New Mars Forums

The massive amounts of solar panels on the ISS are collecting 215 kws of power and yet we are not growing any food and need to supplement both water, air for the crew of typically less than 7...
ISS has an internal pressurized volume of 32,333 cubic feet

Each of the eight solar arrays is 112 feet long by 39 feet wide.
The four sets of arrays can generate 84 to 120 kilowatts of electricity
They get hit with 1300 watts for each meter square.

That said we are going to need even more power than the station for any mars settlements or crewed landings.

orbital solar is higher but you are constantly trying to aim the panels while zipping around which means you are not getting all of the energy when collected to beam to earth....
1300 watts in space versus the 1100 on earths surface... with the same panels now seeing high levels of heat which drops the effectiveness of the energy captured.

we can practice https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAL9UhL.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Elon Musk says he plans on selling his last remaining home in California after vowing to sell off all his possessions to fund a Mars colony.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 65777.html

For Calliban re promising new topic!

For Louis ... there is surely room enough for ** both ** your visions .... The Solar System has a ** lot ** of real estate to explore and (for those so inclined) to develop.

(th)

What's everyone's thoughts on Brilliant Light Power's (BLP), formerly Black Light Power, Hydrino energy extraction system?

If we can extract roughly 25,000 times more energy from Hydrinos than by burning Hydrogen or anything else, by transforming Hydrogen into what they call Hydrinos, would that provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels?

It uses TPVs, and that's a type of PV, so does it qualify for "green magic" status?

According to Dr. Randell Mills, 1 liter of water contains enough energy from Hydrinos to drive a Tesla approximately 2,200 miles, so you don't need much in the way of battery power.  5% of the energy is used to continue the reaction and the other 95% is available for use.  It doesn't produce any long-lived radioactivity, although it does produce extreme amounts of heat and EUV light, enough to liquefy many kilograms of Tungsten in mere seconds if the reaction isn't controlled, apparently.  This thing has been tested by professors from at least a dozen big name science and engineering universities across America and Europe.  All of them say that it works as advertised and they've done short duration and endurance testing to measure exactly how much energy in vs energy out that they were getting, six ways to Sunday.  If he's truly selling snake oil, then he's fooled an awful lot of supposed experts at this point from most of the developed world.

BLPs reactor vessel does use Gallium metal to help facilitate the reaction, but very little, it doesn't get "used up" in any way, and the reactor vessel is made from Inconel or Tungsten or Carbon, with TPVs surrounding it, or Silver plasma-based for their MHD apparatus.  Their 250kWe unit cost them around $5,500 USD to build.  That's about what used 300hp to 400hp LS engines in junkyards go for, so that seems pretty reasonable.  He's claiming that a capital investment of around $210B could replace just about every power source in the world except for batteries used in portable electronics.

I have no idea how true any of this is, but I'm always on the lookout for new energy technology and thought I'd throw this out there since we're just "throwing stuff at the wall" to see if anything sticks.  If it does work, then maybe we can come up with enough surplus energy for The Green New Steal.

Wasn't sure what else to call it.  But this topic follows on from KBD512's comment in this thread.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8268

If Elon Musk is successful in his efforts to reduce the cost of a Starship launch to Low Earth Orbit to $2million, then it opens opportunities that mission planners and payload engineers are unprepared for.  For sixty years, commercial access to space has been a reality, but the high cost of launch vehicle operations has limited ambitions and has pushed the satellite industry in the direction on incurring large costs and novel engineering solutions to reduce payload weight.  The high cost of launch services, result in expensive payloads, in an effort to minimise total mission cost.  If launch costs are reduced from $20,000/kg to $20/kg, the design criteria for space payloads changes suddenly.  The engineering solutions that are appropriate for minimum cost design, are entirely different to those that have developed in the previous sixty years.  Primary capital cost becomes the dominant cost driver.

It also opens possibilities that were inconceivable before.  The assumption until 2000, was that space colonisation was something that would have to be government led because of the enormous costs involved.  Musk's Mars colonisation plans and the development of reduced cost privately developed launch vehicles, opened the possibility that big business might be a possible contender as well.  But costs were still too high for most business groups or individuals to even contemplate starting such an effort.  If launch costs are reduced to $20/kg, then launching a 100 tonne space payload is within reach of a huge number of individuals or groups of citizens.  Manned missions become possible through individual or corporate funding.  The type of engineering appropriate to this sort of programme is clearly very different to anything contemplated before.  Mass is far less important than overall system reliability and low development and capital costs.  Choosing an appropriate target is also important.  To small groups, manned missions to Mars are not very practical, because of the high system cost involved in developing solutions for safe landing, surface survival and return to Earth.  For smaller Near Earth Objects as targets, the difficulty is reduced, as the entire journey from LEO to asteroid surface can be carried out using low thrust propulsion, probably in the form of solar powered arcjet.

My proposed reference mission is as follows: To colonise and develop space manufacturing industry on and around a NEA, with the goal of manufacturing satellites and space hardware for use in Earth Orbit.  My proposed candidate is asteroid Bennu, for the following reasons: (1) The demonstrated presence of water and ammonia, two important volatile substances, for both life support and industrial manufacturing; (2) apogee and perigee not too far from 1AU, which means ample sunlight all year round and minimal delta-v to reach; (3) Small diameter (500m) makes landing or takeoff easy - a space factory in orbit around Bennu can mine materials from its surface using manipulator arms; (4) A total mass of 73million tonnes, which justifies making it the focal point of investment for a space manufacturing effort.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/101955_Bennu

My plan would be to launch space payloads, both manned and unmanned equipment deliveries, in individual Starship launches.  Each payload would be equipped with a solar powered arcjet engine, which would carry it to Bennu.  At Bennu, individual factory and habitat modules would be anchored to an equatorial cable running around the crater, with each module located above the stationary orbit point, such that the cable in kept in tension.  New modules can be added incrementally, with care taken to maintain centre of mass with the centre of Bennu.  Transport between modules would be via cable car.

All power will be solar PV.  In zero-g, panels can be extremely slender and light by Earth standards and can be kept sun facing 100% of time  - no storage needed.  The same panels that power the arcjet tugs can provide initial power for the manufacturing colony.  Electrical power should therefore be cheap at Bennu and whole system ERoEI will be good enough to allow rapid manufacturing growth.

Living units will need to be shielded and will rotate to produce gravity.  Greenhouse units will be partially shielded and will rotate more slowly, reducing structural mass burdens.

When the initial colony is established, it should be possible to gain corporate sponsorship from a large number of private companies, who will also contribute both equipment and intellectual property, in exchange for a share in profit from any manufactured goods.  Small satellites and space station modules, can be delivered back to Earth orbit using the same arcjet thrusters that were used to deliver people and materials to Bennu.  Larger payloads will need dedicated propulsion systems.  Solar power satellites are likely to be a big source of revenue, provided that funding can be secured for construction of rectenna on Earth.

Anyway, that is a starter for discussion.

louis wrote:

That's interesting about Hans Island. Who would win a war between Canada and Denmark? A sneak attack up the St Lawrence can't be ruled out. The UK has Rockall - got to be one of the biggest territorial claims proportionate to the amount of land (Rockall could be renamed "F***all").

Unfortunately there are government civil servants who are so imbued with propaganda that they actively interfere or destroy Canadian covert programs. The Chalk River Nuclear Research Facility was built as part of Canada's participation in the Manhattan Project during World War 2. Plutonium for the UK's first nuclear bomb came from there. After WW2 it was converted to produce medical isotopes. Canada invented medical isotopes. Those medical isotopes were produced in such a way that personnel would actively practice the skills they would need to manufacture nuclear weapons. That facility has been undermined by federal civil servants, last I read the reactor used to make bomb-grade plutonium wasn't operational, but that doesn't change the fact Canada is a nuclear capable country.

Denmark is a NATO ally. We don't want to get into a major conflict. But let's be clear, Denmark without Greenland has as much land area as the state of Virginia. Canada has more land area than all of the USA; in terms of land area Canada is second only to Russia. Denmark has a population of 5.84 million people, Canada has 38.0 million. We don't pick fights with little guys. Certainly not a little guy who's an ally.

The virus variants are born out of rapid infections and not isolation as the timeline for the body to render it not an issue is around 2 weeks..
So not going about ones business and staying home does work its those that did not stay home which increased its spread during that period by acting as if nothing was working...

RobertDyck wrote:

The United States is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. That treaty prohibits any nation from claiming any territory on any celestial body. So it would be inappropriate to plan the US flag.

Canada has an ongoing dispute over Hans Island in the arctic. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, Ellesmere Island is Canadian. Hans Island is an island half-way between Ellesmere and Greenland. Both nations claim it based on claims from the 1800s. If you use an equidistant line between Ellesmere & Greenland, the border would be right down the middle of Hans Island. It's a half-acre piece of rock that doesn't even has grass or weeds. But whoever controls that island, controls the shipping channel. Periodically the Denmark navy or Canadian navy arrives, takes down the flag of the other country, and puts up their own flag. That's what a flag means: territorial claim.

Ps. At one point the Danish minister for Greenland had sailors leave a bottle of fine Danish Cognac with a note welcoming the Canadian soldiers to Danish territory. Of course Canadian sailors drank it. Since then Canada has left a bottle of Crown Royal, the premium brand of Canadian Rye Whisky.

Robert,

Sticking a flag in the ground is not equivalent to claiming ownership.  It's more like a sign that we were there.  Notice how I said that other nations who decide to make the trip will also put their flags in the ground to demonstrate that they were there?

Remember the little speech Neil gave when he set foot on the moon?

He spoke about humanity, not America or America "owning" the moon.  The explorers who went there risked their lives to increase humanity's knowledge of other worlds.  And yes, it was a point of national pride that President Kennedy's challenge "to go to the moon" was met.  We've made no attempt whatsoever to prevent anyone else from going to the moon.  If memory serves, the last American on the moon issued a challenge to explorers from other nations to follow in his footsteps.  That doesn't sound much like claiming ownership of anything.