On 10/17/2016 8:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
You have a point?
yes he does, and you missed it.
low light = lots of panels = even more problems
got it ?
Yeah. He had no point.
you are unable to think outside your very limited small teeny-tiny box.
you still missed it.
you dont have much on this topic do you?
For extra Credit list the problems,
(hint, there are 8 major problems)
You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot.
problems are solved by engineering,
you do not even have the depth to list the obvious problems,
Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
Initial power would come
from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
application is not a major problem.
you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists.
DOE is building them now.
no they are not. They are funding studies. got a URL ?
and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?
f*ck that !!
I love how you make up the answers for other people.
wrong again. it is = THE ANSWER for MARS.
take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
factories here.
That won't help you.
you keep insulting people, instead of providing solutions, here is a
HUGE political problem, and all you have is SNOT .