Turning the moon into a sun

[Anonymous No.15430138]

Theoretically speaking if it was possible to sustain a fusion reaction on the moon how long would it take for all lunar mass to be converted into light in a fusion reactor?

[Anonymous No.15430141]

>>15430138
Won't that result in the reduction of mass, and won't that harm earth more since how close the moon is compared to the sun?

[Anonymous No.15430168]

>>15430141
That's why I want to know how long it will take. If it's 100 years then that kinda sucks but if it's 1000 years then which country builds the first fusion reactor on the moon will have a very valuable source of energy.

[Anonymous No.15430171]

>>15430168
I thought you referring to stability rather than longevity.
Also I'm fairly certain that the political powers would prevent everyone from doing that given how important the moon is for earthly, natural phenomena.

[Anonymous No.15430190]

>>15430138
......

assuming not bait, then:

It sounds like you are proposing building a fusion facility on the moon, and using the moon's mass as fusion feedstock, to slowly "liquidate" its mass as photons into surrounding space.

Fusion reactions do result in a reduction of mass - namely, the massenergy of the unfused particles is higher than the massenergy after the fusion takes place. this surplus energy is released as heat and light - but this process will not easily allow you to sublimate a planet into xrays.

A simplification of our sun's fusion process goes as follows:
4 hydrogens (aka protons) are floating around in the plasma
they combine together, 2 remaining as protons, 2 turning into neutrons, into a helium-4 nucleus
the helium nucleus has a lower energy state than the 4 loose protons, so energy is released

You'll note that the total nucleon count before and after is the same.

In addition, you can only effectively fuse up to iron - past that, you are paying energy to fuse. Fusing anything heavier than carbon/nitrogen/oxygen requires supernova-level energy, which you probably won't be able to achieve in your fusion plant.

So in summary, it's not going to work - you cannot evaporate nucleons through fusion, nor can you do much of anything to the heavy elements making up the crust. And igniting the moon into a proper sun won't work, of course - if you squished the moon tighter and tighter, you would eventually get it to start fusion, but once the artificial pressure was removed, it would (enthusiastically) bounce back without sustaining a fusion reaction as a star does.

[Anonymous No.15430279]

>>15430190
Thanks. That's a reasonable explanation

[Anonymous No.15430302]

>>15430190
>2 turning into neutrons
how exactly is this reverse-beta-decay happening? Wouldn't it at least require a positron in the system to be absorbed

[Anonymous No.15430304]

>>15430302
>positron
sorry, I suppose I mean electron.

[Anonymous No.15430310]

>>15430138
op is a cartoon villain trying to destroy earth, do not help him

[Anonymous No.15430334]

>>15430304
yes, it does. and in reality, it's not just a simple combination of 4 protons + 2 electrons; it's a multistep process. But that's why I specified, in my original comment, that this was a "simplification" of one of the sun's fusion processes.

[Anonymous No.15430392]

>>15430310

[Anonymous No.15430410]

[Anonymous No.15430482]

>>15430190
You have no fucking clue how the sun works. Nobody does.

[Anonymous No.15430494]

>>15430482
right, but regurgitating memorized textbook "facts" is the only use for that kind of "education", so the astrotards can never resist the opportunity to repeat what they memorized from the textbook.

[Anonymous No.15430522]

>>15430482
>>15430494

THE WORST PART, YALL? THESE GUYS ARE SERIOUS. THEY AINT TROLLING. WUBBA-LUBBA-DUB-DUB!