New Mars Forums

Rob, Thanks for the information, it'll take me a couple days to get to it. I'll post some rough draft drawings. Once the "rough draft" drawings are made (Like the one above in post #1403), and can start adding detail. I'd rather get the "overview" dialed in the way you want it before we start adding the fine detail.

On the subject of wall thickness, AutoCAD makes lines that don't have a thickness. When zooming in on the lines in AutoCAD they don't get any thicker, they stay thin. When drawing 4" walls for a house/addition, I just draw two lines that are 4" apart. We can do the same for your Large Ship if you'd like.

AutoCAD does have a feature to draw lines with more thickness. I did that on the blue and black walls so that the colors could be seen better. If I would have zoomed in or out, and then had done a screen capture, the lines would have remained the same width.

I guessed at the dimensions for your beds based on your sketch. I'll change the dimensions to 30" x 75". I can add the 4" storage underneath the bed if we do any elevation views. I can draw a door similar to the one you showed in the video too for elevation views. (I do remember that movie "Red Planet". Two Mars movies came out that summer. I saw both of them).

Feel free to change the dimensions if you'd like. If you see something that is too big or too small, we can always change it. And yes, rounding things off, like the 4" storage, does make it easier for me to draw.

One thing about AutoCAD is that it has something called "snap" and "grid". When drawing lines/circles, everything "snaps" to the grid. I can set the grid to any number, English or metric.

When drawing home projects I usually set the grid to 1/4", and sometimes even 1". When set to 1" it means anything I draw will be in increments of 1". If I want something that is about 120" long, I can only draw it 119", or 120", or 121" long. I can't draw it 120-1/2" long. (There are ways around that, but that's another story). Using the grid helps to make sure all lines intersect -- that they touch each other at a point. Without snapping to a grid two lines could miss each other by 1/100" and you wouldn't notice, but it would throw things off. So it helps for me to draw if dimensions are in whole numbers. I think the drawing I did in Post #1403 had the grid set to 1cm. That was plenty close enough for a drawing of that size. 10cm probably would have been good enough.

What about the 3 spokes? Do you have any dimensions for those? I just need a diameter or a width.

Be thinking about what views you'd like. I don't know if what I've posted is along the lines of what you are wanting or if you'd like something different.

In this image I did a "cut and paste" to copy the room detail into the other rooms. I like the way it came out. Hopefully it's what you had in mind.

Link to image:
600 x 920 215K
https://i.imgur.com/Sz8A10I.jpg

Rob, Here is a closeup view with the detail added to more rooms. I also added english units to the metric units. I can take those out if you'd like.

Link to image:
1020 x 750 166K
https://i.imgur.com/WwOmF7r.jpg

Rob,
Is this drawing of any value to you? If so you can have it. I drew this in AutoCAD (QuickCAD) based on a drawing you posted on this thread. Hope you don't mind. I don't have a whole lot of time, but I'd be glad to make changes to it if you'd like. I still need to fill in some of the other rooms with beds/bath. I can make the image bigger too if you'd like. The image shown is 625 x 722 pixels. I know you've got a presentation coming up and I don't mind lending a hand.

I could make two drawings. One from zooming in on the one room, so that the text is easier to read, and another zoomed out to show more of the rooms/ship.

Here is the url to the image:
https://i.imgur.com/Zq82XhW.jpg

The Mars Society just posted the itinerary for the 2023 convention.
Here is the link:

2023 Convention Program Itinerary

Robert I think GW Johnson was planning on going. I least that's the impression I had from something he posted a while back. I know he gave 5 presentations last year. I was hoping to go, but I won't be making it. I ended up having surgery this year, which caused me to use up a lot of my vacation/sick time. I also switched jobs at work. Same company/building, just a different department. The new gig is keeping me busy. So I'm too busy and too short on vacation time to go this year. I would have liked to have met you and GW Johnson in person. Enjoy your trip and good luck on your presentation!

Tom,

Thanks for the invite to zoom, I'll keep it in mind. About all I know about FluxBB and phpBB is what I've looked up on the Internet. I do have a friend that is in a local (Kansas City) Linux group. I go to him on occasion with questions.

I've been very busy lately. I just changed jobs at work. Same company just a different area. The area I transferred to is behind which is why I volunteered to help. The move was a slight step up, so I'm having to learn a lot of new things and working OT. I'm sure the OT will continue for the rest of this year.

I also had surgery recently. I'm normally pretty healthy and have never had any major surgery until this year. I had a tumor in my stomach removed a month ago. Fortunately it wasn't malignant, but it would be if I didn't get it out. It was discovered by accident, so I was extremely lucky to find it before I had any symptoms and before it became cancerous. I'm doing well but still recovering. My diet is back to normal so that helps. I wasn't allowed to eat raw vegetables for a couple weeks.

Anyway, I think I'm too busy at the moment to join in with the zoom, but I'm honored with the invite. I'd be glad to do some testing when I can, maybe I could be of help that way. Like the string above that you couldn't get posted. Feel free to Email me or post problems here in Housekeeping. (My profile Email is up to date). I'll try and help when I can.

By the way, Before the crash I noticed the number of guests online seemed to be higher than normal. One time the number was way higher than I had ever seen, so I did a screen capture. I don't remember what day this was. I'm guessing a week or two before the crash. The crash occurred before I got the image uploaded to Imgur. Thought I'd share:

Let me address one more statement, then I need to go.

This sentence isn't very clear, but yes, you can store Watts of energy. It doesn't matter if the energy is AC or DC. I think there is some confusion here about the term "Watts." Remember that the term "Watts" is used for two different things. Don't blame me, I'm not the one who decided to do it that way.

Watts refers to a total amount of energy, and it also refers to the rate at which energy is being used. These are two different things.

Here is an analogy:
If I said something is 5 miles away, I'm referring to a distance, an amount of distance traveled.
If I said I am walking at a rate of 5 miles per hour, I'm referring to a "rate", that is, the rate at which distance is changing.

If we talk about distance, we refer to 5 miles. If we refer to a rate, we call it 5 mph (miles per hour).

The distance and the rate at which distance is changing, are two different things. And therefore we have two different terms, miles and mph (miles per hour).

When it comes to electricity and energy, we also have two different things: A total amount of energy, analogy to distance (miles). And we have a rate that energy is being used, analogy to speed (miles per hour). The problem is, the same word, "Watts" is used for both an amount of energy (analogy to miles) and for the rate that energy is being used (analogy to miles per hour). (Again, don't blame me, I didn't do it).

In the case of a 100 Watt light, the "100 Watt" rating refers to the rate at which energy is being used. Much like miles per hour is the rate something is moving. If the 100 Watt light is on for one hour, then the amount of electricity used is 100 Watts. In this case "100 Watts" refers to the total amount of energy used. Much like miles is the total amount of distance traveled.

Consider the following algebraic equation:

X = X + 1

This equation is obviously wrong. A value for X cannot be equal to a value that is 1 greater than itself.

Now consider the following equation:

Watts = Watts x Hours

This equation looks equally wrong, but it's actually right. The reason is because the word "Watts" on the left is referring to a different term than the word "Watts" on the right.

The word "Watts" on the right is referring to the rate at which energy is being used, much like the rating of a 100 Watt light bulb. When we multiply this rate by time, we get the total amount of electricity used. If a 100 Watt bulb is on for ten hours, it uses 1,000 Watts of energy, measured in Watts.

1,000 Watts (amount of energy used) = 100 Watts (rate of use) x 10 hours

To convert mph to miles, we also multiply by time. For example if I walk at a rate of 5 mph for 1 hour, then I have walked 5 miles.

5 Miles (distance) = 5 mph (rate distance is changing) x 1 hour

Hopefully this is starting to make sense.

Lets look at the quote again.

If we are talking about Watts being equal to Volts times Amps, then we are talking about Watts as a rate that energy is being used.

Watts = Volts x Amps

This is a rate energy is being used, not an amount of energy. If the rate is multiplied by time, we get a number that refers to a total amount of energy. The equation for amount of energy is as follows:

Watts (amount of energy) = Volts x Amps x Time

This Watts, which is an amount of energy, is often measured in Kilowatts. We pay or electric bills in units of Kilowatts. Which is the amount of energy we used. It is this Watts (amount of energy) that I referred to when storing energy. And because this Watts is energy, it can be converted to other forms of energy. This is the Watts I am/was referring to when storing energy. And yes, this Watts can be converted to many other forms of energy.

I need to go, that's all the time I have for now. I'll be back next weekend and post some more. I'll try and put together some drawings that explain the storage of energy better, which has to do with post#3 through post#5 of my proposal. There is no need in going any farther than post#5 of my proposal until post#3 through post#5 are understood. Remember, first we crawl, then we walk, then we run. These steps cannot be skipped.

SpaceNut,
I haven't read through all of your posts on this thread yet, but I will in time. It looks like you're going through each part of my proposal one post at a time asking questions. That's okay, I'd be happy to answer any and all questions that anyone has. At least it shows that someone's reading my proposal.

Let me start with post#3 of my proposal. The title of post#3 is "Introduction to the ClearEdge5(c)"

As I said before, my intentions of post#3 was to introduce a device that worked on the same principle as the CE5, not a verbatim copy of it. My intent was that Mars would have its own version(s) of the CE5. Let me again quote what I said in post#3.

Let me say that a different way. A device that is similar, but not identical to, just similar, using the same principals as the CE5, but not identical to the CE5, can be used on Mars. The idea is to show that there are ways of releasing chemical energy, store as methane, without having to burn methane.

The CE5 had a maximum electrical output of 5 kW. A device on Mars could put out a whole lot more than 5 kW, or it could output less than 5 kW, it depends on the size of the fuel-cell stack.

A device on Mars could supply an output of 50 kW, ten times more than the CE5. If that were the case, the fuel-cell stack would probably be (about) ten times as large, and would probably occupy (about) ten times as much space, and would probably weigh about ten times as much. It would also produce (about) ten times as much heat when it was producing its maximum output of 50 kW.

The CE5 that was shown in Figure 3.2 also had an DC to AC converter. This has seem to have caused a lot of confusion. The figure that I showed in Figure 3.2 of my proposal is an image that was in a sales brochure. I did not create that image, I only copied it from the Internet.

A device on Mars may or may not need the DC to AC converter. I did not mean to imply that everything on Mars has to run on AC current. As I just stated, a device similar, operating on the same principle as the CE5, could be used on Mars. A Mars version of the CE5 would not necessarily need a DC to AC converter. If the electrical devices on Mars are using DC, such as tablets and LED lights, then there is no need to convert the DC to AC and then back to DC again. The device on Mars would not need a DC to AC converter in that case, because the load is DC.

The reason it is in the CE5, is because it is being used in houses in the United States that have 60 Hz AC power. Appliances in houses in United States only work with AC current. In order to be compatible with houses in the United States, the CE5 needs to have a DC to AC converter. Again I did not make that image, I only copied it from the Internet. By no means does this imply that we must have AC current on Mars.

A Note on AC/DC

Reading between the lines of some of the posts on this forum, I think there is a misunderstanding that we must use AC current in order to transfer electric power over longer distances. And that we can only use DC current over short distances. That isn't true at all.

On Earth, we do see AC power lines that are capable of transferring enormous amounts of electrical power over great distances. And we never see any of these power lines using DC current. By no means does that imply that AC current somehow "flows better" through a wire than does DC current. There is very little difference between AC current flowing through a wire and DC current flowing through a wire. The difference is in the voltage.

The amount of power, or energy, flowing through a wire is measured in Watts, and in this case, Watts is equal to volts time amps. The equation is:

Watts = Volts x Amps

Suppose I'm a farmer, and I want to run a power line out to my barn, and my barn is 100 yards away (A football field away). So I run an electrical line out to my barn. Suppose the most current I can run through my power line is 10 amps. I've got one end of the electrical line hooked up to a 12 volt DC power source at the house. The amount of electrical energy (Watts) that is being transferred from my house to my barn is 120 Watts, as shown in the following equation:

12 Volts x 10 Amps = 120 Watts.

Suppose that is not enough power, I need more power in my barn. If I were to increase the current, it would increase the amount of loss in the power line to my barn. The wire can only transfer 10 amps before it starts to lose energy, that is the wires limit. However, if I increased the voltage by a factor of 10, I could transfer 10 times more power to my barn. For example, if I used 120 volts instead of 12 volts the energy transferred would be:

120 Volts x 10 Amps = 1,200 Watts

In this case it doesn't matter if the current is AC or DC. Either way the energy transferred would be 1,200 Watts. The problem is how do you convert 12 volts of DC into 120 volts of DC? We can't use a transformer, a transformer looks like a short circuit to DC. Transformers only work with AC.

We could use a DC to DC converter, but if we're talking about large amounts of power, then a DC to DC converter becomes more expensive and less practical. It would make far more sense to just use AC, so that we could use a transformer, which can handle large amounts of power and are highly efficient. That is the reason why AC is used in high voltage lines. AC is much easier to step up the voltage when transferring power over long distances, and step down the voltage near its point of use. AC does not flow any "easier" through a wire than DC.

On Mars we could transfer power over a distance using DC, thereby alleviating the need for an AC power inverter. The problem is how do we kick voltage level up using DC? We can use the DC output from a device that is similar to a CE5, and we can use this DC to run power from one building to another. If the Martian version of the CE5 used a higher DC voltage, a DC to AC converter would not be needed. There would be a problem at the point of use though. Any devices on the other end of the power line would have to be compatible with this higher (DC) voltage.

The proposal I wrote should be viewed as a white paper, or a conceptual plan. The idea is to paint a picture of an overall vision/idea that someone has. Providing too much detail creates clutter, and makes the proposal harder to understand. I do have more detail for anyone who asks. I'll do my best to read between the lines of comments on this thread and answer questions.

SpaceNut,
As an example of a conceptual drawing lets use some creativity. Lets suppose that you and I are living in the early 1890's. This is a time before Henry Ford built his first motorized car, the quadricycle in 1896.

You come to me with a drawing of an idea you have. You have a sketch of something you call a "Horseless carriage." You tell me this "carriage" has something you call an "engine." The word "engine" is something I have never heard before. You tell me this "engine" thing is capable of replacing a horse by making the carriage move forward down the road. You try to explain to me how a 4-cycle engine works. So you hand me the (conceptual drawing) below, that illustrates the 4 cycles of a 4-cycle engine.

Figure 19.1 Cycles of a 4-stroke engine (conceptual drawing)

I've never seen anything like this before. Here is a list of my response to your drawing:

1) The picture doesn't show how air and fuel are mixed. It also doesn't show any air tanks or any fuel tanks.

2) You're telling me that this horseless carriage has an engine that has a series of explosions. You can't have explosions on a carriage, it would scare the horses.

3) I heard from a reliable source that pistons are round. Yet the pistons you show in your diagram are square.

4) You're showing a spark plug firing yet you do not show any source of electricity to make the spark. You also don't identify if this electricity as being AC or DC. You also don't show the source of where this energy is coming from.

5) The wheels on a carriage go round and round, in a rotary motion. To be compatible will the wheels the engine will need to create a rotary motion, and yet the piston that you're showing me has red arrows pointing up and down. An up and down motion is not a rotary motion.

6) You're proposing a series of explosion inside of this thing you call an "engine" it will quickly overheat. You show no method of dealing with all of this heat, and you don't specify what materials are required to handle this much heat. Most things I've seen are made from wood, and wood won't work because it will burn.

7) In order for this contraption you call an "engine" to work it's going to have to be air tight. Yet you are showing three moving parts inside of what needs to be a sealed air tight compartment. You offer no explanation as to how a piston moving up and down can hold this kind of air pressure, and offer no explanation how valves that move up and down can hold this kind of extreme pressure.

8) With all of the moving parts you are going to need some type of lubrication to keep the parts from wearing out immediately. This diagram does not show any kind of lubrication system.

9) The air coming into the cylinder will need to be filtered. This diagram does not show any type of air filter for the air coming into the cylinder.

10) This thing you call an "engine" will need some type of fuel source in order to work. You have not specified if this "engine thing" burns kerosene, gasoline, or diesel fuel. Here in the 1890's the only fuel source that's available for most people is kerosene, and you keep mentioning gasoline. There is no place to buy gasoline in the 1890s, there's no such thing as what you call a "gas station".

11) There is no way this thing you call an "engine" will work. The engine will need to be running in order to go through the four cycles you describe. It's not until after the four cycles are complete, probably several times, before the engine is running. This is a catch-22 that prevents this thing from ever working. You haven't provided any way of starting this process.

12) This process requires fuel and nowhere in this diagram do I see a fuel tank. The moving parts in this contraption will need to be lubricated and I don't see any lubrication, such as oil, and I don't see anywhere in this diagram where oil is being stored. As I said before this thing will overheat unless it's being cooled somehow. Water could be used to cool this thing but nowhere in the diagram is there a water tank.

13) Where is the water used for cooling stored? What happens in winter time? If you're using water to cool this thing, how do you keep the water from freezing? And how do you move water through this thing? If the water sets in one place it will boil away. I don't see anything that looks like a pump. Have you done any calculations on how much energy a water pump would use? The four cycles you're showing me will have to create enough energy to drive some sort of water pump. This requires a balance and I don't believe this system is balanced.

Have I made my point? Do we now understand what is meant by a conceptual drawing?

Void,
You sure cover a lot of topics, as tahanson stated in post#1093, and I mean that as a compliment. If you don't mind I'd like to mention something you brought up in one of your posts. In post #1095 you posted the following link:

NASA Is At War With China Over Moon Water

I did a search on this forum looking for Bill Nelson's testimony to members of the House Appropriations Committee at a hearing on April 19, 2023. Mars_B4_Moon did post something about it (post#312 under "Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first"), but not much more has been said on his post.

Ever since Nelsons testimony on April 19th, there have been many articles written about NASA being in a Moon race with China. We know there is water on the Moon at the South Pole. The fear is that if China gets to the Moon first, they will claim the South Pole (and water) as theirs, and will tell the rest of the World to stay away. Here are some articles about China and Bill Nelsons testimony:

Nelson supports continuing restrictions on NASA cooperation with China

‘We better watch out’: NASA boss sounds alarm on Chinese moon ambitions

Not Only South China Sea, NASA Says Beijing Could Claim Ownership Of Moon If It Wins The New ‘Space Race’

'We're in a space race.' NASA chief says US 'better watch out' for China's moon goals

China has said they plan to be on the Moon by 2030. NASA's current schedule is for Artemis III to land on the Moon is December 2025 (A year and a half from now). Neil deGrasse Tyson was on "CNN This Morning" recently and said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson says this Chinese move is putting pressure on NASA

There has been a long standing debate about whether we should go to Mars or the Moon first. That debate is now over. We are going to the Moon. NASA has been working on the Artemis program for some time now, as well as the Gateway, and many other Moon projects. However, since Bill Nelson's testimony, it is now official, the West is in a space race with China to get to the Moon first. Here is a YouTube video that explains the Artemis program and how we will return to the Moon:

How We Are Going to the Moon
5 min 31 sec

Void, I wasn't sure where to post this. In your thread "Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff" post#1090 you mentioned "beamed power." This is a news article from Gizmodo that was just posted Friday. I thought this might be of interest to you.

Scientists Successfully Transmit Space-Based Solar Power to Earth for the First Time