Technology Updates

Calliban · 2020-08-14 07:07:12

Haven't had time to read this yet. Might be useful for synthetic fuel production on Mars.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/08/ar … o-ethanol/

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-14 09:36:01

For Calliban re #233

Thanks for another look at this new catalyst!

The catalyst itself is made up of atomically dispersed copper on a carbon-powder support. It breaks down carbon dioxide and water molecules and selectively reassembles them into ethanol using an external electrical field. The electrocatalytic selectivity or Faradaic efficiency of the process is over 90%, which is significantly higher than it is when using any other reported process. The catalyst operates stably over extended operation at low voltage.

It might be well worth while to import copper for this application ... copper is thought (at this point) to only be present in trace amounts.

Magnesium, Aluminium, Titanium, Iron, and Chromium are relatively common in them. In addition, lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, niobium, molybdenum, lanthanum, europium, tungsten, and gold have been found in trace amounts.
Ore resources on Mars - Wikipedia

The article refers to the concept of a circular economy, where CO2 is the medium of exchange. That would ** certainly ** seem applicable to Mars.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-14 11:10:01

Here is an update about fusion research.

It is so limited in value I debated including it in the forum archive.

However, it may have value in some small way, showing that efforts are underway to try to resolve the instability issues in Tokamak reactors.

It was relatively recently that a update was added to this topic about this same issue. This may be a later report on the same research.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-one-wa … 00587.html

The key takeaway for me was the note in passing that DOE has nine different investigations going on.

Another bit of text in the story is a quote from a team member, comparing the problem they are facing as similar to an aircraft that can only fly at a specific altitude. That quote brought to mind a post in this forum about the very narrow range of operation available to the operators of SR-71 aircraft (as I recall it).

Another example from one of GW Johnson's posts (and perhaps those of others) is the very narrow range of operation available to vehicles returning to Earth from orbit, or more specifically, from a location beyond orbit.

Perhaps the Tokamak solution will turn out to be management of instability and not elimination of it.

Edit#1: As a follow up ...

It is an experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor that is being built next to the Cadarache facility in Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, in Provence, southern France. ... Construction of the ITER tokamak complex started in 2013 and the building costs were over US$14 billion by June 2015.
ITER - Wikipedia

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-14 11:12:28)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-17 08:32:43

Advances in the state of the art of computer chip manufacture will have an impact on the economy of Mars, as they do already on Earth.

The article below provides an update on competition between three major players.

IBM is collaborating with an Asian manufacturer to advance its server offerings. AMD is continuing to compete vigorously in this space.
AMD is also collaborating with an Asian manufacturer

Intel is struggling, in part (I suspect) because it holds to the old fashioned idea that Americans can compete on the global stage.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ibm-rolls-ne … 53521.html

Note 7-nanometer standard in play ... Intel delay means market share for competitors

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-17 08:33:48)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-17 11:08:28

New Hampshire is taking the lead in authorizing road worthy aircraft, if I understand the article at the link below correctly:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hampshi … 03548.html

It appears that the time horizon for either (or any) of the three competitors to have a flying vehicle appears to be about 10 years.

Regulatory approval would seem to be designed to attract venture capital into the state.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-18 09:18:38

This item should be of interest to NewMars members who are advocates of nuclear fission reactors in space.

Scientists have created a "reverse solar cell" that can harness the heat radiated by the Earth at night to create electrical light. Most solar panels generate electricity from the sun through a physical process called the photovoltaic effect, whereby light shining on certain materials generates an electric current.Sep 16, 2019
Scientists create 'reverse solar cell' that ... - Daily Mirror

The rude nature of a fission reactor (able to producing nothing more useful than heat) is a limitation. The research described in the article below seems to show a way to capture otherwise useless heat flowing out of the reactor toward radiators and on to deep space.

It is different from familiar Seebeck effect.

What is the difference between Seebeck effect and Peltier effect?
The Peltier effect is the reverse phenomenon of the Seebeck effect; the electrical current flowing through the junction connecting two materials will emit or absorb heat per unit time at the junction to balance the difference in the chemical potential of the two materials.
Peltier Effect - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-18 09:20:05)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-22 08:55:38

The article at the link below describes progress in development of autonomous small aircraft.

While the article indicates the intended market is commercial freight, I can see how there might be a civilian market, comparable to the self-driving automobile market that (apparently) already exists.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/autonomous-a … 17511.html

Edit#1: The article below describes successes achieved with an automatic flight control system deployed by the (US) Air Force on (some) aircraft.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ground-colli … 50128.html

It appears that the system has a data proven track record of saving lives.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-22 10:35:49)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-24 08:42:35

The quote below comes from a technology newsletter ...

I am encouraged to see forward movement in this specific area. In another topic, advances in 3D Printer technology are under discussion.

The paper described below appears to report on developments that will (eventually) deliver "Replicator"-like performance.

Industrial AFM is suddenly accessible — Even without a PhD
Streamlined operation and intelligent automation have led to an increase in industrial AFM use.
This whitepaper explains how atomic force microscopy (AFM), once prohibitively expensive and complex, is now more accessible than ever.

If anyone is interested in a link to this paper, just let me know. I saved the source email.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-25 09:18:28

This item should be of interest for Mars construction ... Carbon is substituted for steel to pre-stress concrete.

https://newatlas.com/materials/expandin … footprint/

From Popular Mechanics
New self-stressed concrete designed by Swiss scientists uses anchorless carbon instead of steel.
Concrete is the most used construction material in the world—by a lot.
Using less vulnerable carbon fiber allows builders to use less bulk of concrete around it.
Finally, concrete can join the rest of us in 2020 and arrive pre-stressed.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-25 18:35:23

The article at the link below is ** about ** the ITER fusion research, and specifically about a smaller version that is trying out ideas in the UK ahead of construction of the much larger version in France.

However, I am picking up on the teleoperation activity reported in the article, because I think that development of teleoperation is important for Mars development, as well as improvement in job prospects for humans on Earth.

This is ** not ** robotics, if by robotics you mean equipment that operates on its own, as certain self-guided aircraft and cars are predicted to do. Instead, this is providing humans with hands and eyes on the job remotely.

The article described (what sounds like) fairly advanced teleoperation equipment in use in the UK research facility.

building-world-first-nuclear-fusion <<== search string to Google

https://www.yahoo.com/news/building-wor … 00594.html

The Wired article published this week takes readers on a tour of this new reactor, starting with the waveguide pipes that transmit microwaves to heat plasma to “temperatures ten times hotter than the Sun.” Operations within the replica tokamak test facility are carried out by “articulated arms.” From a control room, highly trained engineers practice using these robot arms--called the MASCOT-- to move things around so that actual workers will not have to go inside the tokamak to touch potentially radioactive materials. The MASCOT “mimics human arms and hands, and is capable of tightening screws and ‘feeling’ objects on behalf of humans that control it from a safe distance,” explains Wired. “Robots go into the tokamak when human beings cannot.”

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-25 18:35:52)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-26 07:08:45

The article at the link below reports on the introduction of automatic transmissions to motorcycles.

I've owned a number of motorcycles over the years, from a front wheel one lung puller to a Yamaha Venture, and never felt a need for automatic transmission. However, for travel on Mars, wearing a Mars suit, I can understand how a rider might appreciate not having to fuss with gears.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/honda-gold- … 00491.html

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-27 17:20:35

This is definitely a decent fit for "Technology Updates"

** if ** we agree that software is a technology ... I just attended a first rate virtual meeting, and the entire presentation is available to the public:

https://blog.thesoftwarementor.com/pres … Principles

The talk was on Function Programming, and the example given was directing movements of a Mars Rover.

The level is beginner.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-08-27 18:21:01

Its been a hard days night but only in orbit. Preliminary results show that they slept an average of only 5.7 hours in space, compared with 6.7 hours on Earth. They also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

SpaceNut · 2020-08-28 08:24:02

for post 237
Japan's 'flying car' gets off ground, with a person aboard

In a video shown to reporters on Friday, a contraption that looked like a slick motorcycle with propellers lifted several feet (1-2 meters) off the ground, and hovered in a netted area for four minutes.
Tomohiro Fukuzawa, who heads the SkyDrive effort, said he hopes “the flying car” can be made into a real-life product by 2023, but he acknowledged that making it safe was critical.
“Of the world’s more than 100 flying car projects, only a handful has succeeded with a person on board,” he told The Associated Press

BB18sj1j.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-28 11:06:27

For SpaceNut re Japanese flying motordrone ...

If you can find a video of that test flight, I'd really like to see it !!! The sound level would be of interest, for one thing.

The "flying car" is ** just ** over the horizon << grin >>

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-08-28 15:23:26

Japan's 'flying car' video

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-29 06:30:23

For SpaceNut re #248

SearchTerm:FlyingCarVideo http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 05#p171605

Thanks for finding the video. The sound level is significant. The operator might need ear protection.

Some modern airplanes come with a parachute installed for emergency landing.

The heavy duty drone shown in the video might be a candidate for something like that. It might be workable to separate the passenger compartment from the vehicle, and provide a parachute for the passenger compartment, to reduce chances of the propellers shredding the parachute.

The control of the vehicle demonstrated by the pilot (augmented by electronics I'm sure) was impressive.

Ducts around the fans might improve performance, but they would add weight.

For the purposes of the demo/test flight, I would expect they would not have been wanted.

***

Looking more closely, I see a show stopper for me .... Without a duct around the fans, the fans are ** right ** at decapitation level

The gent who flew that test flight was either unaware of the danger or pushed through the risk.

The forces at work at the hubs of those propellers are significant. Obviously the design of the propeller/hub assembly was up to the challenge.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-29 06:31:37)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-29 08:06:12

The article at the link below reports on progress in developing a wireless sensor transmitter that can be inserted into a brain.

The test subjects are pigs. The work has (apparently) received partial funding by Elon Musk.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/thr … 35646.html

The initial target application appears to be restoring body control for persons who have been severely injured, but (apparently) remediation of such conditions as blindness are in the goal set.

The demo reported delivered sensor readings from a wired pig as it (?she) smelled objects in the pen.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-08-29 08:06:47)

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-31 08:59:56

The article at the link below describes how ammonia might be combined with hydrogen in a jet aircraft.

I was taken aback to see how themes developed in this forum (primarily by kbd512 with assistance from other members) are coming together in this initiative.

The advanced technology developed for the Skylon engine is (if I understand the article correctly) at the heart of what is needed to facilitate use of ammonia as a jet fuel. A factor that makes this an interesting solution to the jet aircraft carbon dumping problem is the global size of ammonia manufacturing capability.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/amm … 00781.html

(th)

kbd512 · 2020-08-31 13:39:12

tahanson43206,

Since batteries remain absurdly impractical for powering airliners possessing equivalent range, at any speed, when compared to those powered by current gas turbine technology, I see LNH3 as a potential low-CO2 alternative, especially when the H2 is cracked and reacted in fuel cells instead of combustion engines to produce power, and manufactured using solar thermal or nuclear thermal power plants. While LNH3 is not as energy dense as JET-A, it also weighs less than JET-A. The mortal enemy of everything that flies is primarily weight, since that drives every other aspect of an aircraft design (power requirements and lift requirements, therefore drag).

However, solid oxide fuel cells reacting low-Sulfur kerosene can still compete with gas turbines in large aircraft flying longer routes, on account of the reduced fuel burn. The reduced maintenance costs of electric motors and drastic simplification of the fuel cell design from NASA will ensure that TCoE for the airlines is lower than with gas turbines and more "on-wing time" (meaning, the engine has not been detached from the airframe for maintenance) is achievable using electric motors. The electric motors won't be significantly quieter, contrary to popular belief, but the noise is less annoying, at least to my ears, and they produce less vibration in the airframe so they should, at least in theory, extend airframe fatigue life.

A 60MW electric motor is only 4t (no superconductors or other such nonsense, just square Copper wire / grain-oriented electrical steel / axial flux permanent magnet motor technology; surge power of 25kW/kg is achievable if you can keep the motor cool). Use ram air into both the motors and fuel cells to assist with cooling and fuel cell pressurization. The GE9X is 20,000 pounds, so the much lighter electric motor that doesn't produce insanely hot combustion temperatures should be significantly lighter when all is said and done, from an engineering standpoint. The electric motor and fuel cell to produce the juice will weigh ~28,600 pounds. I don't know exactly what the fan will weigh, though I'd guess about 1t or less (I added that to the total weight), but burning half the fuel will very rapidly negate any weight advantage the gas turbine provided over the AFPMM / SOFC combination when you fly for more than a couple of hours to reach an international destination.

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-31 15:02:42

For kbd512 re #252

Thanks for noting the report on an attempt to use ammonia as a jet fuel.

Your argument to use ammonia as an input to a fuel cell which would drive electric motors makes a lot of sense (to me for sure).

However, this may be a case of someone only having a hammer, and therefor every problem looks like a nail.

Reaction Engines has a new technology they've developed for Skylon, and (I'm speculating of course) they may be looking for additional ways to earn some income for all their research investment.

Would you be willing to evaluate their idea on its own terms?

My assumption would be that a jet engine implementation would fly faster than a propeller driven one.

I'm NOT saying that's a good idea. It's just that fueling a ** jet ** engine appears to be what these folks are attempting.

On the ** other ** hand, I may have misread or misinterpreted your post. Perhaps you are talking about jet engine performance from an electric motor driven system? That would be impressive indeed, if it is possible.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-01 09:14:53

The level of interest in aviation and aviation technology in this forum is high enough, I thought the article at the link below might be worth adding:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/forget- … 57984.html

The article reports that the designers started with a clean slate and tried to avoid biases from previous practice.

The performance improvements are impressive, if they can be achieved in practice.

Their effort sounds similar to what RobertDyck is attempting, in the Large Ship topic.

While space ships with rotating habitats have been explored conceptually in scientific papers, science fiction stories and science fiction movies, to my knowledge no one has made a serious attempt to work out what would be required to build and operate one designed for the Earth/Mars route.

There may well be other individuals or groups working on similar designs (simulated gravity using rotation) but at this point, I am not aware of them.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-09-01 09:18:53)

kbd512 · 2020-09-01 11:38:39

tahanson43206,

The SABRE engine is still in development, but yes, it could feasibly burn LNH3 instead of LH2. All jet engines can feasibly burn LNH3. The first experiments with burning LNH3 in jet engines used a surplus J79 jet engine from a retired F-4 Phantom. Later on, some smaller turbofans used in business jets were experimented with. The bottom line is that it works without major modifications (because jet engines can burn pretty much anything that will burn; they will burn tar and coal slurry, too, and yes those have been used as fuels). Recall that LNH3 has slightly more H2 per unit volume than LH2. However, it certainly weighs more with all that embedded Nitrogen and it does not have the same H2 per unit volume that JET-A / JP8 does. My argument has to do with the fact that "the problem" is that JET-A contains more energy per unit volume than LNH3. However, you can build an airliner with roughly the same fuel tank dimensions if you only need half the fuel to produce equivalent power / thrust for an equivalent period of time using a fuel cell and electric motor combination.

There is nothing at all infeasible about using electric motors with the power density and mass I've stated, because they've already been built and flown in propeller-driven aircraft, albeit at a smaller scale (1MW or less, vs 60MW for a GE90 / GE9X equivalent; I think one of the newest is somewhere between 2MW and 6MW for a new series hybrid business jet design using electric fans and gas turbines connected to electric generators). However, building a "larger scale" motor is mostly a matter of adding more rotors to the motor. They've already proven that they can do that as well without cooling issues or other problems. Electric motor power-to-weight ratio is superior to any turbofan or turbojet engine, second only to rocket engines. For all practical purposes, conventional electric motors are limited by cooling system capacity. The upper limit for non-superconducting electric motors seems to fall somewhere between 15kW/kg and 25kW/kg, with 15kW/kg having been actually demonstrated on actual flying machines (note the pluralization there, as there are multiple different types of flying prototype aircraft or helicopters / drones with motors that achieve that power density) and 25kW/kg having been demonstrated only in lab prototypes due to cooling issues. Beyond about 25kW/kg, on up to 50kW/kg or more, you need superconductors. There are no flying prototypes using superconducting electric motors, to my knowledge, so they remain laboratory curiosities. Does that really matter when you've already bested the jet engines in power-to-weight in spectacular fashion? Not really, at least not for practical "electric turbofan" aircraft to exist.

Sure, P&W and GE will have to spend the money to develop electric turbofans for airliners, but they're already doing that on their own, so give them some government contracts to do that and the work will be done. They tend to deliver working aircraft engines since they're interested in selling them for profit.

The 5,000t class airborne aircraft carrier (AAC) and micro fighter concept I wanted to explore would burn about 4,034 barrels of JP8 per day if it was powered by electric turbofans and SOXE fuel cells. While that's a lot of gas, for comparison purposes, a Ticonderoga class cruiser that must keep up with a nuclear powered super carrier (CVN) steaming at 30 knots burns ~1,429bpd and an Arleigh Burke class destroyer burns ~1,200bpd to keep up. Each nuclear powered super carrier is escorted by a minimum of 2 to 3 cruisers and 2 to 3 destroyers powered by LM2500 gas turbines. The air wing on the CVN consumes ~5,000bpd. As a result, the escorts alone, assuming all of them are Arleigh Burkes, are burning 7,200bpd. Each AAC might carry a squadron of F-35s onboard for air defense or strike missions, with the remaining air wing assets being smaller and more fuel efficient XQ-58A drones or micro fighters used for economical search and destroy (X-36 style micro fighters) or deep penetration strike (XQ-58A) missions intended to destroy air defenses and communications. Total complement would be around 300 officers and enlisted, with an equivalent complement of maintenance personnel who remain back at the air base to service the AACs. Individual "cruises" might last a week to a month. This is ultimately a way to reduce fuel consumption for military purposes by having a mobile military base and aviation assets closer to the action. You don't need to put as many lives at risk, either. Since some people are opposed to nuclear powered military ships, this is a way to reduce the number of those assets as well.

While daily tanker flights would be required to maintain a 50% fuel load, the distance that the AAC can cover is more than an order of magnitude greater than a surface fleet, so targeting it with hypersonic cruise missiles will be far more difficult. 30 knots per day is 792 miles. At a 375mph economy cruise speed, the AAC covers 9,000 miles per day. An alert crew dispatched from Hawaii or Florida could fly across the Pacific or Atlantic in less than a day. Since all air missions require significant tanker support, tanker aircraft of the same size would drastically reduce the number of tankers required. Rather than being a thousand miles or more from the enemy coastline, you could feasibly orbit within several hundred miles.

I want to replace our fleet of destroyers / cruisers / amphibious ships / nuclear powered super carriers with 60 of these airborne aircraft carriers. Some will be configured as aircraft carriers, some as tankers, and others as amphibious operations support. I estimate the cost of each AAC at ~$2B, which includes engines and airframes, but not defensive weapon systems, which will be taken from the ships they replace (CIWS / RAM / ESSM / SM / Tomahawks / ASROC). The number of personnel required to operate this new fleet is 36,000, though only half of that number would be aboard a deployed AAC at any given time. The Navy currently employs ~337,000 personnel, so the goal here is to drastically reduce that figure by consolidating capabilities into a single platform that's more economical to operate, more capable than the platforms it replaces, and less vulnerable to threats from other aircraft, ships, or land-based defenses. It will be considerably more difficult to locate and target a pair of AACs moving at hundreds of miles per hour through 3D airspace, and far more difficult to attack it with anti-ship missiles.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-02 08:53:14

For kbd512 re #255

Thank you for your detailed analysis of the possibility of using NH3 with an infusion of Hydrogen as a jet fuel.

And thanks for adding to your vision for improved defense posture.

***
Today's Technology Update is about ongoing adaptations of the Boston Robotics dog platform. The article at the link below is about use of the dog platform for delivery of health care to patients suffering from diseases that could kill the medical staff.

I see this as a ** very ** good example of teleoperation ... The remote operator is able to see from multiple cameras, talk to the patient, take measurements and perhaps perform other operations.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/tech/cov … index.html

This is an MIT adaptation of the Boston Robotics dog ...

A tablet mounted to the "head" of Boston Dynamics' dog-like robot, Spot, allows communication with patients. The robot also is equipped with an infrared camera, along with three monochrome cameras that are capable of filtering different wavelengths of light, the release states.

(th)

kbd512 · 2020-09-02 12:10:42

tahanson43206,

The only real way to reduce our ever-increasing military expenditures is through consolidation of assets into survivable platforms that reduce personnel requirements. While aircraft are more expensive to operate than ships in absolute terms, the logistical tail that follows a super carrier strike group is incredible, and incredibly vulnerable. A half dozen large warships all moving at the same snail's pace, crewed by many thousands of sailors, not to mention the unseen but ever present standing army of support personnel on resupply ships or bases rather than on the warships themselves, is not a good way to reduce our operational costs, logistical footprint, nor does it adequately address the lethality of the new threats those warships are increasingly likely to face. Incidentally, part of what makes a response to aggression effective is speed of action and uncertainty regarding where the retaliatory strike will come from. While ships can set sail in less than 24 hours, this is seldom done in operational practice, and typically several days to a week is a far more realistic time to get underway, so your minimum response time to merely get underway already puts you well behind the power curve when responding to an enemy attack. Since our first strikes typically involve the use of our naval assets, it's quite reasonable to increase the speed of the response from weeks or even months to mere hours. You can bet your last dollar that our potential adversaries know our response times and how long it takes to move the assets required for an effective counter to their military's aggression.

If we make it functionally impossible for them to pull off a sneak attack without suffering mass casualties from a cruise missile saturation strike that these new AACs could easily launch, then they'll have to devise a plan to prevent their operation from being stopped cold while it's still in its most vulnerable phase. An amphibious and air assault operation using conventional ships and transport aircraft, launched against a country like Taiwan, for example, would be untenable if that force is at risk of either being sunk or shot down before a beachhead can be established, when an AAC based in Japan is just hours away. It's all well and good to claim we'll use drones and satellites to stop such an attack, but if the satellites aren't overhead or are destroyed by enemy action and the drones don't have targets assigned, then you have a serious problem. That's why you need a mobile sensor platform in the area with its own strike capability.

We can't effectively patrol the world's oceans using a diminishing number of increasingly expensive ships that spend at least half their time in port and aren't capable of sailing any faster than the road speed limit in a residential neighborhood, for all practical purposes. The 2D nature of surface naval warfare significantly constrains where a ship can feasibly be. Aircraft and submarines don't have such severe maneuvering limitations, which is probably why so many Japanese and American ships were sunk during WWII by carrier-based aviation or submarine patrols. The number of ships lost to enemy ships was very limited by way of comparison. The air threat is so severe that pretty much every escort vessel in a modern carrier strike group is dedicated to air defense. As a result, only a handful of offensive weapons are carried by those escort ships to provide organic offensive capabilities. What we actually need is an asset that can operate on its own in a severe threat environment without requiring a half dozen to dozen escort ships dedicated to protecting the carrier. At least 8,000 sailors are required to put aircraft within striking distance of enemy targets and however impressive that miniature air force happens to be, we've never faced an enemy that could deploy barrages of hundreds of anti-ship missiles. They don't have to outright sink any ships, either. If a single weapon gets through the air defenses, it will mission kill whatever ship it strikes.

To your point about advanced robotics, DARPA is developing autonomous flying drones (Gremlins), roughly the size and shape of cruise missiles, that can use their own onboard sensors to surveil the battlefield below and, optionally, carry a warhead to attack those targets. A single AAC could feasibly deploy hundreds of these airborne drones to fix the positions of enemy amphibious ships and transport aircraft to either attack or relay to hunter-killer teams consisting of fighters and drones.

My end goal is to put fewer American lives and strategic assets at risk to defend global shipping lanes and allied countries from attack, while making the enemy's task of targeting our assets more difficult. The inertia in Washington is to disengage from the rest of the world as this new economic model takes hold. It would've been more orderly under a President Clinton than a President Trump, but the writing is on the wall. All of our think tanks, whether progressive or conservative, share the same opinion that we're going to reduce our military presence abroad. I just think there's a smarter way to go about doing this that still discourages other nations from attacking each other when fewer American military assets are present to deal with such attacks. All of our allies are in the process of strengthening their own militaries to take over their own defense, since the cost of providing defense for them has become too great for America to bear. In any event, we need to right-size our military and improve our capabilities to adjust to our changing world. Our services have already begun reducing or eliminating redundant capabilities, for example, to return to their traditional core competencies. While we're in the process of doing that, I want to reduce our logistics footprint, which comes with the added bonus of improving fuel cell technology for civilian aviation and reducing our military's environmental impact through CO2 emissions.

GW spoke of a Manhattan style program for batteries. Well, we've had that level of sustained investment in battery technology for decades now, but no substantial improvement in energy density. I want to put real money into fuel cells to cut the fuel consumption of military vehicles, semi trucks, and trains in half. That's the most immediate and significant impact we could realistically make. If the green new deal people want a concrete and simple plan, rather than a wish list of unachievable generalized objectives, then that's how I'd go about doing this. We can feasibly cut fuel consumption in half over the span of a decade using solid oxide fuel cells, more than we've ever achieved with all the money spent on batteries and solar panels. If our kerosene and diesel consumption was about half of what it presently is, then we could feasibly grow rather than extract our fuel supply. After we achieve that, we're very close to sustainable energy efficiency.

Step 1: Deploy solid oxide fuel cell and AFPMM technology for heavy vehicles and aircraft
Step 2: Deploy existing algae farm technology to provide the fuel using CO2 and water
Step 3: Deploy SCCO2 gas turbine technology for solar thermal and nuclear thermal power, along with CO2 capture to produce more liquid hydrocarbon fuels

That's the entire plan. It's a practical applied engineering program, rather than a pie-in-the-sky wishlist to appease environmentalists who value their religious dogma more than pragmatic engineering solutions intended to address specific problems. We don't need to tinker with batteries and solar panels for another decade or two before we finally accept that they're not a practical near-term solution to the world's energy problems.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2020-08-14 07:07:12

Re: Technology Updates

#227 2020-08-14 09:36:01

Re: Technology Updates

#228 2020-08-14 11:10:01

Re: Technology Updates

#229 2020-08-17 08:32:43

Re: Technology Updates

#230 2020-08-17 11:08:28

Re: Technology Updates

#231 2020-08-18 09:18:38

Re: Technology Updates

#232 2020-08-22 08:55:38

Re: Technology Updates

#233 2020-08-24 08:42:35

Re: Technology Updates

#234 2020-08-25 09:18:28

Re: Technology Updates

#235 2020-08-25 18:35:23

Re: Technology Updates

#236 2020-08-26 07:08:45

Re: Technology Updates

#237 2020-08-27 17:20:35

Re: Technology Updates

#238 2020-08-27 18:21:01

Re: Technology Updates

#239 2020-08-28 08:24:02

Re: Technology Updates

#240 2020-08-28 11:06:27

Re: Technology Updates

#241 2020-08-28 15:23:26

Re: Technology Updates

#242 2020-08-29 06:30:23

Re: Technology Updates

#243 2020-08-29 08:06:12

Re: Technology Updates

#244 2020-08-31 08:59:56

Re: Technology Updates

#245 2020-08-31 13:39:12

Re: Technology Updates

#246 2020-08-31 15:02:42

Re: Technology Updates

#247 2020-09-01 09:14:53

Re: Technology Updates

#248 2020-09-01 11:38:39

Re: Technology Updates

#249 2020-09-02 08:53:14

Re: Technology Updates

#250 2020-09-02 12:10:42

Re: Technology Updates

Board footer