to fusion - not mentioned here - include Bussard's 'Polywell' (a variation of IEC) and collisional fusion, developed at UC Irvine.

          However, I'm curious. Given that you bring up Frank Close's argument as if the TR piece here didn't describe it in some detail, did you even read and understand the TR article here before you started arguing with it?
          Rate this comment: 12345

          nascent
          08/30/2007
          Posts:6
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: Re: excellent article about the Helium-3 from an Oxford elementary particle physicist >>>
            .

            nascent said: "...is the same article by the same Oxford physcist, Frank Close, that the Tech Review piece here..."

            you're right

            nascent said: "...did you even read and understand the TR article here before you started arguing with it..."

            of course, I've read the article when it was published (august 23) but without open all links and I've not re-read it again the day of my last comment (august 30) so I forgot some parts (I read several articles every day)

            about "understand"... consider that english is not my mother language, so it's difficult to understand everything I read...

            about the "inertial electrostatic confinement"... there is any WORKING machine yet???

            .
            Rate this comment: 12345

            Gaetano Mara...
            08/30/2007
            Posts:91
            Avg Rating:
            2/5
            • Re: Re: Re: excellent article about the Helium-3 from an Oxford elementary particle physicist >>>
              Yes, as the TR article describes. The machine in Madison, Wisconsin, does both He3-deuterium fusion and He3-He3 reactions.

              Look, I can understand scepticism about something like the ITER fusion project, which is impractically large - the size of an aircraft carrier - in order to address a number of nearly impossible problems. That's why the possibility of alternative, non-Maxwellian paths to fusion -- far cheaper, smaller, tabletop technologies -- is worth at least considering. IEC is a technology with a long provenance, going back to Philo Farnsworth, the inventor of television --
              http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15723
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

              There are also other alternative approaches besides IEC --
              http://www.ap.columbia.edu/SMproceedings/7.EmergingConcepts/7.Physics.pdf
              Rate this comment: 12345

              nascent
              08/30/2007
              Posts:6
              Avg Rating:
              4/5
  • Possible effects of mining
    Has anyone considered the possible effects of large scale mining on the moon?  I'm thinking if He3 is eventually used to produce energy, it will be mined to oblivion - and might there be some effect on the density of the moon / gravitational changes...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    edingirl
    11/22/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Possible effects of mining
      Intresting.. Read up on the Hopi Indian prophecy.

      Another Hopi prophecy warns that nothing should be brought back from the Moon -- obviously anticipating the Apollo 11 mission that returned with samples of lunar basalt. It this was done, the Hopi warned, the balance of natural and universal laws and forces would be disturbed, resulting in earthquakes, severe changes in weather patterns, and social unrest.

      Hopi prophecy states that World War III will be started by the people who first received the Light -- China, Palestine, India and Africa. When the war comes, the United States will be destroyed by "gourds of ashes" which will fall to the ground, boiling the rivers and burning the earth, where no grass will grow for many years, and causing a disease that no medicine can cure.

      Go fusion.. go...
      Rate this comment: 12345

      dutch
      06/21/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • He3 density
    That's about .0000005 pounds per square foot, spread out nice and even across the entire lunar surface. I'm an AE, not a physicist, but this stuff better be dynamite to be worth processing that much moon gunk, let alone getting it back to Earth. We're talking on-moon processing sites that either have to be mobile or have fleets of miner vehicles. Wait... AE in me is getting excited... let's do it!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    IronSun
    06/27/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review July/August 2009

Current Issue

Search Me
Inside the launch of Stephen Wolfram’s new “computational knowledge engine.”
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.