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.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 4 days ago
If the ESA (AKA Actual Scientists) thinks it’s worth our time, and you are still not convinced then I literally don’t know what to tell you. Lunar regolith is lose, and lunar crust is generally porous. The moon lacks a magnetosphere and so absorbs the solar wind rather than deflecting it. The Solar wind is mostly charges particles but it’s also filled with Hydrogen fusion byproducts which is mostly HELIUM.
Science is not 100% observable facts, but a good chunk of it is learning to INFER THINGS FROM AVAILABLE DATA SETS.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 days ago
what fuckin data sets? is there a link to actual data on that page?