Europe, Russia discuss 'orbital shipyard' plans

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:30:11 -0400, Len Lekx wrote:
:
:
: Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't light behave according to
: inverse-square laws...? Since Mars is twice as far away (roughly) from
: the sun as we are, doesn't that mean that solar energy is one-quarter
: the intensity?
:
: Or am I just plain confused? :-)
:
:Earth is, of course, 1 AU away.
:Mars is about 1.4-1.6 AU away. Say, 1.5 AU.
:
:So, (1 AU)^2 / (1.5 AU)^2 = 1/2.25 = .44 or 44%
:
:McCall is about right when he says you get twice the solar energy on the
:Moon as you do Mars. And it is true solar energy will work better on the
:moon than it does on earth. The problem is, you'd have to haul up all
:that solar energy equipment up to the moon, and you have 2 weeks of
:darkness at a time, so you're going to need some really big batteries if
:you're going to build a base there.
:

Nonsense. If your head wasn't so firmly up and locked you'd think of
these things yourself, since they're pretty widely known.

Use thermal solar (not photovoltaic) and store energy during the day
in molten salts and use those for energy during the dark. Very little
to haul other than reflective film and no batteries.

DOH!

Next?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
One of the wonderful things about this geothermal process, is that it
doesn't violate treaties to bring nuclear power to space and it doesn't
require large amounts of equipment, like solar would.


Umm, what treaties would those be pray tell?



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...


What's scary is Guth's responses to him have actually sounded reasonable and
accurate.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...
:
:
:What's scary is Guth's responses to him have actually sounded reasonable and
:accurate.
:

And when Guth is the sensible side of a discussion, you know the other
side is *really* loony.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...
:
:
:What's scary is Guth's responses to him have actually sounded reasonable
and
:accurate.
:

And when Guth is the sensible side of a discussion, you know the other
side is *really* loony.


Exactly!


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:43:55 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:30:11 -0400, Len Lekx wrote: :
:
: Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't light behave according to
: inverse-square laws...? Since Mars is twice as far away (roughly)
from : the sun as we are, doesn't that mean that solar energy is
one-quarter : the intensity?
:
: Or am I just plain confused? :-) :
:Earth is, of course, 1 AU away.
:Mars is about 1.4-1.6 AU away. Say, 1.5 AU. :
:So, (1 AU)^2 / (1.5 AU)^2 = 1/2.25 = .44 or 44% :
:McCall is about right when he says you get twice the solar energy on
the :Moon as you do Mars. And it is true solar energy will work better
on the :moon than it does on earth. The problem is, you'd have to haul
up all :that solar energy equipment up to the moon, and you have 2 weeks
of :darkness at a time, so you're going to need some really big
batteries if :you're going to build a base there.
:

Nonsense. If your head wasn't so firmly up and locked you'd think of
these things yourself, since they're pretty widely known.

Use thermal solar (not photovoltaic) and store energy during the day in
molten salts and use those for energy during the dark. Very little to
haul other than reflective film and no batteries.

DOH!

Next?

That "battery" either would be so hot as to radiate too quickly over the
lunar night, or not warm enough to provide useful thermodynamic work.

A structure is needed to hold the reflective film in something that
approximates parabolic shape, or the sunlight won't be focused.

This is very far from the "free energy" claimed. So far, the reflector,
the structure, and the "salts" to melt are needed. You also need a way to
covert hot salts into useful energy.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:49:08 -0500, Brian Thorn wrote: :
: On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:59:29 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
:
::Or the Moon - nearer to Earth; no atmosphere at all (compared to
Mars) :and :half the gravity of Mars. Also the Moon's closer to the
Sun, so :solar :energy can be used for smelting materials and
industrial :processes. :
::The two-week nights are the killer. ::
:
:Start at the poles.
:
: For the mass of the tower (to keep the arrays in sunlight) and the
power : lines to the nearest convenient base site, you'd be pretty
close to a : small reactor.
:
:I am waiting for someone to suggest putting the greenhouse in a hole at
:the pole, surrounded by movable mirrors that can direct the light into
:the hole on and off on a 24 hour cycle with a summer like duty cycle.

Who's talking about a greenhouse?

It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...

In my original post where I pointed out that the 24 hour day allowed a
greenhouse for growing plants.

You then misconstrued that into lunar solar energy. Similar, but not the
same.

Yet, the same problem with your polar solar collectors apply; you can't
have them in each other's shadow, and the moon rotates, so you can't put
them in a line far from the poles. As someone said, you'd need tall
towers.

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:43:55 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
: :On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:30:11 -0400, Len Lekx wrote: :
: :
: : Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't light behave according to
: : inverse-square laws...? Since Mars is twice as far away (roughly)
: from : the sun as we are, doesn't that mean that solar energy is
: one-quarter : the intensity?
: :
: : Or am I just plain confused? :-) :
: :Earth is, of course, 1 AU away.
: :Mars is about 1.4-1.6 AU away. Say, 1.5 AU. :
: :So, (1 AU)^2 / (1.5 AU)^2 = 1/2.25 = .44 or 44% :
: :McCall is about right when he says you get twice the solar energy on
: the :Moon as you do Mars. And it is true solar energy will work better
: on the :moon than it does on earth. The problem is, you'd have to haul
: up all :that solar energy equipment up to the moon, and you have 2 weeks
: of :darkness at a time, so you're going to need some really big
: batteries if :you're going to build a base there.
: :
:
: Nonsense. If your head wasn't so firmly up and locked you'd think of
: these things yourself, since they're pretty widely known.
:
: Use thermal solar (not photovoltaic) and store energy during the day in
: molten salts and use those for energy during the dark. Very little to
: haul other than reflective film and no batteries.
:
: DOH!
:
: Next?
:
:That "battery" either would be so hot as to radiate too quickly over the
:lunar night, or not warm enough to provide useful thermodynamic work.
:
:A structure is needed to hold the reflective film in something that
:approximates parabolic shape, or the sunlight won't be focused.
:
:This is very far from the "free energy" claimed. So far, the reflector,
:the structure, and the "salts" to melt are needed. You also need a way to
:covert hot salts into useful energy.
:

And all the preceding is very simple physics, indeed. The problem is
your head is so far up your ass and locked that you are incapable of
thought.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
: :On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:49:08 -0500, Brian Thorn wrote: :
: : On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:59:29 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: : wrote:
: :
: :
: ::Or the Moon - nearer to Earth; no atmosphere at all (compared to
: Mars) :and :half the gravity of Mars. Also the Moon's closer to the
: Sun, so :solar :energy can be used for smelting materials and
: industrial :processes. :
: ::The two-week nights are the killer. ::
: :
: :Start at the poles.
: :
: : For the mass of the tower (to keep the arrays in sunlight) and the
: power : lines to the nearest convenient base site, you'd be pretty
: close to a : small reactor.
: :
: :I am waiting for someone to suggest putting the greenhouse in a hole at
: :the pole, surrounded by movable mirrors that can direct the light into
: :the hole on and off on a 24 hour cycle with a summer like duty cycle.
:
: Who's talking about a greenhouse?
:
: It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...
:
:In my original post where I pointed out that the 24 hour day allowed a
:greenhouse for growing plants.
:

It's not all about you. You see anything about greenhouses in what's
quoted? Yeah, I thought not.

:
:You then misconstrued that into lunar solar energy. Similar, but not the
:same.
:
:Yet, the same problem with your polar solar collectors apply; you can't
:have them in each other's shadow, and the moon rotates, so you can't put
:them in a line far from the poles. As someone said, you'd need tall
:towers.
:

You're still not paying attention. Go back and read what I said
again. No 'tall towers' required.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Fred ol buddy (and to your sockpuppet as well) ...

You play a good useful idiot, I have to give you that. You ask all the
obvious questions that only an idiot would ask, which gives me a the
opportunity to expand and explain the benefits of Mars over the moon, and
why the moon is a poor destination that we really don't even want to go.

You pepper your questions and wrong statements with insults, which make
you look all the worse when I show where you got it wrong.

However, in this last round of replies, you were reduced to hateful
spittle and gibbering ad hominems. No questions, no facts for me to
correct. That makes you a useless idiot.

Please return to being a useful idiot, or I shall have to killfile your
sociopathic ass. No one should have to suffer you for no good reason.
Quite frankly, you're a sorry example of a human being, but you did fill
a need for awhile.