Helium 3 on Earth is insufficient --- mining it on the moon will spur super-efficient and safe fusion powerCooper 8—Ph.D. in lunar geology, professor at Lamar, has worked with NASA (Bonnie, "The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement", pg. 377-379, Appendix H, “Helium-3”, OCRed, ZBurdette)
One of the most interesting possibilities for lunar resource utilization is related to the future development of nuclear fusion. Fission reactors face many problems, from public resistance to the storage of long-lived radioactive wastes to reactor safety questions. The fusion process involves combining small atoms (typically isotopes of hydrogen such as deuterium and tritium). This process can release enormous amounts of energy, as can be observed every day from the Sun. The fusion com¬munity appears to be within a few years of the first -breakeven" fusion milestone. If that goal is met, it is expected that fusion devices will be able to produce hundreds of megawatts of thermonuclear power in the coming decades.
Currently, the worldwide effort in fusion research is concentrating on the deuterium (D) and tritium (T) reaction,' because it is the easiest to initiate. However, 80 percent of the energy released in the reaction is in the form of neutrons. These particles not only cause severe damage to the surrounding reactor components, but also induce large amounts of radioactivity in the reactor structure. However, there is another fusion reaction, involving the isotopes of D and helium-3 (He3)2 that Produces only 1 percent of its energy as neutrons. Such a low neutron production really simplifies the safety-related design features of the reactor, and reduces the levels of induced radioactivity such that extensive radioactive waste facilities are not required. Furthermore, this energy can be converted directly to electricity with efficiencies of 70-80 percent.
However, there is no large terrestrial supply of helium-3. The amount of primordial He3 left in the Earth is on the order of a few hundred kilograms. To a significant fraction of the world's energy needs would require hundreds of tonnes of He3 each year.
Early studies of the lunar regolith showed that there is a relative abundance of helium- 3 on the Moon, compared with Earth. A group of physicists from the University of Wisconsin's Fusion Energy Research Center has studied the possibility lunar helium-3, and they are convinced that it would be economically viable (e.g., Kulcinski et al., 1988). Over the 4-billion-year history of the Moon, several hundred million tonnes of He3 have impacted the surface of the Moon from the solar wind. The analyses of Apollo and Luna samples showed that over 1 million if He3 are loosely embedded in the grains at the surface of the Moon. Even a small fraction of this He3 could provide the world's electricity for centuries to come.
HELIUM-3 FUSION
A D-He3 fusion plant would be inherently safer than a D—T fusion plant. Calcula¬tions have shown that the consequences of a complete and instantaneous coolant loss are minimal, and that safety can be assured by passive means no matter what the sequence. A meltdown is virtually impossible in a D—He3 reactor because they operate at lower temperatures and the maximum temperature increase over one month is only 350°C, even with no cooling and perfect insulation. Moreover, in the worst possible accident, exposure to the public would be only 0.1 rem, or roughly the equivalent of natural background radiation.
Because the D—He3 reaction causes less damage to the walls of the energy plant, less plant maintenance would be required, again reducing the costs of the energy and increasing the availability. The total radioactivity associated with a D—He3 plant is times less than in a comparably sized D—T plant. Finally, the conversion for the D—He3 reaction is about 60 percent, compared with 34-49 percent systems. Thus, the direct capital costs of D—He3 reactors could be one-half that of D—T reactors. The added benefits of safety and reliability make the D-He3 far preferable to the D—T reaction. Because of the amount of safety-testing it will be at least 50 years before the operation of the first commercial D-T plant; whereas with D—He3, lessened risks would mean an overall time saving of 10 to 20 years.
REGOLITH RESOURCES OF HELIUM-3
It has been calculated that the Moon was bombarded with over 250 million metric tons of He3 over the last 4 billion years. Because the energy of the solar wind is low, the He3 ions did not penetrate very far into the surface of the regolith particles—only 0.1 m or so. The surface of the Moon is tilled as a result of meteorite impacts, and Helium is trapped in soil particles to depths of several meters. Soil grains of the mineral ilmenite (FeTiO3) are enriched in helium. Thus, the Sea of Tranquillity would be a prime target for initial investigations for a He3 mining site. This area alone appears to contain more than 8,000 tonnes of He3 to a depth of 2 meters.
Because the solar-wind gases are weakly bound in the lunar regolith, it should be relatively easy to extract them by heating the regolith to about 600°C. Because there seems to be a higher concentration of solar-wind gases in the smaller particles (presumably because of the high surface-to-volume ratio), it might to useful to size-sort the regolith, retaining only the smaller particles. The feedstock could then pre-heated by heat pipes and fed into a solar-heated retort. In addition to the He3, other solar-wind volatiles, such as H2, He4, C compounds, and N2, would also extracted. The spent feedstock would be discharged through the heat pipes, to over 90 percent of its heat.
Once the volatiles are extracted, they can be separated from the helium by exposure to the temperatures of the lunar night. Everything except the helium will condense, and the He3 can later be separated from the He4. For every tonne of He3 produced, some 3,300 tonnes of He4, 500 tonnes of N, 400 tonnes of CO and CO2, and 6,100 tonnes of H2 gas are produced. The H2 will be extremely beneficial on the Moon for making water and propellants. Moreover, the He3 could be worth as much as —$1 billion per tonne. Of the other volatiles, the N2 could be used for plant growth, the C for the manufacture of plastics, and the He4 as a working fluid for mechanical systems.
If the amount of available He3 on the Moon is on the order of 1 million tonnes, that would amount to 10 times more energy than that contained in recoverable fossil fuels on Earth, and twice the amount of energy available from the most efficient fission process. To meet the entire U.S. energy consumption of 1986, 25 tonnes of He3 Would have been required, assuming that fusion technology were available. In that same year, the U.S. spent approximately $40 billion for fuel to generate electricity. If He3 from the Moon were sold to Earth for $1 billion per tonne, then its use would have represented a saving in 1986 of $15 billion.
The concept of mining the Moon for He3 ties together two of the most ambitious high-technology endeavors of the twenty-first century: the development of controlled thermonuclear fusion for civilian power applications, and the utilization of outer space for the benefit of humankind.
Extinction is possible now, lunar mining is vital to colonizing space and ensuring human survival – provides resources and development of human transportation and settlement
Lowman 8 – PhD, geophysicist (14 January 2008. “Why Go Back to the Moon?” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html)
Returning to the 21st century: Given these splendid accomplishments by astronauts on the Moon, why bother to go back? Should we not "declare victory" and stay on (or near) Earth? Here are some reasons go back, although not necessarily to "colonize" the Moon.
First, and most fundamental: the last few decades of space exploration and astronomy have shown that the universe is violent and dangerous, at least with respect to human life. To give a pertinent example: in 1908 an object of unknown nature – probably a comet – hit Siberia with a force equivalent to a hydrogen bomb. Had this impact happened a few hours later, allowing for the Earth’s rotation, this object would have destroyed St. Petersburg and probably much else. Going back some 65 million years, it is now essentially proven that an even greater impact wiped out not only the dinosaurs but most species living on Earth at the time. The importance of catastrophic impacts has only been demonstrated in recent decades, and space exploration has played a key role.
The bleak conclusion to which these facts point is that humanity is vulnerable as long as we are confined to one planet. Obviously, we must increase our efforts to preserve this planet and its biosphere, an effort in which NASA satellites have played a vital role for many years. But uncontrollable external events may destroy our civilization, perhaps our species. We can increase our chances of long-term survival by dispersal to other sites in the solar system.
Where can we go? At the moment, human life exists only on the Earth. But with modern technology, there are several other possibilities, starting with the Moon itself. Men have lived on the Moon for as long as three days, admittedly in cramped quarters, but they found the lunar surface easy to deal with and the Moon’s gravity comfortable and helpful. (Dropped tools, for example, didn’t float away into space as they do occasionally in Earth orbit.) To be sure, it would be an enormous and probably impossible task to transform the Moon into another Earth. However, it is clear that a lunar outpost comparable to, for example, the Little America of the 1930s, is quite feasible.
But what could such an outpost accomplish? First, it could continue the exploration of the Moon, whose surface area is roughly that of North and South America combined. Six "landings" in North America would have given us only a superficial knowledge of this continent, and essentially none about its natural resources such as minerals, oil, water power, and soil. The Moon is a whole planet, so to speak, whose value is only beginning to be appreciated.
The Moon is not only an interesting object of study, but a valuable base for study of the entire Universe, by providing a site for astronomy at all wavelengths from gamma rays to extremely long radio waves. This statement would have been unquestioned 30 years ago. But the succeeding decades of spectacular discoveries by space-based instruments, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, have led many astronomers such as Nobel Laureate John Mather to argue that the Moon can be by-passed, and that instruments in deep space at relatively stable places called Lagrangian points are more effective.
A meeting was held at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, in November 2006, on "Astrophysics Enabled by the Return to the Moon." This institute runs the Hubble Space Telescope program. However, the consensus emerging from the Baltimore meeting was that there are still valuable astronomical uses for instruments on the lunar surface. For example, low-frequency radio astronomy can only be effective from the far side of the Moon, where static from the Earth’s aurora is shielded. Another example of Moon-based astronomy can be the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), by radio telescopes that on the far side would be shielded from terrestrial interference. Small telescopes on the Moon’s solid surface could be linked to form interferometer arrays with enormous resolving power. Astronomy in a limited sense has already been done from the Moon, namely the Apollo 16 Ultraviolet telescope emplaced by Apollo astronauts and before that, the simple TV observations of Earth-based lasers by the Surveyor spacecraft. The much-feared lunar dust had no effect on these pioneering instruments.
The Moon may offer mineral resources, so to speak, of great value on Earth. Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, working with the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin, has shown that helium 3, an isotope extremely rare on Earth, exists in quantity in the lunar soil, implanted by the solar wind. If – a very big if – thermonuclear fusion for energy is produced on Earth, helium 3 would be extremely valuable for fusion reactors because it does not make the reactor radioactive. A more practicable use of helium 3, being tested at the University of Wisconsin, is the production of short-lived medical isotopes. Such isotopes must now be manufactured in cyclotrons and quickly delivered before they decay. But Dr. Schmitt suggests that small helium 3 reactors could produce such isotopes at the hospital. In any event, research on the use of helium 3 would clearly benefit if large quantities could be exported to the Earth.
Returning to the most important reason for a new lunar program, dispersal of the human species, the most promising site for such dispersal is obviously Mars, now known to have an atmosphere and water. Mars itself is obviously a fascinating object for exploration. But it may even now be marginally habitable for astronaut visits, and in the very long view, might be "terraformed," or engineered to have a more Earth-like atmosphere and climate. This was described in Kim Stanley Robinson’s trilogy, Red Mars and its successors Green and Blue Mars. A second Earth, so to speak, would greatly improve our chances of surviving cosmic catastrophes.
Where does the Moon fit into this possibility? First, it would continue to give us experience with short interplanetary trips, which is what the Apollo missions were. These would demonstrably be relatively short and safe compared to Mars voyages, but would provide invaluable test flights, so to speak. More important, shelters, vehicles, and other equipment built for the Moon could be over-designed, and with modification could be used on Mars after being demonstrated at a lunar outpost.
Where could humanity expand to beyond Mars and the Moon? At this point, still early in the history of space exploration, it is impossible to say. The Galilean satellites of Jupiter, in particular Ganymede, might be habitable, but we venture here far into the field of science fiction. However, an outpost on the Moon is clearly possible, and would provide an invaluable stepping-stone to Mars. A species living on three planets would be far more likely to have a long history than one living only on the Earth.
To put the arguments for a return to the Moon, and a lunar outpost, in the most general terms: the Moon is essentially a whole planet, one that has so far been barely touched. But this new planet is only a few days travel away and we have already camped on it. To turn our backs on the Moon would be equivalent to European exploration stopping after Columbus’s few landings, or China’s destruction of its giant ships to concentrate on domestic problems in the 15th century.
Lunar mining is key to get to Mars – provides cheaper launches, fuel, and technological innovation
Dolzome et al in 10 (Dolzome, Mining and Explosives specialist. John Millis, About Guide for space and astronomy. David Morrison, NASA Lunar Science Institute Senior Scientist. 2010. “Mining the Moon Makes Mission to Mars Realistic”
Why going to Mars is so important? Is it linked to Mars resources exploitation?
Amongst the impressive list of (good) reasons to start such a challenging endeavor, there has been, at that stage, very few or no mention of mining resources exploitation.
To which extend lunar mining operations would pave way for mission to mars?
Most of specialists agree on the following:
A lunar base built from locally extracted construction materials and metals would by-pass the limitation in term of embarked weight we are currently facing with Earth’s-launched rockets.
The Moon could be an excellent pit stop for further missions (propellant, energy, water, oxygen).
The Moon would also be a real size laboratory to assess and improved all the technology involved.
Lower attraction (1/6th of Earth’s) and absence of atmosphere, would make easier and cheaper spaceships take off to Mars and beyond.
Discovery of Lunar ice have been a major event.
Chandrayaan-1 detected in 2009 both water and hydroxyl molecules (oxygen and hydrogen atoms) trapped or mixed up in the regolith. This comes to confirm Deep Impact Probe and Cassini Space Probe unexpected readings.
“Finding water on the Moon has surprised and excited scientists. Water was not expected, since the moon rocks brought back by Apollo from the equatorial regions of the Moon were extremely dry. Since then more sensitive instruments have detected small amounts of water in chemical combination with other minerals. But the biggest discovery was of frozen water (ice) in some dark craters near the lunar north pole and south pole. The floors of these craters are among the coldest places in the solar system, so once a water molecule arrives there, it stays forever as ice. The amount of ice on these crater floors turns out to be larger than expected. This ice, which contains other molecules besides water, records the history of comet impacts on the Moon over the past billion years. In addition, we may someday be able to mine this ice and use the water to make rocket fuel and oxygen for astronauts to use”,wrote David Morrison, NASA Lunar Science Institute Senior Scientist
In 2010, John Millis, About Guide for Space & Astronomy wrote:
“Should We Return to the Moon? Is It Worth the Risk? (…) there are valuable resources on the Moon that we can use for other space missions. Particularly, liquid oxygen is a major component of the propellant needed for current space travel. NASA believes that this resource can be easily extracted from the Moon and stored at deposit sites for use by other missions -- particularly by a manned mission to Mars”.
The plan will spur further space exploration, asteroid defense and space tourism
Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut, 4 (October 2004, Harrison H., Popular Mechanics, “Mining the Moon,” vol. 181, no. 10, Academic Search Premier, JMP)
Returning to the moon would be a worthwhile pursuit even if obtaining helium-3 were the only goal. But over time the pioneering venture would pay more valuable dividends. Settlements established for helium-3 mining would branch out into other activities that support space exploration. Even with the next generation of Saturns, it will not be economical to lift the massive quantities of oxygen, water and structural materials needed to create permanent human settlements in space. We must acquire the technical skills to extract these vital materials from locally available resources. Mining the moon for helium-3 would offer a unique opportunity to acquire those resources as byproducts. Other opportunities might be possible through the sale of low-cost access to space. These additional, launch-related businesses will include providing services for government-funded lunar and planetary exploration, astronomical observatories, national defense, and long-term, on-call protection from the impacts of asteroids and comets. Space and lunar tourism also will be enabled by the existence of low-cost, highly reliable rockets.
With such tremendous business potential, the entrepreneurial private sector should support a return to the moon, this time to stay. 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.
"Learning how to mine the moon for helium-3 will create the technological infrastructure for our inevitable journeys to Mars and beyond."
"A new, modernized Saturn rocket should be capable of launching 100-ton payloads to the moon."
He-3 is key to solve energy shortages – it’s the only sustainable long term source of fuel – prevents resource wars
Hatch, 10 - Executive Notes and Comments Editor, Emory International Law Review (2010, Benjamin, Emory International Law Review, “Dividing the Pie in the Sky: the Need for a New Lunar Resources Regime,” vol. 24, rev. 229, http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/24/24.1/Hatch.pdf)RK
The dominant political conflict of the twenty-first century will likely be over control of non-renewable resources. n1 Recently, a wealth of literature has appeared alleging that the world's resource-rich states have been overstating their oil and non-energy mineral reserves. n2 Those reserves that have been properly catalogued are also being rapidly depleted. n3 This depletion will not only have catastrophic effects on local economies, but it will also lead to an increase in global violence and neo-imperialism in lesser developed but resource-rich states. n4
In preparation for the inevitable worsening scarcity of available energy resources, states and nongovernmental organizations are researching and investing in alternative fuel sources. n5 While experts debate the merits of [*230] "green" energies that seek to harness natural forces (like wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and solar power), many developed states are beginning to look toward another part of nature as a potential solution to the impending energy crisis - the Moon.
This Comment will do four things. First, it will show that the Moon is and will increasingly be an important area of international law, especially given current plans by six different state actors to travel to and occupy the Moon within the next thirty years. Second, it will discuss the current state of lunar law, pointing out both textual deficiencies in the current agreements defining and governing the Moon as an international common space and observing overarching policy concerns which should compel governments to desire a new, functional, legal system for the Moon. Third, it will survey theoretical and actual approaches to resource management, noting the successes and failures of each approach. Fourth, it will conclude by providing recommendations, based on the analysis in the third Part, for the contents of a new lunar proprietary regime.
I. The Moon's Significance
The Moon is at the forefront of long-term global energy and security strategies. This section will explore the reasons that the Moon will be increasingly relevant in the next century. First, it will describe potential resource and energy opportunities that the Moon may yield, paying special attention to Helium-3. Helium-3 is a molecule projected by the solar wind, which some scientists have speculated is the key to harnessing fusion power on the Earth. This Part will briefly comment on the possibility of mineral ores that could be extracted from the Moon. Second, it will describe the current lunar policies of the Earth's most powerful countries.
A. The Moon as a Mineral and Energy Source
The Moon, at first blush, may not appear to be particularly relevant in any assessment of the current energy problems facing the world. However, the Moon may provide the key to make nuclear fusion power a viable provider of electricity on Earth.
While green energy sources receive considerable publicity, several developed states have begun refocusing on nuclear power as a source for [*231] electrical generation. n6 China is currently in the midst of planning the construction of dozens of nuclear power generators and is on pace to build over 300 in the next fifty years. n7 Over three-quarters of French electricity is generated by nuclear power. n8 England, n9 Italy, n10 Finland, n11 and Russia n12 are also building nuclear plants. Even lesser developed states like Thailand, n13 Egypt, n14 and Vietnam n15 are beginning to investigate the feasibility of nuclear power. Of states relying extensively on nuclear power, only Germany is seriously considering alterations to its energy strategy. n16
The type of nuclear power that these plants would produce is fission power. n17 Fission generates energy by inundating heavy elements n18 with [*232] neutrons. n19 As these free neutrons are integrated into heavy-element atoms, there is a possibility that the nucleus of the atom will split. n20 Well-known isotopes that are given to a high probability of undergoing a fission reaction include Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. n21 As each atomic nucleus splits, a large amount of energy is produced. n22 Once an atomic nucleus splits in a fission reaction, it produces other isotopes with smaller atomic weights and free neutrons. In turn, these free neutrons collide with other heavy-element atoms, inducing the latter to likewise fissure and generate energy. n23 Among other reasons, nuclear power plants have become more desirable because the fuel costs necessary to keep nuclear reactors operating is lower per kilowatt-hour than the corresponding costs for fossil fuels. n24 Additionally, current technology has made it possible for fission-powered electrical generation to be less expensive than comparable electrical generation from fossil fuels. n25 For example, in Finland, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Japan, and Canada, fission-powered electricity is cheaper per kilowatthour than electrical generation from coal. n26
There are, however, concerns about the safety and long-term viability of fission reactors. After fission reactions split heavy-element atoms, the fission products remain (atomic nuclei created through the fission process, along with other metals), as well as the non-fissured Uranium and Plutonium. n27 These products are now nuclear waste and remain highly radioactive. Unfortunately, there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, which has resulted in steel-lined underground repositories, where the waste elements can undergo [*233] radioactive decay away from populations and water supplies. n28 Governments are also concerned about the possibility of another nuclear disaster like that which occurred at Ukraine's Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986. n29 Although the Chernobyl accident occurred during a special test of one reactor rather than in the course of its normal operation, n30 and regardless of the fact that the accident's direct causes were archaic technology and human error n31 rather than any inherent defect in fission reactions, Chernobyl became a symbol of the risks of nuclear power plants. n32 As a result, nuclear power has become a political bugaboo, and many states have been relatively leery of nuclear power ever since. n33
While fission reactors may be curative of many of the world's energy problems over the short term, one serious problem may deny fission a place as a permanent solution to electrical generation. Just as any other mineral source, over-consumption will eventually exhaust the nuclear fuel supplies necessary to the fission reaction. While estimates vary as to how long the current reserves will last, n34 some states, such as India, are already having difficulty maintaining fuel sources for their nuclear reactors. n35 For these reasons, while fissionnuclear power has advantages, it seems to be an incomplete answer to the world's energy problems.
[*234] Fission reactions are not the sole focus of nuclear-power research. A great amount of expense and research has been dedicated to try and make a different type of nuclear power, fusion power, viable. n36 Fusion is the energy-producing cycle that powers the sun. n37 Instead of relying on the splitting of heavy elements to generate power, fusion generates energy from combining the nuclei of the lightest elements, like Hydrogen. n38 The purportedly simplest n39 form of the fusion reaction is the fusing of Deuterium and Tritium, isotopes of Hydrogen. n40 The problem is that the fusion of these two isotopes releases approximately 80% of its energy in the form of highly-volatile radioactive neutrons. n41
Nevertheless, fusion has advantages over fission. First, the half-lives of the fusion products generated are significantly shorter than those generated in fission. n42 Accordingly, fusion produces no significant radioactive waste, and any waste products created would naturally, and rapidly, decay into harmless materials. n43 Additionally, Deuterium and Tritium are naturally-occurring, abundant isotopes, and so there would be no difficulty in procuring ample supplies of these fuel sources for thousands of years. n44
While fusion, in theory, is the solution to the world's energy crisis, a problem exists. Humans have not been able to harness the fusion reaction for any purpose other than to create the explosion caused by a hydrogen bomb. n45 [*235] Because nuclei are positively charged and repel each other by nature, a large energy expenditure is necessary to fuse nuclei together. n46 The amount of energy generated by the fusion, however, is sufficient to cause other fusions of surrounding nuclei, and as a result, the process can quickly become uncontrollable and dangerous. n47 Additionally, attempts at generating the fusion reaction using the DeuteriumTritium model has never produced a net increase in energy, i.e., more energy is consumed trying to generate the necessary reaction than is expended by the few reactions that actually occur. n48
While this might suggest that fusion should be relegated to the trash bin of failed physics experiments, some researchers have proposed that Helium-3 could be the answer to the fusion question. n49 Helium-3 is a single neutron isotope of Helium that is not radioactive and, when bombarded with neutrons, could interact with electromagnetic forces applied in the fusion process. This interaction could create electricity directly, without producing radioactive neutrons as a byproduct of the reaction. n50 Additionally, its proponents theorize that Helium-3 would generate almost no radioactive waste or byproducts, given its non-radioactive nature. n51
Although this sounds promising, these theories are confined to academic debate because Helium-3 exists in very small quantities on the Earth. n52 Rocks taken from the Moon, however, show that Helium-3 exists in much higher abundance there n53 because the sun, which produces Helium-3 as part of its fusion process, projects Helium-3 via the solar wind to the Moon. n54 The Earth is relatively shielded from the solar wind by its magnetosphere, and as a result, [*236] the Earth receives very little Helium-3. n55 Accordingly, the accumulations on the Moon over several-billion years greatly outnumber terrestrial Helium-3 accumulations. n56
Control of the global energy market is at stake --- key to leadership
Lasker, 6 (12/15/06, John, “Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel,” http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276, JMP)
NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020.
Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3.
"We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."
Russian space geologist Erik Galimov told the Russian Izvestia newspaper that NASA's plan to colonize the moon will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out."
Schmitt told a Senate committee in 2003 that a return to the moon to stay would be comparable "to the movement of our species out of Africa."
The best way to pay for such a long-term mission, he said, would be to mine for lunar helium-3 and process it into a fuel for commercial fusion.
Being a leader on moon colonization is key to ensuring US influence in space law and avoiding negative impacts on heg and security
Maniscalcoy et al, 09 – Matthew P., Aerospace Systems Engineer, with Noel M. Bakhtian and Alan H. Zorn – Ph.D. Candidates at Stanford University (“The Eighth Continent: A Vision for Exploration of the Moon and Beyond,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Space 2009 Conference & Exposition, September 2009)Red
International considerations include preventative politics and global cooperation. With space law currently in its infancy, the prevailing treaties and various agreements will need to be extensively augmented in the coming years, and major players on the space stage may well have influence in shaping laws governing the future of all things space-related. Of significant import are issues relating to the militarization of space, ownership and use of \land" and resources, and protection of the space environment.
The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space created five treaties and agreements between 1967 and 1984 which constitute the majority of the body of space laws in place today. According to the Committee: \the international legal principles in these five treaties provide for non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, ..., the prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of ... the exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes."44 However, many nations have chosen not to ratify the treaties, meaning that these regulations have not been universally accepted. Imminent lunar and martian exploration by a few countries implies a need for current space laws to be globally ratified and the inception of supplementary treaties or agreements as the need arises. Future amendments or treaties might lean towards favoring those countries at the leading edge in space activities, the effects of which might have unpredictable negative consequences for the prosperity, influence, and safety of those countries who are not.
A helium-3 power generation solves warming
Anderson, 10 (4/22/10, Tom, Product Line Leader GE Energy, Reuter Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions, “Written Testimony of Thomas R. Anderson, Product Line Leader GE Energy, Reuter Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis”, http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/042210_Anderson.pdf)
A Flower in the Darkness? The subject of mining helium-3 on the Moon as a fuel for future clean, safe nuclear power plants is a fascinating one that raises many questions. Some of these questions are highly technical, and relate to the feasibility of the involved nuclear physics. Other questions concern the not inconsiderable practicalities associated with getting to the Moon, mining and super-heating large quantities of lunar rock (Space.com report a suggestion of roughly one million tons of lunar soil being needed to be mined and processed for every 70 tonnes of helium-3 yield), and then getting the precious cargo back to the Earth. However, the far more interesting questions arguably relate to why this is a topic that is receiving so little media and public attention. As noted above, several of the largest governments on the planet have made announcements that they are either actively considering or planning to go to the Moon to mine helium-3. Whether or not the science will actually work, this is surely major, major, major news. Given that public debates concerning the construction of future nuclear fission power plants and even wind farms now rage with great vigour and a high media profile, why on Earth (and in future the Moon) helium-3 power plants as part of a potential future energy strategy are rarely if ever even mentioned is exceptionally hard to fathom. Nobody is trying to hide the potential of future lunar helium-3 power generation. However, like a rose in a dark room, there is a potential danger that something of beauty will fail to gain the light it requires if more attention does not start to be languished on what could end up as a very big part of the solution to Peak Oil and other fossil fuel resource, not to mention climate change. Anyone for space?
Warming causes extinction
Tickell 08 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Guardian, 8-11, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
