http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6226709...scientists.html

 

The moon is a 'perfect' base for onward space exploration. I for one demand our next generation should think in terms of space. We can get the **** out there and any nutwit who wants to live in dusty eco/religious/racist penury can stay here.

Space exploration is a lovely metaphor and all, and it's great in that it helps us to increase our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, the history of the solar system, etc. But the one thing we haven't found up there is anything that makes it remotely worthwhile to go through the cost and risk of sending people.

Well it would be cheaper if we didn't have to get everything in orbit first. That's where the moon comes in. Sensors and robots are probably more practical though.

Space exploration is a lovely metaphor and all, and it's great in that it helps us to increase our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, the history of the solar system, etc. But the one thing we haven't found up there is anything that makes it remotely worthwhile to go through the cost and risk of sending people.

 

Except for Tritium which is extremely valuable, if only the logistics of actually extracting it and bringing in back could be worked out. Perhaps in our lifetime but not now. But I would point out that the baby steps must be taken before the big things and the benefits they bring can be accoplished.

What's good about tritium?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6226709...scientists.html

 

The moon is a 'perfect' base for onward space exploration. I for one demand our next generation should think in terms of space. We can get the **** out there and any nutwit who wants to live in dusty eco/religious/racist penury can stay here.

 

I hope they're wary of putting a weather controlling gravity machine on their Moonbase. Those things are just begging for trouble (as are global transmat systems).

What's good about tritium?

It is an ideal nuclear fusion fuel. Excellent reactance and very high energy, without the down side of heavier fuels such as uranium and plutonium.

What's good about tritium?

It is an ideal nuclear fusion fuel. Excellent reactance and very high energy, without the down side of heavier fuels such as uranium and plutonium.

 

Oh cool! I also realised the SA80 rifle has tritium sights which glow all the time. Which is also why if the sight gets cracked everyone has to leg it.

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

 

Cool story, bro!

True story.

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

 

No it's real. The chemical symbol is H3. It's been a long time since my last chemistry class but I think it can only exist as a solid at extreme low temps and it is very unstable in any other form.

Cool.

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

 

No it's real. The chemical symbol is H3. It's been a long time since my last chemistry class but I think it can only exist as a solid at extreme low temps and it is very unstable in any other form.

Would't H3 refer to a molecule with 3 H atoms in it, instead of an isotope with a couple extra neutrons in it (which is what tritium is)? I thought 3H was the normal notation (with the 3 superscripted).

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

 

No it's real. The chemical symbol is H3. It's been a long time since my last chemistry class but I think it can only exist as a solid at extreme low temps and it is very unstable in any other form.

Would't H3 refer to a molecule with 3 H atoms in it, instead of an isotope with a couple extra neutrons in it (which is what tritium is)? I thought 3H was the normal notation (with the 3 superscripted).

You're right, I wrtoe it backwards...

Space exploration is a lovely metaphor and all, and it's great in that it helps us to increase our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, the history of the solar system, etc. But the one thing we haven't found up there is anything that makes it remotely worthwhile to go through the cost and risk of sending people.

 

Except for Tritium which is extremely valuable, if only the logistics of actually extracting it and bringing in back could be worked out. Perhaps in our lifetime but not now. But I would point out that the baby steps must be taken before the big things and the benefits they bring can be accoplished.

Yeah, and that's just the mining aspect. I think I read somewhere that microgravity is an ideal environment for manufacturing certain... thingies. Most likely hi-tech stuff, or perhaps precision lenses. Frankly, I can't be arsed to google it.

 

We just need a material with a sufficient tensile strength to employ in a a space elevator, and work from there.

In other news they recently found definitive proof of water on the Moon.

 

It's created by the sun's radiation causing hydrogen and oxygen in moon rocks to bind. So the Moon is constantly covered in a thin film of water. Enough to make rocket fuel out of.

 

Edit: Wait, ****. I should have read the article before posting.

Edited September 24, 200916 yr by Krezack

Well, fine, I'm gonna hijack the thread. Let's talk about the world's biggest space telescope and an accompanying exaflops supercomputer that Australia is going to start building (with the help of NASA, ESA, etc) in 2012. That thing will be as amazing as the moon landing or the LHC!

 

It took India's first probe and 30 years later to find water on the Moon. So what did NASA and the astronauts do when they were on the moon 30 years ago?

It took India's first probe and 30 years later to find water on the Moon. So what did NASA and the astronauts do when they were on the moon 30 years ago?

 

Found water. India's probe was the third space agency to discover water on the moon. It just means it's near irrefutable that the moon contains water and it wasn't a contaminant or measurement error. India's probe used a NASA device to discover the water anyway.

^ You still have to wonder why NASA, the astronauts, and with the Apollo missions that they didn't declare there's water on the moon sooner. Like 30-40 years ago.

The only thing worthwhile that can come out of this is a giant laser on the moon.

^ You still have to wonder why NASA, the astronauts, and with the Apollo missions that they didn't declare there's water on the moon sooner. Like 30-40 years ago.

The majority of water evidence (to be fair, what has been found in not water as we have it here but hydroxl) located in any abundance has been near the lunar poles. The Apollo landing sites are all near the lunar equator. The one mission that brought back the most samples bearing the greatest amount of evidence of water was Apollo 15 which landed at Descartes and was the northernmost landing. The fact that the Descartes samples contained evidence of past water is what fueled the then commonly believed theory that the moon was created from ejecta from the earth following an impact or volcanic event. It wan't until the orbiter Clementine photographed the poles back in the 80s that the beleif arose that there might be large amounts of water. Since then US, ES, Chinese, and now Indian probes have all gathered supporting evidence.

The only thing worthwhile that can come out of this is a giant laser on the moon.

 

There's already a laser on the International Space Station.

 

Although not quite like the one below. Still would be cool to see something like this just the same.

 

My parents told me tritium was fictional and only existed in Spider-Man 2.

I pretty much figured it was just a macguffin too.