You are not logged in.
Louis-
You keep imitating Horatio Nelson putting his blind eye to his telescope, and patently ignoring the fact that nuclear WILL HAVE A ROLE to play, whether or not Musk currently embraces it. He is, if anything, the ultimate pragmatist, and when additional 25 hours per sol energy is needed, he too will embrace clean and safe Kilopower reactors.
I'm eclectic enough to understand that BOTH nuclear and solar will have important roles to play in colonization. One power supply will back up the other.
Offline
There will be other roles for making power from many more sources once we begin to build there rather than taking them with us.
Mars has the possibility to make us of thermal up and down drafts to turn turbine blades made from low mass materials.
We may also be able to make a tidal pool for the small mars moons to make wave energy from as well. Make a long tank filled partially with water so that the pull of gravity will cause as the moon passes a wave will be caused.
I have recently given the numbers per panel in another topic as 127w up to 172w depending on the season for output. The low end means we need more panels to get the winter time much heavier load powers to keep growing food and heating.
Offline
I can't really see what that role is, unless it's part of a terraformation programme but even that I doubt. In terms of power for human bases, Mars transport and propellant production, solar power with methane-oxygen storage will meet all the colony's needs without adding major safety issues, given you are already producing methane-oxygen as propellant (and you need only probably less than 1% of the overall production for storage purposes).
The Kilopower reactors don't yet exist remember. At NASA's rate of development it could be another 20 years before they do.
Louis-
You keep imitating Horatio Nelson putting his blind eye to his telescope, and patently ignoring the fact that nuclear WILL HAVE A ROLE to play, whether or not Musk currently embraces it. He is, if anything, the ultimate pragmatist, and when additional 25 hours per sol energy is needed, he too will embrace clean and safe Kilopower reactors.
I'm eclectic enough to understand that BOTH nuclear and solar will have important roles to play in colonization. One power supply will back up the other.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
For Louis re #28
Your remark about the status of the Kilopower project intrigued me, so I submitted a media request to NASA Glenn Research Center. Will report when (if) a reply arrives.
A successful test of the end-to-end operation of a prototype system was completed in early 2018, but (as you point out) there may be years required to advance from a working prototype to a field-deployable article.
In light of the need for reliable power for the Mars mission (let alone all the other needs for clean reliable power) the progress on Kilopower will be of great interest to a significant number of people.
I think it is the height of irresponsibility to place the lives of human beings at risk by relying on solar power, anywhere, let alone on Mars.
We obviously differ in our points of view.
(th)
Offline
TH-
You and I are in agreement about the need for multiple energy sources to support the Mars base/colony. I've been a "Zubrinite" from the get-go, requiring immediate power from a small nuclear reactor to provide energy whilst screwing around with deployment of Solar panels. Bith energy sources have a role to play, but the lower irradiance on Mars increases the number and size of panels compared with Earth.
I consider it dangerously naive to bank on getting all the energy from solar. I've had this "discussion" with Louis before.
Offline
I don't think any lives are being placed at risk at all from solar power. Quite the reverse. PV power generation is tried and tested on Mars and in space. Musk seems to agree.
For Louis re #28
Your remark about the status of the Kilopower project intrigued me, so I submitted a media request to NASA Glenn Research Center. Will report when (if) a reply arrives.
A successful test of the end-to-end operation of a prototype system was completed in early 2018, but (as you point out) there may be years required to advance from a working prototype to a field-deployable article.
In light of the need for reliable power for the Mars mission (let alone all the other needs for clean reliable power) the progress on Kilopower will be of great interest to a significant number of people.
I think it is the height of irresponsibility to place the lives of human beings at risk by relying on solar power, anywhere, let alone on Mars.
We obviously differ in our points of view.
(th)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
For Louis re #31 ...
You have a good point ... the ISS is powered largely by solar power. It also receives periodic orbit boosts using chemical power.
However, the crew can escape from the ISS in capsules literally on a moment's notice.
The situation will be completely different for crews on flights of more than a few days, or intending to stay somewhere for an extended period.
I predict that before Mr. Musk places the lives of human crew at risk, he will have evolved his thinking from all solar to a mix of technologies.
***
I do recognize the importance of your contributions to the forum, which stir the pot to near boiling, and yield some memorable posts.
(th)
Offline
No worries! I have no problem with robust argumentation. Friction leads to illumination.
Total risk elimination is not possible for the Mars Mission. An active nuclear reactor on a Starship is as likely to be a potential health hazard, rather than offer failsafe security. As far as I know, NASA has no plans to use active Kilopower reactors during human space flight.
So nuclear reactors would only be used on the surface. Which raises all sorts of issues about safe handling, deployment, cabling, operation in Mars conditions and so on.
For Louis re #31 ...
You have a good point ... the ISS is powered largely by solar power. It also receives periodic orbit boosts using chemical power.
However, the crew can escape from the ISS in capsules literally on a moment's notice.
The situation will be completely different for crews on flights of more than a few days, or intending to stay somewhere for an extended period.
I predict that before Mr. Musk places the lives of human crew at risk, he will have evolved his thinking from all solar to a mix of technologies.
***
I do recognize the importance of your contributions to the forum, which stir the pot to near boiling, and yield some memorable posts.(th)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The nuclear unit would be if anything located on the cargo ships.
I can also see that if you have never been without power in the dead of winter with no other means to keep warm why you would feel that solar is the way to go. There will be no great stores of winter clothing or blankets to stay warm with. There is no grid and having multiple ships for the solar plus batteries does not equal a fail safe use with solar. Since you will not have any extra cabling what ever ship has the I see will mean a cut in available power ad since we will not have replacements for key parts and or the ablity to remove them from the ships without some real training.
There are many ways that solar can fail.... https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2 … s-correct/
Failure Modes Analysis and Diagnostic Architecture for Photovoltaic Plants
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/51a2/d … 007af1.pdf
An FMEA analysis for photovoltaic systems: assessing different system configurations to support reliability studies
https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/80327.pdf
If power is out you lose lights, heat, life support function, water and maybe more.
Offline
We know the challenges of Mars - we've been sending robots there for the last 50 years.
The last Starship designs I saw appeared to have storage space at ground level. You could easily have small robot battery rovers able to charge up in one Starship and then travel to another Starship and serve as a battery for that craft. But if you have methox on board and generators, you aren't going to be short of electricity in any case. A crew of six people don't really use that much electricity. It's propellant production which is the big gobbler of energy.
As far as I know solar power has never failed on Mars.
If you plan your mission properly there is absolutely no risk of people dying over night from a lack of solar power. You take methox stored energy; you store energy as methox; you have chemical batteries - big ones in a total of six Starships.
The nuclear unit would be if anything located on the cargo ships.
I can also see that if you have never been without power in the dead of winter with no other means to keep warm why you would feel that solar is the way to go. There will be no great stores of winter clothing or blankets to stay warm with. There is no grid and having multiple ships for the solar plus batteries does not equal a fail safe use with solar. Since you will not have any extra cabling what ever ship has the I see will mean a cut in available power ad since we will not have replacements for key parts and or the ablity to remove them from the ships without some real training.There are many ways that solar can fail.... https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2 … s-correct/
Failure Modes Analysis and Diagnostic Architecture for Photovoltaic Plants
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/51a2/d … 007af1.pdfAn FMEA analysis for photovoltaic systems: assessing different system configurations to support reliability studies
https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/80327.pdfIf power is out you lose lights, heat, life support function, water and maybe more.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis-
The following comment illustrates my concern, as I HAVE been snowed in on my ranch for 6 days without power; that occurred on 10 October, 1996--shortly after we had moved in to the house and taken possession of the entire facilities. Thankfully, we had propane and a large supply of bottled water (2 1/2 gallon containers). But we were without lights and without heat for the entire time. This was in the mountains in Wyoming, and nighttime temperatures were dipping into the low single digits Fahrenheit. We had a couple kerosene heaters and that was all--not really enough. There were some solar panels on the roof--but they had been buried under 16" of snow which subsequently melted and refrozen. So--yeah we had "solar power," but it was not usable AT ALL.
It took the combined efforts of the State Highway Department and the County to dig through 4 foot deep snowdrifts on the highway to get people out and allow the power company access to the downed power lines.
If we had not been at least minimally prepared, we could have easily died there. We had food. We had water. We had some energy storage for heat only. Food in the refrigerator lasted pretty good because the house was itself damned cold.
Now...take that experience and add a huge energy requirement for heating. Add energy requirement for oxygen production/air scrubbers. This is exactly why I remain opposed to a Solar Only strategy. Wanna bathe? Wait until the dust storm subsides. Wanna cook some hot food? Sorry--not enough power available.
I can also see that if you have never been without power in the dead of winter with no other means to keep warm why you would feel that solar is the way to go. There will be no great stores of winter clothing or blankets to stay warm with. There is no grid and having multiple ships for the solar plus batteries does not equal a fail safe use with solar. Since you will not have any extra cabling what ever ship has the I see will mean a cut in available power ad since we will not have replacements for key parts and or the ability to remove them from the ships without some real training.
If power is out you lose lights, heat, life support function, water and maybe more.
Louis--I agree with you on many of the issues, but cannot understand your fear and resistance to using the most portable and immediate source of electric power. Instantaneously available.
Offline
I have lost power in the dead of winter ice storms for more than a week a couple times and did not have a generator or other means to heat my home. Mars is even colder....its not much fun...
Offline
Louis: "As far as I know solar power has never failed on Mars."
Really? Then what, pray tell, killed the Opportunity rover?
I'll tell you what killed it:
It had been shut down for the winter, running on minimum solar to supply the power for heat to keep from failing at -100 C temperatures. Then came the dust storm that obscured the sun completely (and yes I do mean completely: well under 10% normal), for months. The batteries ran out, the electronics died in the deep freeze. JPL was unable to ever get a peep out of it again.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Essentially extreme old age.
Here's the Wikipedia entry:
"With a planned 90-sol duration of activity (slightly more than 90 Earth days), Spirit functioned until it got stuck in 2009 and ceased communications in 2010, while Opportunity was able to stay operational for 5111 sols after landing, maintaining its power and key systems through continual recharging of its batteries using solar power, and hibernating during events such as dust storms to save power. This careful operation allowed Opportunity to exceed its operating plan by 14 years, 46 days (in Earth time), 55 times its designed lifespan. "
It wasn't a failure of solar power it was a stupendous success of solar power to exceed its operating plan by over 14 years. That is quite remarkable.
A Mars Mission One energy system needs to operate at high efficiency for only two years or thereabouts and thereafter maybe for another 2 years, at less that optimum efficiency, to allow for a rescue mission, should there be some problem with the return launch.
Louis: "As far as I know solar power has never failed on Mars."
Really? Then what, pray tell, killed the Opportunity rover?
I'll tell you what killed it:
It had been shut down for the winter, running on minimum solar to supply the power for heat to keep from failing at -100 C temperatures. Then came the dust storm that obscured the sun completely (and yes I do mean completely: well under 10% normal), for months. The batteries ran out, the electronics died in the deep freeze. JPL was unable to ever get a peep out of it again.
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
There's unlikely to be anything you could call snow at the latitudes Space X are targetting for Mission One. Certainly no snow accumulations of the sort you get in Wyoming! Also, I'm assuming you didn't have an aerogel heat-retaining windowless hab on your ranch.
I live through a Category 5 hurricane! That would probably be an even greater threat to PV power. Thankfully, though, Mars's weather is wonderfully benign compared with weather on Earth and you also don't get massive earthquakes or tsunamis. Dust is the only real threat to PV generation. And that is a knowable and limited threat.
Without rehearsing all the same arguments, dust storms do NOT prevent PV generation of electricity. They reduce it, in varying degrees depending on the intensity of the storm.
Louis-
The following comment illustrates my concern, as I HAVE been snowed in on my ranch for 6 days without power; that occurred on 10 October, 1996--shortly after we had moved in to the house and taken possession of the entire facilities. Thankfully, we had propane and a large supply of bottled water (2 1/2 gallon containers). But we were without lights and without heat for the entire time. This was in the mountains in Wyoming, and nighttime temperatures were dipping into the low single digits Fahrenheit. We had a couple kerosene heaters and that was all--not really enough. There were some solar panels on the roof--but they had been buried under 16" of snow which subsequently melted and refrozen. So--yeah we had "solar power," but it was not usable AT ALL.
It took the combined efforts of the State Highway Department and the County to dig through 4 foot deep snowdrifts on the highway to get people out and allow the power company access to the downed power lines.
If we had not been at least minimally prepared, we could have easily died there. We had food. We had water. We had some energy storage for heat only. Food in the refrigerator lasted pretty good because the house was itself damned cold.
Now...take that experience and add a huge energy requirement for heating. Add energy requirement for oxygen production/air scrubbers. This is exactly why I remain opposed to a Solar Only strategy. Wanna bathe? Wait until the dust storm subsides. Wanna cook some hot food? Sorry--not enough power available.
SpaceNut wrote:I can also see that if you have never been without power in the dead of winter with no other means to keep warm why you would feel that solar is the way to go. There will be no great stores of winter clothing or blankets to stay warm with. There is no grid and having multiple ships for the solar plus batteries does not equal a fail safe use with solar. Since you will not have any extra cabling what ever ship has the I see will mean a cut in available power ad since we will not have replacements for key parts and or the ability to remove them from the ships without some real training.
If power is out you lose lights, heat, life support function, water and maybe more.Louis--I agree with you on many of the issues, but cannot understand your fear and resistance to using the most portable and immediate source of electric power. Instantaneously available.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
True no snow just co2 frost. We will get a better feel for the power of the wind when we are flying in it with a helicopter soon. As for buildings that have aerogel insulation that is going to depend on the design from musk and what we do for expanding man's presence with new habitats built on mars.
Offline