Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?

It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.

I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?

  • mojofrododojo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    uhh. dude, that’s a source?

    the ESA link is in no way proof that there’s significant helium 3 reserves on the moon.

    “The Apollo programme’s own geologist, Harrison Schmidt, has repeatedly made the argument for Helium-3 mining, whilst Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another leading proponent.” ---- this in no way asserts that there’s actually significant amounts of helium 3 recoverable from moon mining, it’s simply stating it’s worth looking into, worth exploring.

    we have no idea how much helium 3 has been deposited by solar wind onto the moon’s surface; it could be HUGE. it could be a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percentage. We won’t know until we go look.

    Please, when you post links that are supposed to buttress your argument, post something that actually supports what you’re proposing. your premise:

    The moon has HUGE reserves of Helium 3

    in no way is supported by that link.