New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#301 2023-03-16 06:33:34

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 17,891

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

For Calliban re Post #297

I agree the article at the link you provided is interesting.

Curiously, the article did not use the word "antimatter" (or if it did, I missed it despite careful reading)

I am left unclear on what is happening in the scenario described by the authors, and hope you might have insight(s) to help....

If the authors ** are ** talking about antimatter, then I am guessing they are using a laser to convert one of two protons to an anti-proton, and then reaping the energy released by combining the anti-proton with a normal one.

My expectation is that it will take energy to convert a normal proton to an anti-proton.

From the Rob Peter to Pay Paul school of thought, I would expect it would take "quite a bit" of energy to convert an ordinary proton to an anti-proton.

A natural question that follows is: does it take more energy to convert a proton to anti-proton than is released by the annihilation event?

One possibility is that these researchers have found a way to create anti-matter (anti-protons to be specific) using lasers.

If ** that ** is the case, and if those anti-protons can be stored (somehow) then they might be enlisted to provide propulsion at a later time.

I am reminded of a concept articulated by JoshNH4H shortly after I joined the forum.  He had pointed out that if electrons are removed from protons, as is the case with many particles arriving from nova events in the form of cosmic rays, and if those protons could be stored somehow, they would be a source of energy when they are allowed to collect electrons.  The challenge then, and now, is how to store such protons.  They would repel each other vigorously (of course) and they would be thirsty for electrons, so would steal electrons from any normal matter with which they came in contact.

We did not solve the problem before JoshNH4H returned to Member status in the forum, and it remains unsolved.

The topic was: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8756

The challenge of storing anti-protons for an anti-matter drive is even more severe .... They are just as thirsty for electrons as the ordinary matter protons, but ** these ** little critters are capable of merging with ordinary protons to make lots of particles.

And the sequence of thoughts above leads me to wonder if a container made of ordinary protons without electrons (the vision of JoshN4NH) might be able to hold a stash of anti-protons due to electrostatic repulsion.  The container would be a good description of an accident waiting to happen.

(th)

Offline

#302 2023-03-16 06:59:00

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 17,891

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Speaking of JoshN4NH, I just checked, and discovered he's logged into the forum as recently as February 7th.

Last visit: 2023-02-07 20:38:01

So! Following up on the previous post ... I had provided a possible solution to the challenge of storing protons without electrons, but JoshNH4H did not enthuse about my discovery.  However, I would like to return the storage method to view.

The storage method is recorded in the archive, shortly after I joined on 2018, when JoshNH4H was still active.

It was a magnetic storage system for ions to be used for experiments.  I had found a report about the storage system, and the link to that report should still be in the archive.  A search for the topic discussion might include author=joshnh4h and tag=proton or author=tahanson43206 and tag=magnetic.

JoshNH4H was active in 2019, where his posts show exchanges with GW Johnson, kbd512 and OldFart1939 and others

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 31#p158831

The link above from 2019 appears to be in approximately the right area.  JoshNH4H is replying to kbd512 about his ionized atom energy storage concept.

My reply would be nearby.  My reply contained a link to a magnetic ion storage system.

Here is the topic: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8756


(th)

Offline

#303 2023-03-16 07:50:46

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

TH, we do have something like what you are describing.  A capacitor.  It stores an electric potential difference across a dielectric.  The problem with storing charged ions, is that you inevitably create electric fields.  These would eventually grow strong enough to tear electrons from your container, even if you could hold the protons in a magnetic field.  It is voltage gradient that matters here.  So a magnetic trap would only buy you a limited charge density before the voltage gradient strips electrons from any matter that is close to it.  Even the best insulator has a breakdown voltage.


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#304 2023-03-16 08:35:38

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 17,891

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

For Calliban re #303

Thank you for your observation about the probably low density of charged anti-protons in a magnetic field.  That observation matches pretty well with what I remember of those of JoshNH4H back in 2018. 

The issue at hand is storage of antiprotons for a space drive application.  I do not understand the original article found to be sure, but I ** think ** the researchers were reporting on finding a way to make antiprotons using a laser beam.  The evidence they cited was the observation of energy output that would be consistent with an annihilation event after a normal proton had been converted to antiproton, and then combined with another normal proton.

That observation in itself is primarily of academic interest.

However, perhaps there is a way to make antiprotons using laser beams.  If such antiprotons could be collected and held for a period of time, then they might be harnessed for a high power deep space drive, which would make achieving 10% of light speed practical for a probe to a nearby star.

The density of magnetic storage would necessarily be low, but the energy cost of such storage would be low, so low density storage of high energy particles would (presumably) be worth while.

Since you have not yet read the original article, I ** think ** the method used was rotation of the ions to be preserved in a magnetic field.  My recollection is that the storage system was a kind of drum, in which the ions moved about a central core while waiting for being drawn off for an experiment.

If such a low density storage system is possible, it would be ideal in space.

if a space vessel is driven away from Earth by such a propulsion system, it could spend the flight time building back up the store of antimatter protons, for use to slow down at the destination.

(th)

Offline

#305 2023-03-23 08:00:12

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Kuwait desert oil spill sparks 'state of emergency': company

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … cy-company

Offline

#306 2023-03-28 03:26:30

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

British are given urgent health warning alerts

Major incident declared after oil leak from large onshore field in Dorset
https://news.sky.com/story/major-incide … t-12843199

Offline

#307 2023-04-01 17:33:38

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 29,204

Offline

#308 2023-04-27 14:23:08

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Chinese rovers still does not wake

Dusty Sands killing rovers. One thinks to blow or dust it off but even Ingenuity, a helicopter and it has dust stuck to the blades. MarsDust destroys and it has still yet to wake up, maybe the Rover needs a little luck

China’s Mars rover is stuck sleeping after harsh martian winter

https://www.forbes.com.au/news/innovati … -sleeping/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-04-27 14:23:56)

Offline

#309 2023-04-30 03:39:09

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

The first of China's desert solar and wind projects is online, and it's huge

https://electrek.co/2023/04/28/chinas-s … nd-desert/


China's 'Artificial Sun' Smashes Nuclear Fusion Record
https://www.newsweek.com/china-artifici … rd-1794706
China's "artificial sun" has reached a new milestone in the rapidly advancing field of nuclear fusion.

Shutting down, but not shutting up: Germany’s nuclear debate rages on

https://www.politico.eu/article/shuttin … ens-spahn/

Offline

#310 2023-05-13 07:57:12

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Wind power just overtook gas for the first time in the UK

https://electrek.co/2023/05/11/wind-power-gas-uk/

Offline

#311 2023-05-14 17:18:29

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Renewables Revolution: US Green Energy Poised for 'Staggering' Growth,

The US clean energy sector is set to deliver a record-breaking 600 GW of solar, wind and energy storage capacity by 2030. The report notes that the Inflation Reduction Act has played a key role.

https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/05/323 … nef-report

Offline

#312 2023-05-15 12:07:54

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

Renewables Revolution: US Green Energy Poised for 'Staggering' Growth,

The US clean energy sector is set to deliver a record-breaking 600 GW of solar, wind and energy storage capacity by 2030. The report notes that the Inflation Reduction Act has played a key role.

https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/05/323 … nef-report

It is rather ironic that these boondoggles will be forcefully subsidised under the 'inflation reduction act'.  Everywhere else that has attempted a mass buildout of intermittent renewables has seen large increases in the price of electric power.  Rising energy costs have a long history of driving up inflation and causing recessions.


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#313 2023-05-15 13:24:58

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,563

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Calliban,

It's not "ironic" if your intended goal is to destroy the American economy so that the majority will remain subservient to your every whim and fancy.  The Democrats do this stuff intentionally.  It can't all be chalked up to stupidity, despite how insufferably dumb most of them are.  The Democrat Party is an actively malicious organization that spares no attempt to undermine the American people, our economy, the nuclear family, and now they even support active participation in wars against nuclear armed nations like Russia.  That combination of factors makes them a malevolent cabal of cretins.  When President Trump was in power, they encouraged seditious activities.  Now that President Biden is in power, they're cracking down on their own seditionists.  Their useful idiots served their purpose, but now they need to be dealt with.

Offline

#314 2023-05-15 16:01:43

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Sadly, that appears to be the case.  These cretins don't seem to care about the wellbeing of people.  They are just seduced by what they consider to be beautiful ideas.  We saw where that led in Soviet Russia.  Individual lives end up not mattering if you are more about ideas than people.  And they probably realise that succesful people don't vote for them.  So their goal becomes keeping the proles as downtrodden and embittered as possible.

The great men that pioneered the atomic age knew that we couldn't go on burning fossil fuels forever.  By the early 1990s, all of the technology was in place for closed fuel cycle fast breeder reactors that would have freed humanity from energy scarcity for about the same cost MW for MW as a light water reactor.  Destroying the IFR programme was one of the first things Clinton did in office.  The far left knew that no one would bother pouring money into wind and solar if utilities could buy nuclear powerplants that were almost perpetual motion machines.  So they made damn sure it was buried.


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#315 2023-05-16 11:40:24

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,563

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Calliban,

It's worse than that.  They've been taught to loath themselves by the cretins of society.  Someone who loathes their own self can never love others.  It's a very dark place to be, and a far more serious problem, because it's one that only they can solve and an increasing number of them can't seem to solve it.

It's wrong to believe that people who you define as "successful", also view themselves that way.  The rational goal that otherwise insane people will have is to destroy that which they believe is the source of their problems.  When you've come to believe that you're the source of the problem, because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe by evil people, anything is possible.  That's nihilism.  We can identify the myriad of ways in which the communists failed, but ultimately nihilism is the root of the problem.

The common denominator amongst the Democrats and leftists I've personally interacted with, is that many of them are deeply unhappy with themselves, their lives / decisions / outcomes, and none of them know how to resolve whatever they think is holding them back.  They search for external reasons why their lives are not what they wanted, but eventually that loathing gets turned inwards.

Like I said...  It's evil ideology.  Nobody is born believing this nonsense.  It has to be taught to them by ill-intentioned people who they trust.  Teaching someone to hate being who they are is about as great a betrayal of trust as is possible.  It's perfectly understandable why it's so hard to recover from that.

Offline

#316 2023-05-25 03:14:16

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Scientists Working to Generate Electricity From Thin Air Make Breakthrough

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93kade/ … eakthrough

not sure if the news website will be around much longer, Vice filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as part of a plan to sell itself to a consortium of companies

Offline

#317 2023-05-30 06:05:30

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost. Two nuclear reactors in Georgia were supposed to herald a nuclear power revival in the United States. They’re the first U.S. reactors built from scratch in decades — and maybe the most expensive power plant ever.

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nucl … 9115e88a64

Expanding the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia with two new reactors has turned into a financial disaster for the utility, state and customers. It has also literally bankrupted Westinghouse, the primary contractor.
Unfortunately this isn't the only new nuclear project in the US and Europe suffering from similar massive cost overruns and schedule slips. That is a primary reason why the industry has been in decline in this century. According to the article 24 other reactor projects proposed have been shelved as a result, including one in South Carolina that was partially built and $9 billion had already been spent on.


Japan will try to beam solar power from space by 2025
https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try … 38244.html
Japan and JAXA, the country’s space administration, have spent decades trying to make it possible to beam solar energy from space. In 2015, the nation made a breakthrough when JAXA scientists successfully beamed 1.8 kilowatts of power, enough energy to power an electric kettle, more than 50 meters to a wireless receiver. Now, Japan is poised to bring the technology one step closer to reality.
Nikkei reports a Japanese public-private partnership will attempt to beam solar energy from space as early as 2025. The project, led by Naoki Shinohara, a Kyoto University professor who has been working on space-based solar energy since 2009, will attempt to deploy a series of small satellites in orbit. Those will then try to beam the solar energy the arrays collect to ground-based receiving stations hundreds of miles away.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-30 06:05:40)

Offline

#318 2023-06-17 06:35:15

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Solar industry facing bankruptcies, leaving many with roof panels that don't work

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/losangeles/ … dont-work/

The solar industry in California has experienced several high-profile bankruptcies including one of its largest producers, Petersen Dean. Now, another local solar company has shuttered, leaving homeowners with unfinished systems on roofs that aren't producing any power, not saving money on utility bills, and often there's still the financing of the equipment and installation that the customer is responsible for.

Offline

#320 2023-06-27 11:46:30

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

kbd512 wrote:

CANDU 6 Technical Summary

Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in canada produces 22,656,000,000Wht on a land area of 9,307,770m^2.  Thermal output is 2,434W/m^2.  This is about 2.5X solar radiation intensity at high noon over an equatorial desert here on Earth (a multiple of what's available at any time or place on Mars), except that Bruce's capacity factor is 87%.  Whether or not the Canadians throw away all the thermal output from their reactors, is irrelevant.  The fact of the matter is that the thermal power output is enormous.

28.9% of the thermal power is converted into electricity.  That leaves the other 70% (15,859MWt) available for consumption as hot water.  You're going to need massive amounts of thermal power on Mars.  It's colder than Antarctica.  You'll need about 3X more energy to flash evaporate water on Mars to convert it into potable water for drinking, farming, cooking, and cleaning.

Nuclear reactors also have some of the longest continuous runs of power output, some spanning multiple years of operation.

CANDU seems to be a candidate for a large thermal and electrical generating station on Mars, of the kind required to support an entire city.

However, Bruce generates enough total power for only around a quarter million people on Mars, so you need 4X Bruce's total capacity, at a minimum, to support a colony of a million people.  The appetite for electrical and thermal power will be sky-high for a place that desolate and cold.  I'm also assuming that the natural light greenhouses that RobertDyck proposed will be used instead of artificial light farming.

Transfered to this thread from the NERVA discussion, to keep the two topics seperate.

Insolation alone would appear to be insufficient to keep a greenhouse acceptably warm.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tot … _232992520

An insolation of 3000Wh/m2/day, translates into an average flux of 125W over 24 hours, or 250W over 12 hours.  A body at 15°C, will radiate 230W into its surroundings.  There will be some backscatter from surroundings.  Insolation at 30° lattitude, varies between 1000 - 3400Wh/m2/day across the Martian year.

So in conclusion, greenhouses would probably be acceptably warm in the summer to grow food via natural heating, provided we covered them over night.  But if we want to be able to grow fresh food year round, we will need supplemental heating.  Heating of 100W/m2 would extend the growing season year round, provided that we covered the greenhouses when light levels drop too low.

Human beings can survive on as little as 100m2 of growing land on Earth.  But that assumes a meagre vegetarian diet, dominated by potatos.  If we assume a value double that, of 200m2 per capita, then each colonist will need 20kW of supplemental heat to provide their food.  A city of 1 million people will need 20GW.

That is a lot of power, but it is low grade heat.  Warm water at 30°C would do the job.  Which leads me to wonder, could we use low pressure, swimming pool type reactors to produce this heat?  We don't need PWRs working 3000psi.  We don't need boilers or condensers.  We do not strictly need heat exchangers at all if light water is used as coolant, though it would not be economically affordable to pump heavy water through greenhouses.  A nuclear reactor that is optimised for low grade heat production could be simple and easy to build.  A large stainless steel lined vessel, containing natural uranium metal or oxide, clad in zirconium or aluminium.  Control rods would be carbon steel.  Pipework could be cast iron, coated mild steel, ceramic or even plastic, as temperatures are very low.  In fact, heat exchangers could be made from ceramic pipes encapsulated in concrete.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-06-27 12:00:26)


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#321 2023-06-27 14:43:18

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

A timely addition to the topic.  This Finnish startup plans to produce district heating SMRs.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/06/n … homes.html


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#322 2023-08-03 06:25:25

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania want to decouple their power grids from the Russian system by February 2025.
https://www.dw.com/en/baltic-states-see … a-66423868

'Why ultra-green Germany turned its back on nuclear energy'
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023 … al-warming

Germany hits out at Brussels plan to label nuclear and gas ‘green’
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nucl … echnology/

Luddite or Less-Logical, the Green politics, or Euro wide eco-politics, a political ideology that aims to foster an ecologically sustainable society often, but not always, rooted in environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice and grassroots democracy, maybe often getting frightened by stories of Chernobyl, Nuclear Bombs, Three Mile Island, the British Windscale fire and Japanese Fukushima.


The green party is a formally organized political party based on the principles of green politics, such as social justice, environment, although people often class Conservatives as religious and backward and anti-tech, Greens can be anti-technology but often ally with  coalitions with other left-wing parties across North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia. It might not have been born in Germany but in Australia or Switzerland, since the world's first political parties to campaign on a predominantly environmental platform were the United Tasmania Group in Tasmania, Australia, and the Values Party of New Zealand and the Popular Movement for the Environment, founded in 1972 in the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel, Greens were in federal government with the Social Democratic Party of Germany in a so-called Red-Green alliance from 1998 to 2005. Elizabeth Evans May serving as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, Keiko Cecilia Bonk an American artist, musician and politician from Hawaii co-founded the Hawaii Green Party.

Offline

#323 2023-08-15 08:07:33

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Solar power surges in Europe and is set to double by 2030 | New report shows governments are updating their energy plans with more ambitious targets.

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/sola … e-by-2030/

The European Union is moving fast on deploying solar power in response to the energy crisis, with ambitious targets that countries are now starting to roll out. A new report by the lobby group SolarPower Europe found the bloc would have over 400 GW of solar power installed by the end of the decade -- almost double the 208 GW of solar power produced today.

In 2019, the EU asked member countries to publish and implement 10-year National Energy and Climate Plans. Running from 2021 to 2030, these are meant to lay out each country's targets, policies, and measures that will enable the country to reach the 2030 EU renewable target — having an energy matrix with 32% renewable energy.

By June this year, countries were supposed to submit a draft update of their plans or justify that the current plan remains valid. As of August, only 12 have been received and published, and 15 are outstanding. However, the ones that are published are very positive and ambitious, according to an initial analysis done by SolarPower Europe.

On average, the new targets for solar power are 63% more ambitious, with Lithuania increasing its solar ambition by 500%. Finland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden more than doubled their previous targets and Spain increased its target by 94%. Considering the recent targets, four countries have already met their solar targets for 2030 and 19 others will do so in the next five years.

Raffaele Rossi, Head of Market Intelligence at SolarPower Europe, said the way governments think about solar “has definitively changed.” However, he warned there’s still a long way to go. “Grid operators, citizens, businesses, and energy providers all need to be able to prepare for the reality of a solar and renewable-based energy system,” Rossi added.

A group of European renewable associations wrote a letter to the EU Commission earlier this month warning that due to a lack of flexibility in the grid, solar plants are sometimes asked to shut down when there’s low demand. Speaking with Politico, Rossi also warned there’s a challenge and an opportunity in fixing the grid and training workers in the solar sector.

Offline

#324 2023-08-16 06:02:59

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 3,542

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Plutonium injection experiments.  During and after WW2, a number of people were involuntarily injected with plutonium nitrate to examine what effect it would have on them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens

Albert Stevens received a total dose of 64 Sv or 6400 rem.  This is about 10x the lethal radiation dose if it were received all at once.  But it was spread over many years, with Stevens receiving about 3Sv per year.  He died of heart disease aged 79, some 21 years after injection.

This really is like a story line from X-files, where a shadowy government agency was injected people with alien DNA to find out what it did to them.  Not something I would ever have imagined could have happened in real life.  But something very similar did.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-08-16 06:05:24)


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#325 2023-08-16 15:07:41

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 9,772

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Astrostrom Releases Extensive Plan for Space-Based Power Built on Lunar Resources

https://spaceref.com/newspace-and-tech/ … resources/

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB