Helium 3 moprofitable from asteroids

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "George Perkins"

> Helium 3 from near asteroids and dormant comets would be more
> profitable, the return on investment more immediate, and the
> operation less hazardous compared to the moon.

OK, let me use your tactics against you. You're wrong. I won't tell
you why, just the fact that I write it makes it so. My position
convinces you, doesn't it?

You provide no argument, nor evidence, in support of your position.
The lunar regolith can be fine grained, like dirt, and He-3 adheres
to these fines more thoroughly than to the solid rock of asteroids.
Further, it is less equipment intensive to scoop up dirt (regolith)
and bake it so to free up the He-3 gas. On an asteroid one has to
blast through solid rock and then pulverize it or melt it to free up
the He-3. Further still, the He-3 would be imbedded in only the
surface of the asteroid so mining techniques for scraping or
scooping only a few centimeters of solid rock would have to be
developed. On the moon, the regolith is, and has been, churned by
meteorite impacts thus increasing the depth of He-3 penetration.

So, with the moon being closer to Earth, having a greater density of
He-3, having a surface that is easier to mine, and with the large
surface area one could automate much of the regolith harvesting
because of the uniformity of the terrain, these factors would lessen
the technological risk and the capital requirements and this would
lead to greater potential for profit. With the lower investment
threshold that results, this makes return on investment more
immediate and with proximity to Earth, and perhaps other cislunar
infrastructure the hazards are reduced.

You're wrong on all counts.

> In competing with space miners, any He3 moon mining operations
> would have to close down simply because they cannot compete with
> the speed and lower mining costs of mining Helium 3 at your local
> asteroids/dormant comets.

What speed and what lower mining costs? You're simply stating such
nonsense and expect us to believe you like you're Moses delivering
wisdom from the mount. Utterly unconvincing.

> Serious investors will go for the asteroids -- not the moon.

Who says? You? Why should your statement be convincing when you
don't deign to offer any evidence whatsoever to back up your
argument.

> Pointing out the surface area of the moon is just rediculous
> considering the moon's gravity,

The gravity would *aid* in recovery operations. The mass of the
excavating equipment would aid in the scooping operations. Look at
how easy it is to drive a screw into material on Earth and how
complicated it is to do so in zero-g. How will you blast through
solid rock on an asteroid when the whole operation takes place in
zero-g. At least on the moon the regolith is more like dirt.

> the terrain transport energy involved,

On the moon, the equipment will have to traverse the terrain to
collect the He-3. Are you saying that on an asteroid, the equipment
can be immobile and summon the He-3 towards it? How can you not
expend energy when you rove around the asteroid and blast through
its solid rock?

> and the associated cost in propellent for over-land or leaving or
> landing on the moon.

You'll have the same constraints when operating on an asteroid.
Further, you'll have He-3 leakage issues as you transport the gas
for 6+ months towards Earth, compared to the Lunar-Earth transport
time of a few days. Perhaps you're aware of Just-In-Time inventory
management issues. Who will own the asteroid He-3 during it's long
transit time? How will the capital that is tied up in that inventory
be earning a return?

> Moon miners cannot compete with space miners.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Oops, that's
right, it's not your style to actually support your hot-air
statements.

> In real competition with space miners, they'll fail and fail
> terribly. I feel sorry for them.

Don't you see how laughable this type of argumentation is? You're
setting up a field of strawmen to knock down. You've offered no
analysis of mining operations on the moon or the asteroids and are
just living in a fantasy world where you ignore evidence and
argumentation that threatens your vision. It isn't the lunar miners
we should feel sorry for.

> How insulting!

> No.

> The general rule is there's a fool around every corner but if
> you're going to stick it to the big guy you better come prepared
> with something more than fancy tap-dancing and your mouth.

So why don't you follow your own advice and come to this list with
something more than fancy tap-dancing and your mouth? Who's
insulting whom?

TangoMan