You are not logged in.
According to Bill White, it is now known that electrolysis can occur through UV light.
Scientific American quote:
"High on a chemist's wish list is a material that uses the sun to split water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen. Through photosynthesis, plants have no problem performing this action, but humans have had trouble duplicating the feat, which would cheaply produce hydrogen gas, a clean fuel. Today's photocatalysts corrode easily or are too inefficient, functioning only in ultraviolet light, which makes up just 4 percent of sunlight (in contrast, the visible spectrum accounts for 43 percent). Researchers in Japan have found that simply adding nickel to a metal oxide (made from indium and tantalum) yields a stable substance that works in the violet region of visible light. The trick now is to boost the material's conversion efficiency by extending the photocatalyst's sensitivity further into the visible spectrum. The December 6, 2001, Nature describes the results."
Is it therefore possible to power an interplanetary space craft with water electrolyzed with UV light? Perhaps via a large solar concentrator. Thinking a little further... Maybe electrolysis could occur through a fuel cell powered UV light bulb. Have I just invented an engine that runs on water? Will OPEC hunt me down and kill me now?
Sorry. I didn't mean to bring up an argument. I just get so excited... Anyway, this whole Mars theory of mine is just conjecture. Im not a geologist nor do I have the time for research to back my theory. The information I gathered was from what I have kept in the back of my head for years. When I added it all together, It just fitted so well. I must have got a bit too carried away. But it is still interesting to think of how mars might have affected earth in the past. As for the Jet Streams, maybe I have the wrong word. From memory they were vertical winds, but maybe they were horizontal ones after all. I will try to find the article. But in any case, vertical or horizontal, the question still holds. Does mars have Jet Streams?
I don't know what you talking about, Amazingdrx. Powering the electrolyzer with lasers or microwaves, although possible, would be kind of silly. And once in space, I doubt photovoltaics would produce enough power for electrolyzation. And does near-space actually contain water? As for atmospheric gasses providing an energy boost, what kind of gas, exactly?
Shaun, did you say an Imperial ton was not equal to a US ton? I thought an Imperial ton was a US ton. How 'bout we all just work in metric Tonnes from now on?
Its also interesting to note that the earths magnetic poles changed numerous times before 1000bc. Why they have stopped changing, no one knows. But for me its obvious. As for the age of the earth, well thats sort of hard to tell. If we were to discard carbon dating, then the only way to tell how old the earth was is by looking at the sedimentary layers. Ofcourse these layers grow extremely slowly, so the earth has to be really really old, right? Yes... But if we considered the great flood, which probably rose above sea level by atleast 15000ft... Now most of us know that when you add different types of soils in a water-filled cup, shake it around, and leave it to settle, the end result is sedimentary layers. I know this is just conjecture, but it all fits together so well! So, how old is the earth? It might just be a lot younger than we think.
I think a more viable solution is not to grow meat, as such, but rather microbes. Huge amounts of nutritious microbial gowth could be grown in relatively small water tanks. What the astronauts would think of this, I'm not sure. But the fact is these tiny plants grow effeciently even under extreme overcrowding; Presenting the most effecient source of food per square foot than anything else on the planet.
Adrian can you please delete this topic? I accidentally posted my message as a new topic. Oops. I reinstalled it as a reply to the 'Power generation on mars' post. So you can go ahead and delete this one if you will. Thanks.
Researchers in Australia are currently testing a new type of wind turbine. Heres how it works: The device consists of a long tether; anchored to the ground, a helicopter-like turbine, and a small generator. It is launched by feeding power to the small generator, which doubles as a motor. The motor turns the turbine, which helicopters into the atmosphere. Once the tether is taught, and the turbine is at its highest altitude, the motor is turned off and is now kept aloft only by the continual pressure of the jet stream. The turbine is spun by the jet stream, and the power produced is sent back down the tether.
My question is whether or not mars has jet streams. Jet streams are often one-hundred times the speed of surface winds, and are therefore a much better source of wind power
That was exactly my thoughts. While Jello may offset a force of around 20gs, electro magnetic chairs could offset, theoretically, an infinite amount of g's. My theory is, if every slice of our body has iron particles in it (From the red blood cells) then there would be no limit to how much g's you could counterforce with electromagnets. Because you wouldn't be just applying counter-force to the blood, but the whole body (Except for fluids in the body like urine and bile, which don't contain iron(Make sure you to take a leak before strapping yourself in the railgun, unless you want 100 tonnes of pressure on your bladder!:0).). The only real limit being the strength of the magnet and the power supplied to it. And according to Alex, that would be a lot of power. So is there a way to add iron particles, perhaps by injecting them directly into the blood stream?
Researchers in Australia are currently testing a new type of wind turbine. Heres how it works: The device consists of a long tether; anchored to the ground, a helicopter-like turbine, and a small generator. It is launched by feeding power to the small generator, which doubles as a motor. The motor turns the turbine, which helicopters into the atmosphere. Once the tether is taught, and the turbine is at its highest altitude, the motor is turned off and is now kept aloft only by the continual pressure of the jet stream. The turbine is spun by the jet stream, and the power produced is sent back down the tether.
My question is whether or not mars has jet streams. Jet streams are often one-hundred times the speed of surface winds, and are therefore a much better source of wind power.
Speaking of water, Has anyone ever thought of powering an interplanetary spacecraft with the stuff? No seriously. The Mars Direct plan requires a nuclear reactor, right? Well why not use the nuclear reactors power to electrolyze the water? Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but wouldn't the end result (2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen) be ideal for rocket fuel? How much power is required to electrolyze water?
Finding hydogen or water on mars wouldn't likely help out a manned mission. Atleast not as far as drinking water is concerned. Current life support systems are succesful in recycling 99% of water used by the crew. It has been considered, however, that hydrogen from mars could be gathered and stored for the return fuel of future manned missions. Such a task would likely be carried out by rovers before the manned craft arrived.
Just thought I might add my own two cents in here.
Recent evidence suggest that mars did indeed contain a once thick atmosphere. This once thick atmosphere was probably stripped away when it repeatable passed by earth 3 millenia ago. Interestingly enough, the gravitational effects of one of these pass-bys probably caused the Great Flood of genesis. Which in turn stripped off half of our own atmosphere. Which also continues into another theory. And that is that our atmosphere was once twice as thick as it is today. Just look at the bones of a pteradactyl. The wings of the pteradactyl were far too stubby for effecient flight in todays atmosphere. In an atmosphere twice as thick, however, flight would have been quite comfortable. I beleive this theory answers another question; How did the dinosaurs find enough food to keep themselves alive? Scientists have beem baffled by this mystery for years. But if the atmosphere was thicker at the time of the dinosaurs, they would have received a much higher amount of oxygen; Allowing them to metabolise food much more effeciently. After the atmosphere was stripped, the dinosaurs began metabolising at a much slower rate. And in the end, the dinosaurs simply starved to death. All just theory ofcourse, but a very interesting theory. As it solves a few ancient problems like, Why did the ancient civilizations fear mars so much? The answer, ofcourse, is the dire gavitational affects it had on earth. It would have caused massive earthquakes and floods. And the fact that it appeared in the sky 50 times the size of the moon. No wonder they feared mars! Ancient transcripts suggest mars would swing close to earth every 104 years. How it got into its present day orbit, I'm not sure. But it seems likely that both Mars and Earth had a much thicker atmosphere in the past.
Isn't it funny that in the transcripts of ancient civilization, Venus was never mentioned? As for people fearing mars because it was red in the night sky; Why would people fear mars because it was red? I think that theory is kind of silly. And yes, I agree, Swift could have easily made a lucky guess.
The radio boadcast answers some questions like,
Why did ancient civilizations fear mars?
Or how did Jonathan Swift write about Mars' two moons 151 years before they were discovered?
And was the tiny particle on the rock ALH840001 really evidence for life?
The answers to these question are really quite surprising, like Did you know that there is evidence in the writings of ancient civilizations that Mars passed by earth every 104 years? Imagine seeing mars in the sky 50 times the size of the moon!:0
I thouroghly recommend that you listen to this fascinating broadcast. Click Here to listen to The Mysteries Of The Planet Mars. RealPlayer is required
At what level will the ocean stop growing? Will it top out at 70% of total area, like here on earth? Or will it top out at 50% or less? I beleive the quickest way to terraform mars is to radically incease the size of the ocean in the first couple of decades. Plankton are much more effecient at converting CO2 to oxygen than any earth bound flora. They also multiply hundreds of times faster than anything on land. But how exactly is an ocean created in the dry atmosphere of mars? And how is it controlled? To see what mars might look like at different ocean levels, refer to the zoomable map, Mars topography from MOLA
What about the ESA? Now that europe has turned into a new super-economy what does that mean for the European Space Agency? Will the ESA mature into the new space authority?
I think Keefe did a good thing by cutting funding for the ISS. In my opinion the ISS should never have been built. ISS expenses already are in the $200 billion range. If we had spent that kind of money on a launch vehicle, say the VentureStar, we would have saved billions of dollars in launch costs. The fact is we are in desperate need of a reusable launch vehicle. NASA needs to focus on nothing else, not even a mars mission. We need all the brains working on the next generation RLV. Lowering launch costs to 10% would mean lowering the cost of launching anything into obit by 10%. Including a mars mission. I have several proposals for this type of vehicle. Goals should be set up like this:
1. Safety. Reliability. It should appeal to the public.
2. It should be not only be man rated, but civilian rated also. I beleive the No1 way to provide long-term funding for space agencies like NASA is to invest in Space Tourism. Therefore, this new RLV should be designed with long-term goals like space tourism in mind.
3. It has to be cheap. Lower than 10% of the operating costs of the space shuttle.
I'm still working on my own design, based on the X34. I have also verified my theory on Chryslers 'Natrium' fuel (See 'Chyrslers New 'Natrium' Fuel. The Future of Space Propulsion?', in the Interplanetary Transportation forum). Indeed the Ruthenium catalyst works fast enough to supply the engine with the required amount of hydrogen. And yet the fuel is completely nonflammable.
Ornithopters are going big on the defense budget. I wouldn't be too surprised if the first martian aircraft were indeed ornithopters. Can anyone say 'Dune'?
For all things Ornithopter, or Entomopter, refer to the February 2001 Popular Mechanics article, 'Micro Warfare'
Is it possible to maybe magnetize the iron particles in the blood? Or maybe add iron (Or other magnetic particle) to the blood? If either is possible, Imagine the possibilities! Imagine the year 2050, you take a drink of 'Magneto Grog' before heading to your private spacecraft. You sit down in your electro magnetic chair and take off to the stars at 30gs! Ofcourse the chair is hooked up to a g sensor and computer to control the exact amount of counterforce required in any given second. Ahh, the year 2050 *drools*. Is there any literature on this subject?
What if a Magnum or Ares type launch vehicle were launched from a much higher altitude? Say 5000ft? How much more payload capacity is gained at such an altitude?
Yes, sorry about those other two posts. I assure you I haven't posted hog-wash. Listen and find out! Fascinating stuff really. Although I do recommend you skip Part 3.
I stumbled across this online radio boadcast a while ago. What I heard surprised, even shocked me. With no further introduction, I want you to all please listen to the 66/40 series 'The Mysteries Of The Planet Mars'. RealPlayer is required.
Are you people crazy? I say Mars was made to be terraformed. Think of all those asteroids that are buzzing around us, each one capable of wiping out the whole of human civilization. If we terraform mars, we have a future. If we preserve it, we are doomed as a civilization. If the world grows so much it begins to starve itself, and someone said, 'Let's terrafom the Sahara Desert', Would you say, 'Don't do it, You'll be destroying a very beautiful desert', ? Ofcourse not!
Genesis 1:26-28 says, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he ceated him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves along the ground' ".
Theres a popular cartoon with the above quote, It goes something like this: "And God said, 'Be fruitful and incease in number; fill the earth and subdue it' ". Theres a picture of a extremely overcrowded earth and underneath it reads: 'Now what?'
Good question. And I beleive Mars is that answer.
Why use the Energia when we have our own Energia right here in the US? The Ares and Magnum vehicles proposed for a Mars mission both use the Solid Rocket Boosters of the space shuttle. Boeing is looking into producing reusable Liquid Boosters, like the ones on Energia, for the shuttle. These Liquid boosters can be shut down at any time, ensuring a higher degree of safety, unlike the SRBs used on the space shuttle today. Fitting 6 or 8 of these new boosters around a launch vehicle like Ares or Magnum would increase the payload capacity by maybe 40 tonnes. This cannot be done with present day SRBs because SRBs cannot be throttled up or down to keep the vehicle stable.
Well here goes... I'll be quoting the article, so make sure you all read it. I'm sure most of you subscribe to Popular Science.
To quote the March 2002 edition of Popular Science, 'Detergent In The Tank' pg38:
Commenting on the Chrysler Town & Country Natrium concept vehicle: "...It uses sodium borohydride powder to carry hydrogen in a nonflammable form. To convert that powder to usable fuel, water with sodium borohydride suspended in it is passed over a catalyst made of the chemical element ruthenium. The bonds that hold boron and hydrogen together in this mixture are broken and the atoms are rearranged into sodium borate, and the free hydrogen that powers the vehicle."
So:
Sodium (Na) and Borohydride (BH4) suspended in water (2 parts H2O) are passed through a Ruthenium catalyst. The result is Sodium borate (NaBO2) and freed hydrogen (4 parts H-H).
Now, Basically this 'Natrium' fuel is water. So how can this stuff be used as rocket fuel you ask? Well, It all adds up like this: Imagine filling the Space Shuttles main fuel tank with this 'Natrium' fuel. This fuel is around 3 times more dense with hydrogen than pure hydrogen is when pressurized to space shuttle levels. So it doesn't have to be pressurized. Add a Ruthenium catalyst between the tank and the rocket motor, and Bingo! There is still the need for an oxidizer though. Therefore the 'Natrium' fuel will only replace the hydrogen. The Sodium borate that is left over from the chemical process is discarded.
The main advantages of this new rocket fuel are:
1. It is completely nonflammable. (No more Challenger disasters!)
2. It is a liquid at atmospheric conditions. (Does'nt have to be pressurized)
3. It contains more hydrogen in its liquid form than the most densely compressed hydrogen fuel cell.
So there you have it. Plenty of things still to be worked out though. Remember, this is just a thought. A pondering of my mind. And therefore highly inaccurate. Please do not quote it. Etc. etc.
But even if this is just a pipe theory, I beleive this fuel is the future of all things that go. Turn to page 32 of the same Popular Science issue (March 2002) and read 'Fuel Cells In The Heavens'. If Boeing were to use this 'Natrium' fuel in their little plane there, they would have tripled its range and saved pounds in the process. And then there's the fact that if they crash it, it won't blow up the farm. Because its completely nonflammable. Just think about it for a minute.