New Mars Forums

There are two major ways to create solar cells on the moon, both use silicon as there main ingredient. They also both use only Lunar available minerals only. They also are not the most efficient methods of absorbing power but are very hard radiation proof. And of course they are reasonably easy to have an automated production facility.

The first is Crystaline silicon which is about 19% efficient. The next is amorphous silicon which is a lot les efficient as a cell but fundamentaly easier to manufacture and uses less materials than the crystaline silicon cell. Amorphous cell production also benefits from the Moons lack of atmosphere.

An Ocean colony would first of all have to have a reason for existing. Pure science is not a reason. We can do research using surface vessels and ROVs. There is also international treaties that restrict developments that can be done. Many of the prime sights for creation of such a colony is also home to sites of special scientific interest

There will likely not be great concentrations of hydrogen in a frozen lake of ice or frozen hydrocarbons. But a frost covering or spread of debris from impacts. But research done at the Colorado schools of mines has shown it is relatively easy to harvest either. But until we send a mission either telerobotic or manned to actually visibly look it is only a potential resource nothing to count on.

But we will still go to the lunar poles but it will be for the other most significant lifeblood of the Moon, power. We have surveyed both the poles of the Moon to see what areas have the most sunlight. When this was done it was found that the south pole had 3 places very close to each other where the sun shone all the lunar day apart from 78 hours. The north pole had places where the sun shone 100% of the time but this survey was done in the North poles summer so does not give a true reading for that area. It is a crime that a real survey of mineral and power has never been done, with the missions that where planned to do this constantly being cancelled.

It depends you see there is still no sure way to see how much hydrogen is on the Moon except going and looking.

And the estimate is between 1 million to three billion tons, the leeway is that big. And there is no chance it would be wasted on the very heavy water using construction of concrete. Not when there is other possible and better solutions to providing building materials.

It did not detect water it detects hydrogen.

Is this important in that it does not quarantee that the Hydrogen would be found in the form of water ice likely but not sure. It could easily be in the form of Hydro Carbons as the most likely source of these deposits is the collision of comets and they have both present.

If you want to see for sure then you will have to send something in to look and take samples we are talking a rover here with an orbiter above to ensure radio command coverage.

And why bother making concrete make bricks of heated regolith instead. The high silicon oxide content of commen regolith will allow an easy building process especially using a solar oven to get heat. We would be using the silicon to make solar cells to power any such structure you propose anyway.

And GCNRevenger is right if we can lob something as large as the mechanism to fire those powerful an ion beams then we would certainly have put something into orbit which would power a craft to do it cheaper and just as fast.

Helium 3 from the Moon is not enough on its own to permit a profitable venture to the Moon. But it is a very lucrative sideline and with the reasonably free access to vacuum and Low tempatures it is possible that Fusion powered by Helium 3 will first happen on the Moon.

What is really interesting is the other minerals that the Moon has. With the Moons lack of atmosphere and lower gravity it will be easier to find all the surviving metal rich meteorites that have struck the Moon and then to mine there Platinum. It is Platinum and the similar class of metals that will be needed in case we ever move to a Fuel celled powered transport systems. Even if we have difficulty doing this it will still be easier to send missions to the NEO asteroids to do the same from the Moon.

If we need these materials and with oil prices on the steady rise that they are going and with the Kyoto and oil reserves decreasing it will become more and more likely for something like this to be done.

The really interesting thing is that this has already been done on a real patient.

Back in 2001 doctors in New York did a gall bladder operation on a patient who was in Strasbourg, France at the time. The difference is that Neemo 7 appears to be more like what we would trditionally call a robot while the 2001 series of operations used a surgical table.

This sort of technology is for the most part usefull as long as there is a very short time delay, or no other choice. But if it can be done to fix very fragile people what about when we send robots to the moon or further then we can have telerobotic repair men.

At the moment only goverments have the capital to possibly go for the creation of space architecture needed to allow Moon and Mars missions. But the need to make this cheaper may allow corporations to have the access to space that will get private enterprise involved.

Of course we just have to get the general public on our side first any ideas? :hm:

There is an option of simple incarceration.

We create a quonset hut far away from the main base with a supply of oxygen and supplies of water and the ability to create its own food(greenhouse). The offender could be taken there and interned minus his spacesuit, so there he will stay. It will still reduce your compliment on the mars mission or early colony but it may be the only option. And he can work for his maintnenance and if he behaves he gets some luxuries....soft toilet paper for example

What you are discussing is called protective measures. These are used by goverments to protect industries that they consider vital. But there is a drawback, usually by virtue of international treaty they tend to be illegal and countries that produce the same or similar products will retaliate in kind. So we have a trade war where markets are blocked.

And these countries will usually block other products your country makes or tax them till they are too expensive to sell. Why to pressure the goverment that originally put the protective measure in place in the first place. And what happens you find that your industry is unable to compete anyway as it is too used to the luxury of the protection of the protective measure. Look at the steel industry.

It is very sad but we are in a global economy the world has shrunk that much.

A fuel cell using pure hydrogen produces zero CO2. Methane gas Hydrates are pockets of gas found in various places in the world, mostly on the sea bed. Using Gas hydrates will produce practically no CO2 in production but will create cells that produce some CO2 in use but nothing like a regular engine petrol or diesel.

If we use pure hydrogen then we have to get it from some source. Currently the "economical" way is to steam natural gas put it through a catalytic converter and garner the hydrogen that way. The problem is that it produces incredible amounts of CO2, Sequestering it back underground is done to stop it entering the Earths atmosphere. There is another way this is by use of electricity, currently our capacity to produce electricity is more than we need most of the time it is designed to operate at peak times during the day. If we use surplus electricity especially from all the new Nuclear power stations that will have to come on line then we can create the Hydrogen we need from using sea water. It will be slightly more expensive to get hydrogen but for the power stations cheaper and easier if they know they are on all the time, saves wear and tear. This also applies to the renewable power sources Hydro and wind which can pretty much operate in creating hydrogen all the time.

Frankly though it will not be in the USA that the hydrogen economy and powered cars will start. It will likely be in Europe which has just put 2 Billion euros into developing the idea with the support of the European Car and Power industries. Why will the US not take the lead, It has laws that stop power and fuel companies from passing on development plans costs. It is this problem that caused last years blackouts of New York.

Well as you seem to have barely glossed over my posting and just harped on with what is clearly a poor grasp of basic realities.

I will give you that I had posted the comment without its full length, but as you seemed to want to find any form to arque with it explains your willingness to nitpick.

WRONG, have a look at the dollar bill in your pocket it says to pay the bearer on demand, does it not. The idea behind the Gold reserve standard meant that a country was supposed to have enough gold to be able to pay for all the currency that was in circulation. This standard had nothing to do with FDR all currencies used it, before paper though it was the actual gold in the coins themselves that gave them value but it was always at risk of fraud. Have a look at your coins they have still ways created in the ancient times to stop slicers taking a small amount off and forging there own coins. This money was elastic only in that you could print more money sure but as it was not backed up by real gold currency then it meant your actual dollars where worth less. This occured in the Weimar republic the state that Germany was in after the first world war and before the Second world war. It was forced to give away all its gold as reparations and as such the currency became worthless. 9 million marks would get you a loaf of bread.

I see you did not read my post at all did you. I will reiterate the relevant point for you again.

Money or credit has to be based upon something.

What this means is that all cash has to be based upon something and since Nixon (and well before, unofficially) it has been on the apparent strength of a country and its current economic conditions. It is this apparent relationship compared to other countries that gives the what a dollar is worth on the world stage. This relationship changes as people purchase other currencies as they get stronger or weaker. It was this apparent weakness that resulted in the Euro being easy to buy in loads 5 years ago. But as the European Union has strengthened so has its currency. Oh and for your information most countries use something similar to the US Reserve and central bank and the current situation is that the United States is spending more than is coming in causing the US to be in Debt this is called defecit and the United States is generating a greater defecit each day. In other words it is morgaged to the Banks that are giving it the credit to operate.

What Nixon did was simple he just finished off a system that had been in terminal decline since the Goverment had changed the Gold Reserve Standard and started printing paper money. Actually when the Federal Reserve System system was formed in 1914 that started the terminal decline and it Was FDR who actually devalued the Gold reserve standard twice to pay for 1) his economic policies pre war and 2) to allow the United States to "benefit" from the lend lease payments and to allow enough finance to pay for a future Marshall type plan. Actually the biggest drop of the purchasing power of the Dollar was in the years before Nixon took power.

Well your fourth error is this, Please read my post I did not mention deregulating the banks, etc etc. For you to have a rant on what has gone wrong since the 1970s is fine just trying to link it to me as my policies are 1) Insulting and 2) just plain stupid and wrong.

Yes, commen sense that. Did you see anything in my post to dispute this. Of course not, Nor would you.

Why dont you call it what is called, ITS INVESTMENT. Most companies do it by putting some of there profits into research or starting up smaller companies to do a particular job in the hope of a return of profit making more than they put in.

Countries do it as well but they are not necassarily looking for profit that can be used further but in research that would benefit the country in general. NASA is an example of such a goverment investment.

But a country can only put in what moneys it has it cannot just decide it has 4 billion it has to come from somewhere and this is where the taxpayer comes in. His taxes are what runs a goverment and only that. A goverment can grant a licence this would mean private buisness will invest in a project but they will only do it if they believe they will get a future profit of more than they put in. So in the final analysis your plan to just make up money is unworkable it is just printing more money making the rest in circulation worth a little bit less each new dollar printed.