New Mars Forums

That would mean barging the parts to the launch site since building the assemblies at the site would be even more difficult and there is still the environmental impact studies which would also make the noise on the water a killing zone for marine animals.

Here is another push cured but its not
Is ivermectin a treatment for COVID-19? What you should know about this controversial drug

Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, was administered to some patients across the globe, with seemingly positive effects.
Ivermectin is usually given to treat parasitic infections like lice and Strongyloides, according to Eachempati.
It did say lab tests found the drug stopped the reproduction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that cause the disease.
However, to be effective, the dosages would need to be "100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans."

So its a poison that kills anything in your system which now allows the white cells to work against the virus and not the parasite which is why it had a plasebo effect....as well as not safe for you to take in quantity to kill covid

The  WHO responds to claims Wuhan lab worker could be COVID patient zero

with a possible connection to Covid may have begun with Chinese scientist collecting bat samples, says WHO investigator

For SpaceNut .... there was no topic containing these three words.

The purpose of this topic is to provide a place for forum members to add to knowledge about the energy imbalance currently reported for the Earth, and to contribute to creative thinking about how to address it.

The inspiration for this topic comes from a combination of statements made in other topics about various energy collection methods, and reports of NASA studies showing that in recent times, the Earth has collected more energy from the Sun than it has radiated back to space.

It should be noted that the energy budget of the Earth includes radioactivity in the core, as well as burning of fossil fuels by humans and occasionally by Nature when fires occur.

I'm hoping that creative thinking will reveal ways to radiate excess energy to space, although as I launch this new topic, I have no idea what those ideas might be.

One thing I'm pretty sure of ... whoever comes up with ways of radiating excess energy to space, and thus restoring the energy balance of the planet, will deserve whatever accolades will be forthcoming.

(th)

For Louis ... your topic here seems perfect for development as a building method on Mars.  Dry stone walls have been constructed on Earth for thousands of years, and many are still standing.  The skills of a stone mason (if that is the right term) would seem (to me at least) well worth cultivating for applications on Mars.

While Mars certainly does provide plenty of challenges, the forces that would destroy stone walls on Earth will NOT be present on Mars.

Please considering redirecting your energies toward a productive use of this topic.

There are surely many examples of successful terrestrial architecture based upon dry stone stacking that you can research and then present here in an organized manner for the benefit of future Mars settlers who would otherwise have to search the Internet for the same material.

(th)

Musk commented in segment 2 that they are looking into a water deluge system for sound suppression.

China directly manufactures 80% of solar modules produced in the world and about 80% of polysilicon.  Some 45% of global polysilicon is made in the Uigyer region of Xingjiang, home to 20% of Chinese coal reserves and some of the cheapest electricity in the world, thanks to an electricity grid dominated by coal fired powerplants.  Xinjiang is one of the heaviest coal producing provinces in China.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coal-an … ina-2016-3

Electricity costs as little as $0.03/kWh and accounts for around 40% of polysilicon costs.
Xinjiang is one of the poorest regions in China, with per capita GDP of $3000/capita, so wages are cheap. Chinese solar panel manufacturers in Xinjiang also benefit from slave labour.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business … t-xinjiang

Solar panel costs have fallen 90% over the past decade, as China has come to dominate global production.  But this was accomplished through government subsidy, cheap coal based electricity and forced labour.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe … 35ac4c71ec

About 5 tonnes of polysilicon is needed to produce 1MWe-peak of solar modules.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrystalline_silicon

It takes 190MWh of electric energy to produce 1 tonne of polysilicon.  Under UK conditions, it would take around 1.2 years for a 20% efficient polycrystalline solar panel to generate the electricity needed to pay for its polysilicon.
https://wsimag.com/science-and-technolo … re-silicon

Using thin film solar cells is a way of reducing the quantity of silicon needed to manufacture solar powerplants.  Unfortunately, polysilicon is the thin end of the stick.  The US Department of Energy provides a summary of the quantity of materials needed to manufacture a TWh of electric power from a number of different energy sources.
https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-tech … eview-2015

For PV, I will summarise the largest components: 350t concrete, 3700t cement; 850t copper; 2700t glass; 7900t steel; 680t aluminium.

Compare this to the embodied materials of 1TWh of electricity from a pressurised water nuclear power plant: 760t concrete (138t cement); 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium. Per TWh, a solar PV powerplant will consume 49 times as much steel; 26 times as much cement, 283 times as much copper and at least 680 times as much aluminium.

Nor is this the end of the solar materials budget.  When energy losses in storage are taken into account along with the embodied energy and materials of the storage medium, these materials costs are magnified.  Only a portion of these materials will be recycled.  Describing Solar PV as 'Green' is certainly debatable.  It may be Green in a political ideological sense, but nothing about this technology is environmentally friendly.  The Liberal media and other creatures of the far left, would have us believe that this technology is destined to replace fossil fuels as principal energy source for Planet Earth.  The irony is that solar PV is more dependent on fossils fuels for its manufacture than any other energy source. 

It has reached a temporary nadir in its power generation costs due to a confluence of factors:

(1) Relatively low commodity costs (at least until recently), largely thanks to Chinese coal based energy and the enormous quantities of steel, glass, aluminium and cement that it allows them to produce.  The Chinese produce more of each of these than the entire rest of the world.  This is fortuitous, considering how much of each of these commodities are needed to produce each TWh of solar electricity.

(2) Very cheap, coal based electricity in the regions where PV is produced.  Xinjiang contains 20% of Chinese coal reserves and its electricity supply is dominated by coal.  The result, is some of the cheapest electricity in the world.  Labour costs are very low in this part of China and there is a substantial amount of slave labour.  This renders coal production very cheap.  But Xinjiang is too far from coastal China for this coal to be cost effectively transported to their industrial heartland.  In a psychopathic kind of way, Solar PV makes a certain amount of sense for the CCP.  It allows them to convert distant coal reserves, which lie thousands of miles from their coastal population centres, into an energy dense product, with the aid of very cheap (often slave) labour.

(3) Low labour costs.  Xinjiang has some of the lowest labour rates in China, with a substantial portion of forced labour.  China has built PV module factories here and in other low wage countries.  The fragility of PV wafers makes module assembly a very labour intensive activity.

(4) The CCP subsidised PV production with very low interest rate loans.  This allowed this very capital intensive industry to produce products very cheaply, far more cheaply than anywhere in the West.  This led to allegations of dumping.

(5) Enormous scale economies in the Chinese market brought down costs even further.

(6) Very low interest rates and bond yields in Western countries since 2009, have provided very favourable conditions for a capital intensive industry, with otherwise low operating costs.

(7) Liberalisation of electricity markets and rules favouring renewable energy, allow renewable electricity to be put on electricity grids as soon as it is generated.  Other producers, including coal and nuclear, lost market share and were increasingly pushed into the role of backup powerplants.  They were not compensated for lost market share.

(8) Heavy subsidy in Western economies pays for a large part of capital costs.

These factors combine to reduce the breakeven price of a kWh of solar PV electricity to a level that now appears competitive with new fossil and nuclear power.  With a confluence of favourable conditions like this, it isn't surprising that solar PV appears (temporarily) extremely cheap.  One might wonder why its price is indeed not zero?  Idealists, all too happy to look a gift horse in the mouth, would have us believe that the current situation heralds a new age of industrial economy powered by sunlight.

A more sober look at the facts would lead one to conclude that a combination of cheap Chinese coal, low cost (and slave) labour, low interest rate loans (on both the producer and consumer side), subsidy and political favouritism; have all combined to give rise to a situation that is extremely precarious and unlikely to continue indefinitely.  In fact, in 2021, PV module cost has already increased about 20% y-o-y.  Chinese coal production has plateaued for 8 years and is likely very close to its historic peak.  Low interest rate money is an unstable situation that has resulted in massive debt escalation and loss of returns on capital.  A significant increase in inflation or loss of confidence in fiat currencies, could result in rising interest rates in the future.  Subsidies are being dropped all over the world, as they cease to be affordable.

At a time when surplus energy from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, the world cannot afford idealistic energy sources than provide poor surplus energy yield.  We need energy sources that can deliver what fossil fuels used to provide but no longer can.  That means energy sources with high power density, capable of repaying an initial energy investment dozens or hundreds of times over in their lifetime.  The more rapidly we can affect that transition, the more wealth our children will be left with and the better our chances of getting a foothold within the solar system.  Such achievements are inherently energy intensive and require the mastery of nuclear energy, both at home supporting industry and for propulsion and base power supply.  From this point of view, the present political obsession with low power density (Green) ambient energy is both pointless and dangerous; a diversion into a dead end.  It is especially dangerous at a time when surplus energy from fossil fuels is declining fast.  Such mistakes could easily be fatal for industrial society at this point.  As surplus energy declines, it becomes more and more difficult to afford investments that mitigate decline.  It is time to drop foolish, idealistic fantasies and invest our efforts into the high power density nuclear energy sources that are needed to allow humanity to escape its cradle and colonise the solar system.

This is the only issue for use of starship to over come and that is the refueling operation
https://www.blueorigin.com/assets/blue- … hic-2x.jpg