Newsletter Articles 2025

January ~ A Curve On Mars

In one of the early chapters of my upcoming novel, my hero drives a rover along a service road to repair a faulty railroad switch on Mars. I carefully describe the Hellas Planitia terrain, Mars’ dusty atmospheric conditions, even the midday summer temperature. The train roars by, its slip stream kicking up a cloud of dust. All of it to give you a sense of being there.

But one thing I didn’t discuss is what it would be like to drive down a gravel road on Mars. As I noodled on that, I realized driving on Mars will be quite different from here on Earth. So much so that the roads will have to be constructed differently than they are here on Earth.

I suspected that if I took my Toyota RAV4 to Mars, I’d likely skid off the road at the first curve I came to. Why? Because Mars’s force of gravity is only about one third of Earth gravity. Less gravity means my car would weigh less. Less weight means less friction between the tires and the gravel road. I’ll slide off the road as if it were paved with ice.

If I want to avoid visiting any roadside craters, I either need to slow down significantly, or design a more gradual (i.e., larger radius) curve. To confirm my hunch, I dusted off my old physics text book and consulted a number of videos on the internet. Here’s what I found. (For those whose eyes glaze over when you see math, just skip to my conclusion.)

The equation to calculate the maximum velocity my car can travel on a curve is pretty simple:
v = √(µ · g · r), where:
v = velocity in meters per second
µ = the Greek letter mu, the coefficient of friction, a dimensionless number. For a gravel road µ = 0.5.
g = the gravity constant. Earth’s gravity constant G, is 9.8 meters per second per second. Mars’s g =3.72m/sec^2
r = the radius of the curve, in meters. For this exercise, I’ve chosen 100m. If I extend the curve indefinitely, it becomes a circle 200 meters across. For simplicity, I’ve assumed the curve is flat, not banked.
The maximum speed I can travel on a flat curve on a gravel road here on Earth is:
v = √(0.5 · 9.81 m/sec^2· 100 m)
v = √490 m^2/sec^2 =22 m/sec = 80 km/hr, or about 50 mph
Now let’s look at how fast I could drive this same curve on Mars:
v = √(0.5 · 3.72 m/sec^2· 100 m)
v = √186 m^2/sec^2= 13.6 m/sec = 49 km/hr, or about 30 mph

Bottom line, I will have to drive slower on Mars by half to stay on my 100-meter radius curve. How much larger must my curve be for me to be able to drive the same speed (80 km/hr)? If I substitute in my value for velocity and solve for r:
80 m/sec = √(0.5 · 3.72 m/sec^2· r)
490 m2/sec^2= 0.5 · 3.72 m/sec^2 · r
r = (490m^2/sec^2)/(0.5 · 3.72m/sec^2) = 263.4m

The radius of my curve will be over twice as large!

Looking down the road (pun intended), what does this imply for construction on Mars? It means having to rewrite engineering manuals where any equations rely on the gravity constant. That includes any formulas that depend on weight. As I’ve just shown, roads will have to be designed differently, or speeds lowered considerably. For example, any systems relying on the gravity flow of water will have to upsize pipes—like in a hydroponic system—to get the same flow rates.

This speaks to the importance of the Artemis program, where many of the apparatuses that will be used on Mars will be tested in the low grav lunar environment. Better to find out the engineers didn’t account for gravity in a critical system when the fix is three days away, instead of nine months.

It also means I’ll have to pay more attention to the effect of low gravity on the operations of Ep City!

Happy Reading!

Like what you just read? Share this issue with friends and encourage them to subscribe to receive free short stories, news about upcoming promotions and books by yours truly and other exciting Sci-Fi authors!

For further viewing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNx0IBBicUQ

February ~ Plasma Rifles on Mars?

My new series will take place about forty years in the future on Mars. Good author that I am, I intend to have lots of conflict. And that, at least in part, requires weapons to carryout those aggressive human impulses.

In a confined pressure vessel like Ep City on Mars, use of ballistic armaments is ill-advised. The shock wave of a .45 caliber round discharge risks damaging the pressurized habitat, as does any stray bullet. The shooter is as likely to die as his or her intended target.

Most current Sci Fi recognizes this inherent risk and uses other munitions that don’t rely on the explosive chemical reaction of gunpowder to shoot a ballistic mass. Instead, they use plasma, directed energy such as lasers, or rail guns that fling a projectile without an explosion.

Though I’m well into my first draft, I’m feeling uneasy about my choice of weapons used a mere forty years into the future. So, over the course of the next three months, I’m going to examine each of these above options to determine the most feasible rifles to use within the city. If my current selection is off the mark, I’ll revise what I include in the book during my upcoming editing process.

What exactly is plasma, and why would it be considered for a weapon? It’s a state of matter, much like the three we’re familiar with: solid, liquid and gas. All elements exist in distinct phases, depending on their temperature.

While each element has its own specific temperature ranges for these states, we can generalize to say the coldest state is a solid. As we warm this material, it will melt and enter the liquid phase. If we continue to apply heat to our liquid sample, it will become a gas. If we further heat our gas, the electrons of the individual atoms jump to ever higher energy orbitals.

Eventually, when there are no higher energy levels to occupy, the electrons will fly away—dissociate—and exist independent of their parent atom. The atom will now have a net electrical charge of +1. And the free electron, a charge of -1. With the continued addition of energy, most or all of our atom’s electrons will strip away, leaving the highly positively charged nucleus adrift amid a sea of electrons.

While this state of matter is relatively exotic here on Earth, It’s quite common throughout the cosmos. Stars make prodigious amounts of plasma. Our own sun certainly does. The solar wind and occasional coronal mass ejections that strike our planet are that state of matter. The charged particles can be influenced by magnetic fields. Auroras are solar-generated plasma attracted to and following the Earth’s magnetic field lines. Their glow comes from the particles’ interactions with atmospheric gasses.

To generate controlled nuclear fusion scientists and engineers create streams of tritium and deuterium plasma to fuse into helium, releasing neutrons and energy. Carefully crafted magnetic fields “contain” this material in tokamak and stellarator chambers, squeezing it with the intent of generating power from these reactor designs.

How is plasma used in science fiction for weapons? Soldiers in almost any space opera use plasma rifles. Their spacecraft often have plasma cannons among their armaments. Damage inflicted is a combination of electrical disruption, physical burns and kinetic impact.

Is there any optimism plasma rifles could be deployed within the next forty years? An internet search produced very little regarding weapons research. But I did run across a now-classified Space Defense Initiative called MARAUDER.

Located in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the purpose of the 1990s project “sought to convert stored electrostatic energy into plasma kinetic energy.” The plasma was generated by Shiva, a massive array of capacitors first developed in the 1970s. Siva’s electrical discharge created a torus of charged particles (like a smoke ring only a lot hotter).

The MAURADER part was a magnetic rail gun that accelerated the two-milligram torus up to 10,000 kilometers per second. The force of the projectile resulted in a theoretical yield of 5 pounds of TNT, plus the disruption of any of the target’s electronics.

The prospects for miniaturization are not good. Imagine squeezing the power source used by Lawrence Livermore into a five-pound battery housed in a gun stock, capable of being released in a coordinated way to create the plasma, then accelerate it to three percent of the speed of light down the length of a two-foot magnetic accelerator. It would take a battleship to carry MAURADER. But I doubt the ship could generate enough energy to fire a meaningful shot.

Below: Lawrence Livermore’s Shiva. Photo courtesy of the US Air Force.

The use of plasma weapons in Science Fiction dates back at least to Frank Herbert’s Dune and is now a well-established trope. But their power generation, storage, and magnetic acceleration requirements make it unlikely handheld weapons will be available by the end of this century. In the ensuing centuries, they may always have to be in the form of a cannon, used in stationary applications or aboard massive surface or space vessels.

So, I’ll scratch plasma rifles from my upcoming series. Next month, I’ll consider if laser rifles are any more feasible inside Ep City on Mars.

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Plasma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/project-marauder-air-force-plasma-cannon/

March ~ Directed Energy Rifles on Mars?

This month we’ll examine if directed energy weapons will be in use within the next forty-plus years on Mars. After last month’s disappointing analysis of particle beam rifles, I’ve got my fingers crossed that I might be able to employ these instead in my upcoming book. Assuming I won’t have to violate the laws of physics, economics, ergonomics, and common sense, let’s dive in.

By discussing these weapons, we’re really talking lasers. They convert a form of energy—photons or electrons—into a coherent beam of light of a single wavelength. Coherent light possesses some interesting properties. The waves are oriented perpendicular to the photon’s direction of travel, and the wave amplitudes self-align. These attributes allow a laser to pack quite a punch, maintaining a highly focused beam of radiant energy over much longer distances than non-coherent light. For more details, check out the For Further Reading URLs at the bottom of this essay.

Depending on the gain medium, lasers come in different spectra, ranging from ultraviolet to infrared. Below the IR spectrum, masers produce coherent beams of microwave radiation. At the other wavelength extreme, devices that create coherent x-ray beams have been studied.

Lasers have been tested and deployed on a limited basis by a number of militaries, including the US Army, Air Force and Navy. Their power outputs range from 1/4 W Dazzlers to 60 kW lasers designed to intercept incoming missiles or naval drones.

Dazzlers are deliberately low wattage to temporarily disorient and blind the unfortunate recipient, consistent with the 1995 UN Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. Devices with greater output are used to disable electronic sensors. The US Air Force tested a prototype non-lethal dazzler rifle called a PHASR. (Phasers set to stun, Mr. Spock.)

Below: PHASR prototype Photo courtesy of the US Air Force.

Higher power HELIOS laser cannons have been tested on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to interdict aerial and sea drones. The Army, P-HEL truck-mounted lasers to intercept drones and mortar rounds. The Air Force, SHiELD and other laser systems for use against stationary ground targets and enemy aircraft and missiles.

The one thing all military-grade lasers have in common is the requirement for a large power source. The most efficient operate at 30% efficiency. That means a 100 W power source will provide a 30 W beam output. A 60 kW laser needs a 180 kW input! Not hard to do on a naval destroyer or with a truck-mounted generator.

Assume that a future laser rifle will have its own battery pack power source. Now consider that a typical EV lithium battery pack has about a 500 W output. It would take 350 car batteries to power that 60 kW laser. The advent of solid-state batteries with higher energy density might cut our number of battery packs in half, and weigh less as well. Even so, the batteries will be too heavy and bulky to tote around. If we attach a really long electrical cord from it to our laser rifle, it won’t be very practical in the confines of our base on Mars.

With all that power sluicing through and out of these lasers, the military has grappled with cooling the devices. Even with cooling systems, most prototypes deployed must limit operating durations to prevent damage from overheating.

Lasers have proven to be impractical rifles in the near future. What about masers? They emit electromagnetic radiation between radio and infrared frequencies.

Masers are primarily used for amplification of microwave signals for telecommunication on Earth and in space. They rely on semiconductor solid state microwave generators to pump their gain medium. Masers produce very weak microwave signals, measured in picowatts. That’s trillionths of a Watt!

Practical maser rifles are farther in the future than lasers. Today’s devices are small and low power. Their semiconductor generators may not scale up, and it’s unknown how durable their organic gain medium would be at higher inputs and outputs. Once the scaling problems are resolved, they would face the same constraints of power supply and overheating.

Unlike optical lasers, a beam of X-rays is generated by a single pass through the gain medium resulting in lower beam coherence. But the energy needed to produce X-rays is greater than for visible light, making the systems more complex and expensive.

During the Cold War, the US funded Project Excalibur to research and develop an orbiting X-ray laser system as a ballistic missile defense. The concept involved packing large numbers of expendable X-ray lasers around an orbiting nuclear device. But using a nuke for the pump source made them very costly one-use devices. The program was cancelled in 1992.

I’m dropping this X-ray laser idea faster than quantum teleportation.

Unless there are multiple technological breakthroughs, the lack of a compact power supply and the high cooling demand makes laser rifles impractical in my timeframe. Scratch them off my list of Ep City, Mars weapons.

Next month we’ll examine non-ballistic projectile weapons. Rail guns!

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_weapon
https://www.astrodynetdi.com/blog/power-supplies-for-laser-applications#:~:text=Efficiency:%20Power%20supply%20efficiency%20is,the%20risk%20of%20thermal%20degradation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_halting_and_stimulation_response_rifle
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/researcher-creates-most-powerful-maser-ever-spare-parts-flna949918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur

April ~ Electromagnetic Acceleration Guns

Welcome to this third and final installment studying feasible small arms for use inside Ep City about 40 years from now. For those new to my newsletters, you can catch up on my discussion of Plasma Rifles, and Lasers. Spoiler alert: neither of these weapon types will be miniaturized enough for a security patrol to tote around.

I’m doing this research and sharing my insights with you because the use of firearms—hand-held weapons that rely on the explosive chemical reaction of gunpowder to shoot a ballistic mass—pose an inherent risk in a pressurized environment in the near-vacuum of Mars.

Let’s dive into today’s topic, guns that use an electromagnetic field to accelerate a projectile.

Most SciFi fans are familiar with railguns. I recently finished bingeing The Expanse series on Prime Video. In it, all military vessels utilized railguns to devastating effect for close-in combat, whether targeting incoming missiles or another spacecraft.

Much like the US Navy uses its Phalanx antiaircraft battery to fling depleted uranium rounds at a rate of 3,000 per minute, James Holden’s Rocinante employed high velocity rapid-fire railguns. The high kinetic energy of the Roci’s rail gun projectiles packed the punch of explosive rounds.

Railguns rely on an electromagnetic field along two parallel electrified rails to accelerate an armature in contact with both. They’re simple in design, making a great grade school science project.

Below: Schematic diagram of a railgun courtesy Wikipedia.

What’s the current state of railgun development? The US Army began this country’s long-term experimental railgun program in 1980. In 2010, the United States Navy tested a BAE Systems-designed railgun for ship emplacement. It accelerated a 3.2 kg (7pound) projectile to 3,390 m/s, or about Mach 10. The non-explosive round carried18.4 megajoules of kinetic energy. For comparison, a single stick of dynamite produces about 2.1 megajoules of energy.

Rail guns were pursued because of their perceived lower operating cost than conventional ballistic weapons. The absence of explosive propellants and warheads to store and handle, as well as the low cost of non- or low explosive projectiles compared to conventional weaponry made them attractive to planners.

But the project was abandoned. An electric arc forms between the rails and the projectile (or the armature that pushes a non-ferromagnetic projectile). The rails eroded so quickly that their frequent replacement made the gun impractical.

Like the plasma cannons and laser cannons I examined previously, rail guns developed for military application are enormous devices with unwieldy power sources. However, low power, small scale railguns are popular college and amateur projects. But the main obstacle to a military application remains high rail erosion and frequent rail replacement. Bummer.

But there is another electromagnetic acceleration device. Unlike railguns, coilguns use a series of electromagnetic coils to sequentially energize and propel a projectile through them. For ferromagnetic projectiles, a single-stage coil gun can be formed by a coil of wire, an electromagnet, and a ferromagnetic projectile placed at one of its ends. This design is like solenoids used in electric door locks commonly found in most commercial buildings, or the electric valves used to turn your lawn sprinklers on and off.

Power is supplied to the electromagnet from a fast discharge storage device, typically a battery, or capacitor(one per electromagnet). Many hobbyists build coilguns, using off-the-shelf capacitors, and low inductance coils to propel the projectile forward.

An Arizona-based company called Arcflash Labs sells a coilgun rifle. The GR-1 Anvil ® fires 30-gram steel slugs at up to75 m/s with a muzzle energy of about 85 joules. That’s comparable to a pneumatic air rifle. The muzzle velocity of a typical rubber bullet generally falls between 60 m/s and 80 m/s. The Anvil ® firing rate is up to 100 rounds per minute, and it comes with a 10 round magazine. The rifle weighs 20 lbs. For comparison, a 30-06 hunting rifle weighs 5-8 lbs. An AR-15 weighs 6 or7 lbs.

Below: Photo by Arcflash Labs

Despite the higher projectile velocities a railgun can achieve, coilgun weapons have been commercialized first. Unlike a railgun, coilguns place an actual barrel inside the magnetic coils, eliminating wear and tear. Their durability means less maintenance and repair.

Coilguns are suitable for crowd control in a security setting. Improvements like solid state batteries and lighter capacitor materials over the next forty-plus years should reduce their weight comparable to a military rifle’s. It’s conceivable, miniaturization could result in a sidearm with comparable specs to today’s GR-1 ®.

I don’t foresee muzzle velocities increasing enough to match the 1000 m/s of an AR-15. But if I’m wrong about that, then the same rifle could switch between crowd control and lethal settings—although the higher muzzle velocities would likely be restricted to outdoor use. A high velocity round ricocheting off the walls inside Ep City could have nasty unintended consequences, whether it be striking innocent bystanders, sensitive life support equipment or airlocks.

It’s taken three months, but I finally have a useful crowd control weapon for a city of 100,000 on Mars in the latter half of this century. Watch for its deployment in my new book, Wetware, coming out later this summer.

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
https://www.quora.com/How-many-joules-does-a-Bazooka-or-a-RPG-rocket-produce-upon-impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GR-1_%22Anvil%22
https://arcflashlabs.com/product/gr-1-anvil/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239761536_Design_and_Implementation_of_High_Efficiency_High_Power_Density_Front-End_Converter_for_High_Voltage_Capacitor_Charger

May ~ Artemis V Apollo

No, this isn’t about a brother and sister grudge match in Olympus. Rather, it’s a comparison of the financial models used by these two United States lunar programs. The Apollo missions relied on cost-plus contracts to develop the Saturn 5 boosters, orbiters, landers and rovers. This type of contract reimbursed the contractor for their direct and indirect costs, plus a fee for profit. While allowing NASA to maintain significant control and ownership over the design, it also meant that it was responsible for all price overruns.

NASA was sensitive to public perception and opinion, reflected by congressional financial support. For example, in matters of astronaut safety, the accusation of a cavalier attitude could have rendered political support untenable. Since the space agency was on the hook for project design, project managers and administrators demanded rework from their contractors until the final product was 100% reliable. Such rework was usually out of contract scope, resulting in significant delays and budget overruns.

The US spent approximately $25.8 billion between 1960 and 1973 on the Apollo program, accounting for 5% of government spending. That’s roughly $257 billion in 2020 dollars.

Fast forward to today’s Artemis program. The overall cost from 2012 to 2025 is around $100 billion. Assuming an annual budget of $8 billion, that would amount to $140 billion through 2030.

NASA nearly had the Artemis program cancelled. Costs escalated for the development and production of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a single-use booster system, similar to the older Saturn 5. And like its predecessor, the agency used cost-plus contracts for its development. NASA’s Inspector General criticized their use for SLS, noting that they contributed to significant budget overruns. The report highlighted that a $6 billion increase in the main engines’ costs was partly attributed to these contracts. In order to maintain program support, NASA scaled back the use of the boosters to only the first three lunar missions

For the remainder of the Artemis program, the agency is working with private companies for boosters, orbiters, landers, rovers and habitats. The agency switched to fixed-fee-for-a-service contracts. Now, rather than tightly controlling design elements in-house, NASA contributes technical expertise and data to various firms like Blue Origin and SpaceX. These agreements stipulate that a company will provide a specific number of launches (or other services like lunar landings) for a fixed fee per each. If the mission fails, the financial loss is the provider’s not NASA’s.

A good example is the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) program. It encourages companies to develop the technology needed to land supplies and experiments on the Moon cheaply and safely, shifting risk to the vendor. They only get paid for meeting certain project milestones. These companies, ranging in size, bid on delivering payloads for NASA. This includes everything from payload integration and operations, to launching from Earth and landing on the lunar surface. Since 2023, commercial deliveries began performing science experiments, testing technologies, and demonstrating capabilities to help the agency explore the Moon.

CLPS contracts total $2.6 billion through 2028. For example, Firefly’s successful Blue Ghost Lander mission on March 2nd was funded by the program. Multiple agencies and companies provided the lander payload, also funded through CLPS. There are several other contract initiatives that foster partnership and innovation under the Artemis umbrella that function similar to CLPS.

Under the old Apollo system, NASA owned the technology. They controlled the design. But fear of tort liability, and congressional funding constraints led to micromanagement. They not only defined what to design, they defined how to do it, often at the expense of innovation, cost overruns and delays.
Today’s Artemis program limits the space agency’s cost exposure. When companies compete for contracts, innovation flourishes. Vendors are free to pursue selling their products and services to other companies and space agencies outside of NASA. Or they can pursue their own privately funded missions to the Moon, further expanding the burgeoning space economy.

In my novels, I foresee the expansion of private initiative, driven by the search for profitability by these latter-day pioneers. And if overlapping interests lead to petty jealousies and a bit of conflict, well, that just spices up the reading, doesn’t it?

Happy Rerading!

For further reading
https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/
https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nextstep/
https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/seven-us-companies-collaborate-with-nasa-to-advance-space-capabilities/

June ~ Mining Lunar Helium-3

I recently read a fascinating article in Ars Technica by Senior Space Editor Eric Berger. In it, he described the first commercial lunar extraction venture. Interlune and Vermeer have partnered to develop autonomous regolith excavation and extraction equipment that will separate helium-3 (He-3) for storage and transfer to Earth.

I’m familiar with Vermeer from various construction projects I was associated with during my career as a civil engineer. Based in Pella, Iowa, Vermeer is known for brush chippers, trenchers and directional drillers, as well as farm equipment.

Interlune has raised $18 million in venture capital toward development of its first prototype. They intend to prospect for lunar He-3 and start limited operations by 2029. In 2032 a processing base and five excavator/extractors will begin full-scale operations. The total 40-ton payload can be delivered by a single SpaceX Starship or two Blue Origin Blue Moon landers.

Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron. On Earth and the rest of the solar system it’s a product of stellar fusion, and a component of the high energy solar wind from our sun. Earth’s thick atmosphere traps He-3. It readily escapes back into space because of its low atomic weight. The net atmospheric concentration is a paltry 7.27 parts per trillion by volume.

But not so on the Moon, where those million-mile-per-hour atoms penetrate deeply into and become trapped in the lunar regolith. Concentrations there average 3 parts per billion, but colder, perpetually shaded sites may contain significantly higher concentrations.

Here on Earth, the primary commercial source of He-3 is tritium (T) decay. The US stockpile of helium-3 derived from tritium decay is 125 kg, stockpiled by the Department of Energy. Tritium production has been in decline since the US and USSR signed the nuclear nonproliferation SALT treaties.

This compares to an estimated 12 to 43 kilograms extracted from natural gas as of 2002, according to Wikipedia. Primordial He-3 venting upward from the Earth’s mantle collects in deposits of methane. Other emission sources are volcanoes and subduction zones, but concentrations are so dilute that collection is economically infeasible.
The primary use for He-3 is as a cryogenic coolant for quantum computers. Qubits require an environment chilled to near absolute zero to ensure their stability. These computational units possess multiple quantum states simultaneously, rather than the binary 0s and 1s of typical computers. Quantum computers can solve problems that are intractable using traditional tech. Helium-3 is useful to 0.2 degrees K. Its boiling point is a mere 3.7 degrees K.

However, He-3 is capable of a nuclear fusion reaction with deuterium (D), D + He-3. But current magnetic confinement fusion technology is based on D + T fusion, which yields less energy, but requires less energy to initiate fusion. Therefore, D + He-3 fusion is not likely until after the deployment of D + T fusion, probably no sooner than the 2050s.

Why pursue lunar He-3? The cost of the isotope is about $2500 per liter, which weighs 0.1346g. A single gram is worth about $20,000. One kilogram is worth about $20 million.

Interlune holds a contract with DOE for the delivery of 3 liters of He-3 to the US stockpile by April 2029. Business analysts regard this as DOE’s symbolic endorsement of Interlune and its intensions to mine and supply lunar He-3.

The real money lies with Interlune’s agreement with Maybell Quantum to provide thousands of liters of helium-3 between 2029 and 2035. Maybell Quantum produces He-3 dilution refrigerators for the burgeoning number of operating quantum computers. Without an expansion in global stockpiles, the limited global supply of He-3 will be a huge constraint to the tech’s growth.

I think the real value of Interlune’s venture will be realized mid-century. Near-term, it’s positioning itself to expand global He-3 supplies desperately needed if quantum computing is to realize its potential. But beyond that, this technology will have to be shipped to Mars if the red planet is ever to achieve self-sufficiency. Quantum computers will likely travel there with humanity’s earliest colonies. By the 2060s, Mars settlements will transition from radioisotope thermoelectric generators to larger scale fusion reactors. I expect those reactors will be based on D + He-3 fusion following the maturity of that tech here on Earth.

However, China may be boosting Interlune’s near-term motivation. The Middle Kingdom is already prospecting for lunar He-3. The Chang’e 5 mission returned a 2 kg sample of regolith to Earth, which was analyzed for He-3 concentration. Given China’s propensity for cornering and controlling the release of natural resources, the firm’s aggressive schedule is evidence that it’s motivated to position itself ahead of China in the global He-3 market.

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/06/a-long-shot-plan-to-mine-the-moon-comes-a-little-closer-to-reality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Terrestrial_abundance
https://www.interlune.space/
https://www.maybellquantum.com/