You are not logged in.
Dook,
Thank you for a laugh at the crazy statements you have said. You don't have the first Idea about creating a viable human space community in our solar system. One of the largest evolutional changes for our society. One of main objectives is to move into space on a lower cost then the current platforms allow for, the answer remodel the current platform by working on incoming generating projects first then bring on the infrastructure required for those projects and plan for the next components that will provide the ground work for the future income streams.
At present we have not income generating assets in orbit for human space advancement. That should be the main focus, then you focus on the next income generating activity going for a joyride to Mars or developing a small scale mining and processing facility on the moon to extract ore and refine the metals and forge/rolling mill to process the minerals into usable components for lunar expansion and star system expansion.
Once the unmanned recon of mars is complete and the additional navigation and communication satellites have been placed around Mars the next phrase would be to send a foothold mission with all the necessary supplies for living on the surface for the time they are there, with priority in placing beacon towers on the proposed outpost sites.
If we do what you want , dook, we will still be in LEO after the joyride to Mars and back without any more to show then what happened to the apollo program for the moon. Its time to go back and stay permanently in space and expand into space and improve our technology and our knowledge and understanding of our solar system, galaxy and universe.
I have been talking over the past few posts the increased budget for the increase in space activity and the final expansion of humanity and the exploration ahead. As you like trekkie I see - I will add this " To Boldly go where no-one has gone before " a statement that I thought Mars Society tries to emulate trying to foster support for Mars.
I believe in that statement and I don't think you do, dook.
Offline
Oh, and some of the many bennefits of an all-electric fuel cell vehicle...
-Engine has no moving parts
-No transmission
-No drive train/axles
-No drivetrain joints
-Ease of regenerative braking, couple to a capacitor
-Lighter vehicle mass for higher efficency
-Double the efficency of internal combustion, 50% over Hybrids, due to less wastage as heat
-Light weight fuel reduces vehicle mass
All excelent reasons why diesel or any ICE engine's days are numberd.
Edit: Oh! And that little problem with infrastructure? Although it isn't the best solution, systems are now being developed to produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons right at the gas station with small reformers. So, while the switch is happening, you can still supply your legacy gas stations with hydrocarbon fuels, but have a special pump that takes it and makes it into Hydrogen.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
One of main objectives is to move into space on a lower cost then the current platforms allow for, the answer remodel the current platform by working on incoming generating projects first then bring on the infrastructure required for those projects and plan for the next components that will provide the ground work for the future income streams.
Martin:
We can't move into space on a lower cost than current platforms until we develop a truly reusable launch vehicle. So by your own backwards reasoning we shouldn't move into space until then, likely 50-100 years away. Also you wish to use space infrastructure to generate income, how? Spending billions to put all of this infrastructure in space without having any idea what it will be for is just another wasted space effort that takes away from the real objective-discovery.
Finding life on mars opens up many doors, likely continued missions there to search for more, maybe a permanent science outpost. How do you not realize that? And to further explain my position, since you are misguided.
I support, in this order:
-Buy out our ISS commitment and cancel the shuttle
-A new hubble
-A human mission to mars
-After that depends on what we find on mars
We already have an orbiting space station called the ISS and it (and the space shuttle that supports it) is the main reason keeping us now from going back to the moon or onward to mars.
Offline
Lets say for a minute that your typical hybrid/electric car requires 25kW of power operate continuously on average (A Toyota Prius has a 57kW gas engine at maximum RPM), and a roof surface area of about 7m^2.
Lets also say that you use the high-end (for comsumers) 20% efficency monocrystalline solar pannels (sitting flat horizontal in the sun all day), and you live in Average, SomeplaceInAmerica that gets 3-4 kWh/m^2 daily...
So, that would give you 3.8-5.0kW/hr of electricity per day assuming 90% efficent batteries over the top surface of the car. That would give you enough energy to drive your car down the street for about nine to twelve minutes. From sitting in the sun all day long and not in a garage or under a tree. In the average amount of sunlight recieved year-round over the majority of the continental US.
Barely enough to put a dent in the average commute... So now you only need to refuel every two and a half weeks instead of two, and so on... "refuel a few times a year" is clearly impractical.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
You disregarded the parameters set in my post to achieve your goal. That's bad science man.
My post was this:
In the future I would like to see higher storage batteries powering our vehicles recharged by much more efficient solar panels mounted on the roof of those vehicles but I know that is far in the future.
Higher means more.
Much more efficient means more as well.
What else do you alter to change the outcome in your favor? Math? Research?
It takes me 15 minutes to get to work each day, and 15 minutes home so, including the above, 80% of my daily driving would use no fuel.
Offline
You disregarded the parameters set in my post to achieve your goal. That's bad science man.
My post was this:
In the future I would like to see higher storage batteries powering our vehicles recharged by much more efficient solar panels mounted on the roof of those vehicles but I know that is far in the future.Higher means more.
Much more efficient means more as well.What else do you alter to change the outcome in your favor? Math? Research?
It takes me 15 minutes to get to work each day, and 15 minutes home so, including the above, 80% of my daily driving would use no fuel.
Good for you.
But alot of people go a lot more than that.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Fine, then don't buy one. Get a hybrid.
Also if in addition to the roof the trunk deck and hood of an average family sized car were covered with solar cells AND we find a way to really increase their efficiency then this would really be a huge benefit.
The technology just isn't efficient enough yet.
Offline
You disregarded the parameters set in my post to achieve your goal. That's bad science man
What else do you alter to change the outcome in your favor? Math? Research?
It takes me 15 minutes to get to work each day, and 15 minutes home so, including the above, 80% of my daily driving would use no fuel.
I have done no such thing. You are looking basically for an advanced hybrid vehicle supplimented by solar pannels.
20% efficent solar pannels and 90% efficent batteries/motors ARE the "much higher" efficency ones. Regular current day "consumer" solar pannels, the ones you could afford to build tens of thousands of square meters worth, are around 10-12% efficent. The "fancy" superhigh efficency space-rated pannels aren't economical... and even if they were, that would only buy you another four or five minutes, at the expense of extra battery mass too.
The person here excercising "bad science" (or at least a math comp aptitude) is you... if your round-trip is half an hour, and the solar pannels only provide you with ~10 minutes of power per day, then ~70% of your daily driving would still rely on the ICE powerplant. Thats not enough to reach the "refuel every few months" level of efficency, and you have a short commute... someone with a 60min powerd round trip would only save 15% of their total energy.
Plus, I am making some assumptions about marginally lighter and more efficent vehicles to begin with, lowering energy needs from ~30 to 25kW. A comperable fuel cell vehicle, as it would need no drivetrain, would be much lighter and bennefit more if it were using the same construction technology without all that heavy metal... and would slap the ICE engine car silly, especially if it too were solar augmented.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
In a contest held every year by SAE to design fuel efficent single-passenger vehicles, this years winner came out on top with 1747.4 miles to the gallon.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/66095.html]Edelmayer said that a typical 9.6-mile run burns an average of about 14 grams of fuel, which weighs about as much as 14 paper clips
Maybe Dook could distill his daily fuel needs in his coffe maker, from banana peels ?
Or biodiesel from discarded oil from restaurants ?
Offline
Sure MarsDog, if your car were a 150lbs (including a scrawny passenger) eggshell-thin composit car with only one seat. It takes a little bit more to push ton-and-a-half passenger cars... Don't bring a friend along, it'll cut your millage in half.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
20% efficent solar pannels and 90% efficent batteries/motors ARE the "much higher" efficency ones.
The solar panels and batteries you quote as being 'much higher' are only higher than the low efficiency ones.
By more I meant more than the ones we have now, that's why I also said, "but I know this is far in the future".
Offline
Ah huh... so, lets say that someday another decade or two from now, solar panels get an extra 10% more efficent and economical enough to mass-produce. You are still talking less then 50% fuel savings...
...which fuel cells can give you right now, for hydrocarbon-to-hydrogen conversion. Add in the solar panels then, and then maybe you could cut down refueling to less then monthly.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
20% efficent solar pannels and 90% efficent batteries/motors ARE the "much higher" efficency ones.
The solar panels and batteries you quote as being 'much higher' are only higher than the low efficiency ones.
That is due to how efficient they are in converting Photons into an energy form we can use. We can create much higher efficiencies even unto the low 40s in percentage but the problem then becomes the weakness of the actual cell and its actual cost to make.
Batteries are an example of a technology where there is very slow progress as it is very hard to actually store energy into a meaningful form. Of course if we can turn it into fuel that we can burn thats a different matter, like hydrogen.
By more I meant more than the ones we have now, that's why I also siad, "but I know this is far in the future".
So how far in the future give dates 5 years, 10 years, 15, when, we cant base a whole economy on quesstimates and vaque unrealised dreams. We plan now not for 2006 but 2016 and longer this is called the long term view.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
So how far in the future give dates 5 years, 10 years, 15, when, we cant base a whole economy on quesstimates and vaque unrealised dreams. We plan now not for 2006 but 2016 and longer this is called the long term view.
I don't know when solar panels and batteries will become more efficient. What do you think I have a crystal ball? I can't even tell you when my next bowel movement is going to be so how would I know that?
Base our whole economy on guesstimates and vague unrealistic dreams? Sigh...Why would you plan on fuel cells knowing that they need platinum and that it is going to be incredibly expensive in the near future? So it's on the moon, great, now we need a moon base just so we can have fuel cells which are only slightly better than bio-diesel powered hybrids?
The neat thing about business is it's like evolution. Some fail leaving the more efficient ones behind to prosper.
I would imagine that in the short term bio-diesel powered hybrids will prevail since most of the infrastructure is already in place to support that type of fuel and engine, except bio-diesel manufacturing plants are few but they are coming along.
Hydrogen powered fuel cells could begin to take over when their infrastructure is more established but not if platinum is absolutely required and the price for it goes through the roof.
That's another reason why I don't approve of NASA getting involved in this. Sure it will be great if NASA can make some money to supplement the worlds need for platinum and supplement it's own exploration costs but NASA would then be operating as a business with an unfair advantage (a government subsidized monopoly) and open to all kinds of lawsuits from bio-diesel companies unfairly affected.
Offline
It's not looking good for your billion dollar shipments of platinum from the moon.
Offline
So how far in the future give dates 5 years, 10 years, 15, when, we cant base a whole economy on quesstimates and vaque unrealised dreams. We plan now not for 2006 but 2016 and longer this is called the long term view.
I don't know when solar panels and batteries will become more efficient. What do you think I have a crystal ball? I can't even tell you when my next bowel movement is going to be so how would I know that?
Base our whole economy on guesstimates and vague unrealistic dreams? Sigh...Why would you plan on fuel cells knowing that they need platinum and that it is going to be incredibly expensive in the near future? So it's on the moon, great, now we need a moon base just so we can have fuel cells which are only slightly better than bio-diesel powered hybrids?
The neat thing about business is it's like evolution. Some fail leaving the more efficient ones behind to prosper.
I would imagine that in the short term bio-diesel powered hybrids will prevail since most of the infrastructure is already in place to support that type of fuel and engine, except bio-diesel manufacturing plants are few but they are coming along.
Hydrogen powered fuel cells could begin to take over when their infrastructure is more established but not if platinum is absolutely required and the price for it goes through the roof.
That's another reason why I don't approve of NASA getting involved in this. Sure it will be great if NASA can make some money to supplement the worlds need for platinum and supplement it's own exploration costs but NASA would then be operating as a business with an unfair advantage (a government subsidized monopoly) and open to all kinds of lawsuits from bio-diesel companies unfairly affected.
Lawsuits hmmm, for what is possibly one of the single most important strategic national assets, that being fuel and power to run your country. :laugh:
As for your other post read it and you will see it is about Platinum loading. This fuel cell still requires as an absolute essential a lot of platinum it just can use Nicol treated to reduce the amount but not get rid of the platinum that is in the cell.
Still need platinum and if you want to make Biodiesel better find some too. If you add in all the essential electronic and chemical processes that need it and it becomes more and more sought after. Another point is it is also extremely important in the reduction of pollutants that are produced by the coal burning power stations. Platinum loaded filters remove a lot of the pollutants these plants make and will stop the phenomonon of acid rain. If we could get enough to do it.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
I have been talking over the past few posts the increased budget for the increase in space activity and the final expansion of humanity and the exploration ahead. As you like trekkie I see - I will add this " To Boldly go where no-one has gone before " a statement that I thought Mars Society tries to emulate trying to foster support for Mars.
I believe in that statement and I don't think you do, dook.
Hehe, you believe in the statement "To boldly go where no-one has gone before"???????
WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON! WE HAVE A SPACE STATION IN ORBIT!
Then you criticize me for wanting to go to mars instead of the moon?
Offline
Dook,
The development of Moon and Mars are essential for the development of the outer planets in our solars systems because of the orbital differences they are provide communication, control, and human facilities to expand the human presence.
But the first thing we need to do is lower the dependence of human centric resources from earth and source them from space based assets starting with energy, food, then minerals include the processing of all these resources. The hardest resource to source outside earth is water, but it can be found and that would be future mining missions for the outer planets and moons.
It will take decades to bring the outer space community to a level of self sustainablility that earth environment has already. Once achieved they can grow and expand throughout our star system.
Answer a few of your questions :
1. Drive systems - by using electric propulsion by NASA and other Space Organizations ( ion or plasma ) can be sourced from any ionized compound doesn't need to be on the lower end of the periodic table either.
2. Water - moons throughout our solar system have water componunds frosen on these worlds. Also Comets have been made of water vapour mixed with dust, can be mined for the resources required. Working with near close environments with recycling systems reduce the loss of water reserves.
3. Energy - New Solar Panel System for industrial and residential platforms and orbiting stations that increase energy production by upwards of 500% on current production without any additional physical area used. Would provide the necessary power requirements for industrial in space.
4. A complete waterless flexible automated construction system to build outposts to city size settlements on outer space bodies - curremtly underdevelopment
and other developments to numerous to list.
All these are parts of the larger puzzle movement of humanity into space for a permanent presence and growth of our knowledge and understanding of the universe that we are part of and within.
Offline
Dook ,
Hehe, you believe in the statement "To boldly go where no-one has gone before"?
WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON! WE HAVE A SPACE STATION IN ORBIT!
Then you criticize me for wanting to go to mars instead of the moon?
Yes I do, If you don't want to make the explorer missions to Mars - be the first step in a much larger push for a permanent presence on Mars within the next half-century ( by 2050-2055).
I am critical of anyone, doesn't have the goal of permanent human involvement in space with humans living and working in space from space and earth.
P.S. You call ISS a space station it is a toy platform - we need a true space station for residential living and science and industrial space orbiting platforms to conduct current and future research and production.
Offline
Lawsuits hmmm, for what is possibly one of the single most important strategic national assets, that being fuel and power to run your country. :laugh:
As for your other post read it and you will see it is about Platinum loading. This fuel cell still requires as an absolute essential a lot of platinum it just can use Nicol treated to reduce the amount but not get rid of the platinum that is in the cell.
Still need platinum and if you want to make Biodiesel better find some too. If you add in all the essential electronic and chemical processes that need it and it becomes more and more sought after. Another point is it is also extremely important in the reduction of pollutants that are produced by the coal burning power stations. Platinum loaded filters remove a lot of the pollutants these plants make and will stop the phenomonon of acid rain. If we could get enough to do it.
Hehe, I doubt anyone other than you considers moon platinum the single most important national strategic asset but platinum is important that is why the US has stockpiled over 200,000 ounces of it.
Everything is a benefit vs cost/risk analysis, with a little emotion thrown in. I want the most and best science first and humans on mars second. If we were going to the moon with the intention of building an array of telescopes on the dark side I would support it and certainly if we are there for that purpose we can also recover platinum, test out our moon rocket fuel ideas, and conduct other moon science but that's not what the President said and that's not, as far as I can tell, what NASA intends to do.
Using platinum as a driving force and the justification for a moon base is very risky. With platinum in the impact craters spread out on the surface of the moon at some point we will need more than one base. And considering recycling, other metals taking it's place, and 513 million ounces of known world supplies, the price of it very well may not increase your speculated ten times it's current value.
So then what does NASA do with it's moon bases and the architecture that won't work for a mars mission? You know what they do? They come up with more things to do on the moon and end up stuck there for another 20 years because they can't go back to congress and ask for another $50 billion to go to mars.
Biodiesel production is coming online. It's a race between gasoline hybrids, bio-diesel hybrids, and fuel cells.
http://www.pipeline.to/biodiesel/]http: … biodiesel/
Offline
Dook,
The development of Moon and Mars are essential for the development of the outer planets in our solars systems because of the orbital differences they are provide communication, control, and human facilities to expand the human presence.
But the first thing we need to do is lower the dependence of human centric resources from earth and source them from space based assets starting with energy, food, then minerals include the processing of all these resources. The hardest resource to source outside earth is water, but it can be found and that would be future mining missions for the outer planets and moons.
It will take decades to bring the outer space community to a level of self sustainablility that earth environment has already. Once achieved they can grow and expand throughout our star system.
Answer a few of your questions :
1. Drive systems - by using electric propulsion by NASA and other Space Organizations ( ion or plasma ) can be sourced from any ionized compound doesn't need to be on the lower end of the periodic table either.
2. Water - moons throughout our solar system have water componunds frosen on these worlds. Also Comets have been made of water vapour mixed with dust, can be mined for the resources required. Working with near close environments with recycling systems reduce the loss of water reserves.
3. Energy - New Solar Panel System for industrial and residential platforms and orbiting stations that increase energy production by upwards of 500% on current production without any additional physical area used. Would provide the necessary power requirements for industrial in space.
4. A complete waterless flexible automated construction system to build outposts to city size settlements on outer space bodies - curremtly underdevelopment
and other developments to numerous to list.
All these are parts of the larger puzzle movement of humanity into space for a permanent presence and growth of our knowledge and understanding of the universe that we are part of and within.
Umm, we will never develop the outer planets (how could we develop Neptune?) and I'm really not sure how they provide communication to expand the human presence.
I think the hardest resource to get outside the earth is food. Ice is likely plentiful, in places, from ice you can get oxygen. Any deep voyage better hope their onboard gardens never fail.
Decades to bring space to a level equal to earth? More like centuries.
Ion propulsion is great for small craft, human occupied ones it's not so great for.
Could you please include a link for your 500% increase in electricity from the same sized solar array?
I think your automated city construction system is going to take longer to perfect than it would for 1,000 of us to travel to the nearest star using ion propulsion.
We don't need to move humanity into space for the growth of our knowledge and understanding of the universe. In fact, it's tough to beat the efficiency of NASA's machines (Voyager, Spirit, Opportunity, Hubble, SOHO...) for increasing our knowledge of the universe.
Offline
Sure MarsDog, if your car were a 150lbs (including a scrawny passenger) eggshell-thin composit car with only one seat. It takes a little bit more to push ton-and-a-half passenger cars... Don't bring a friend along, it'll cut your millage in half.
Even around WW2, people often used only one horse to pull a carriage.
A stagecoach had several horses.
If you limited horsepower, would life slow down, or just move closer ?
Offline
Dook,
I am sorry I can't provide a link to the solar experiments on the increase of the Solar Energy production becuase of commercial confidentiality. Phrase 1 - Has been completed in a small test array the next is a full array then patents before public release.
To answer your statement about the automated construction system we have the engineered the construction components that are working but the issue that my engineers has outlined is with the delivery mechanism that requires to be automated for arms-length contruction through remote computer control systems including reloading of construction materials. As well to compact it down for launching from earth to the lunar surface. It will be ready for 2010-2015 Launch window for moon base development. Again Patent protection before public release.
Dook,
Space like earth is a dangerous place but we take risks everyday in life to expand our life towards goals that we set as a society and individual. The same will occur in space and some people will die in space and other will succeed and we need to keep the death low and the succeeds high.
Don't be afraid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Offline
Risk/cost vs benefit.
What is the benefit to humans settling a space station? It's not an need. It's a very risky and costly want that will provide little desirable science.
I want it too but NOT now, not until we have launch systems that can put something much more substantial into orbit. A giant spinning wheel with spokes covered in solar panels and a large weightless hangar in the center for CEV, Soyuz or whatever to dock there. But this is very low on the priority list for me.
Life on mars may very well get you this though.
Offline
Base our whole economy on guesstimates and vague unrealistic dreams? Sigh...Why would you plan on fuel cells knowing that they need platinum and that it is going to be incredibly expensive in the near future? So it's on the moon, great, now we need a moon base just so we can have fuel cells which are only slightly better than bio-diesel powered hybrids?
The neat thing about business is it's like evolution. Some fail leaving the more efficient ones behind to prosper.
I would imagine that in the short term bio-diesel powered hybrids will prevail since most of the infrastructure is already in place to support that type of fuel and engine, except bio-diesel manufacturing plants are few but they are coming along.
Hydrogen powered fuel cells could begin to take over when their infrastructure is more established but not if platinum is absolutely required and the price for it goes through the roof.
That's another reason why I don't approve of NASA getting involved in this. Sure it will be great if NASA can make some money to supplement the worlds need for platinum and supplement it's own exploration costs but NASA would then be operating as a business with an unfair advantage (a government subsidized monopoly) and open to all kinds of lawsuits from bio-diesel companies unfairly affected.
I don't think you understand Dook... technological advancement is required for a Capitalist society to function. A fuel cell engine is the only really superior, practical alternative to ICE engines reguardless where they get their fuel from. It is a foregone conclusion, and the faster we get this technology, the better.
And, since you have apparently failed Econ 101, if we were to go and get Pt from the Moon, then it would mitigate the price spike, and make fuel cell powerplants affordable even though they are built with the most expensive commodity precious metal. The neat thing is, that since fuel cells (and the businesses that make them) are more efficent then old ICE engines, whose patron companies will fail.
Actually no, short term Hybrid cars will not "prevail" because of infrastructure. An on-site reformer at the gas station eliminates the early-introduction problems with Hydrogen fuel. I have already said this, stop ignoring me when it suits you Dook.
NASA won't be getting into the Pt business, as I have explained, they will just be setting up the first little Lunar "space port," testing mining equipment, and prospecting. Thats all. Private industry will then buy flights or copies of NASA hardware, operate an RLV, and so on. They will be paying the majority cost of a mining base, and will recieve the profit. Not NASA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanodot Nickel clusters that mimic Platinum? Um, you are kind of taking the word of a single company that doesn't have a prototype, now in the days of the "nanotech bubble." Nickel nanodots might be able to behave a little like Platinum, but its very unlikly it will ever be as good, and this VPD method they use would probobly add substantial cost. Plus, Nickel nanodots would be difficult to immobilize for use as a catalyst, and wouldn't be useful in high-temp/high-reactivity applications.
Its not a very good Platinum-replacement
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline