Europe, Russia discuss 'orbital shipyard' plans

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Push the pins all the way in, Derek. It's only an orange. The head
of the pin on the surface of the orange is your power array. DOH!

In scale, that still leaves you kilometers above the surface of the
orange 'moon'.

When you look at the *actual* polar areas of the moon, you find that
solar panels have to either be a) flat to the ground (in the limited
areas of flat ground that are available) and thus inefficient as hell
with the low light angle (when they are illuminated), or b) on *lots*
of *huge* towers (think: the Eiffel tower isn't even big enough to
serve as a cable brace for these towers) holding the panels at a less
acute angle and still not permanently illuminated.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, Derek - but there's this new
stuff called 'wire' that lets us transmit power over distances.

The ability to transmit power of distance is pretty useless when there
is no power to transmit.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:02:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
:Yes. You get 2X the solar energy on the moon than you do on Mars.
You get 2X *at best*. It's usually much lower than that. Now further
deduct for that atmosphere you're so proud of, dust, etc.

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? :-)

On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:20:40 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:Brian Thorn wrote: :
::On Thu, 21 May 2009 03:42:56 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:
::
:: What you really want to do is... (wait for it) ... build a
manufacturing :: plant on Mars. Once on Mars, you can use Martian
materials, so you don't :: have to bring as much mass up.
::
::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.
:
:Where 13 day nights are the killer.
:

I shouldn't have to explain this, Derek, but...

Get an orange. Shine a light on one side. Go to one of the 'poles'.
Draw a line on the orange perpendicular to the 'terminator' passing
through the 'pole'. Stick in a pin just a bit into the light along that
line. Stick another pin on the same line, just into the dark. Spin the
orange along its 'axis'. Observe just how much time all of BOTH pins
are in the dark.

If you did it right, that time is zero...

I shouldn't have to explain this to you Fred - but the moon isn't a
perfectly aligned orange. Nor are we building bases on pins hundreds of
kilometers above the orange's surface.

D.

Moon has a 1.5 degree tilt to the ecliptic.

The area that can be planted is very small; a thin line, because the moon
rotates, and the light is coming in horizontal, not vertically. So the
first row of plants is going to put the second row of plants in partial
shadow, and the third row in more shadow, and so on. No atmosphere to
create "diffuse" light and all that.

You can plant them on a hill, but the hill will not always be on the
sunny side of the moon, due to the rotation.

Nope. You're going to have to use artificial lighting and lots of man
made energy.

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.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:16:41 -0700, BradGuth wrote:

On May 21, 11:27Â*am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:07:17 -0700, BradGuth wrote:
On May 20, 9:40Â*am, wrote:
"Space bigwigs in Russia and Europe are working on ambitious plans
for an international space shipyard in orbit above the Earth,
according to reports. The orbital shipyard would be used to assemble
manned spacecraft capable of travelling to the Moon or Mars."

Source:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05...d_discussions/

The one and only viable location for this "orbital shipyard" is
within the Earth-moon L1 (aka Selene L1), because that's where the
most volumetric tonnage can safely coexist with the least amount of
applied energy.

The additional energy to go to L1 is a big negative to go there. L1 is
closer to the moon than earth, so it is also outside the protection of
the van Allen radiation belts.

According to all the "right stuff" that you and all others of your kind
have to 100% believe in, there's hardly any radiation to worry about,

Not true. Zubrin covers the additional radiation induced cancer risk in
his book, "The Case for Mars". The hab he proposed has a shielded
radiation safe room, which cuts down exposure during solar storms.

On Mars, you're get a great deal of protection from the atmosphere. You
can cover your hab with Martian soil for additional protection.

This argument is a bitter straw dog. No one said there was "hardly any
radiation", they said it could be managed.

near Zero radiation coming off the moon, and oddly it's actually
freezing cold between Earth and our moon.

However, since coasting requires zero energy, and the gravity of Earth
does all the necessary braking in order to sort of glide payloads
effortlessly and park whatever into the Earth-moon L1, therefore I and
the regular laws of physics do not agree with your analogy that's based
upon obfuscation.

Your ranting about some fiction you've created about what Zubrin et al
understand to be true is so utterly strange that I don't know what you're
talking about, and again, neither do you.

Two big problems with L1; it is an unstable equilibrium point, like a
ball balanced on top of a hill. It also has no material to be of any use.
It's fine as an observation point if you want to put a satellite with
station keeping capability there, but a colony? No. If you wanted a
station out in the middle of nowhere, you'd put it at L4 or L5, one of
the two stable equilibrium points.

IT makes so much sense, there is even an "L5 society".

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:02:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Thu, 21 May 2009 03:42:56 +0000, Alan Erskine wrote: :
: "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message :
news : What you really want to do is... (wait for it) ... build a :
manufacturing plant on Mars. Once on Mars, you can use Martian :
materials, so you don't have to bring as much mass up. :
: 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.
:
:Smelting is a process that usually involves Carbon, which the moon does
:not have.
:

And which you do not need, since you've got a plethora of free energy
and would like to keep the oxygen anyway.

1) No, you don't have a "plethora" of free energy.
2) Please describe the method you're going to use to convert aluminum
oxide to aluminum + oxygen, with no carbon (for electrodes) and no
hydrogen, and no fluorides. What are you doing? The Deville process? You
need carbonates for that, and again, that means carbon.


:
:You will not be doing any smelting on the moon. :

Horse manure.

By definition, smelting is the process combining carbon and metal oxides,
heating it up, and getting metal and carbon dioxide.

No carbon, no smelting.

:Yes. You get 2X the solar energy on the moon than you do on Mars. :

You get 2X *at best*. It's usually much lower than that. Now further
deduct for that atmosphere you're so proud of, dust, etc.

Irrelevant. Given that there is liquid water found on Mars, it is
possible to tap into the temperature difference on the surface (which is
quite cold) and easily obtain large amounts of "geothermal" energy on
Mars.

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.

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.

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:20:40 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:
:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote: :
::Brian Thorn wrote: :
:::On Thu, 21 May 2009 03:42:56 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:
:::
::: What you really want to do is... (wait for it) ... build a
:manufacturing :: plant on Mars. Once on Mars, you can use Martian
:materials, so you don't :: have to bring as much mass up.
:::
:::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.
::
::Where 13 day nights are the killer.
::
:
:I shouldn't have to explain this, Derek, but...
:
:Get an orange. Shine a light on one side. Go to one of the 'poles'.
:Draw a line on the orange perpendicular to the 'terminator' passing
:through the 'pole'. Stick in a pin just a bit into the light along that
:line. Stick another pin on the same line, just into the dark. Spin the
:orange along its 'axis'. Observe just how much time all of BOTH pins
:are in the dark.
:
:If you did it right, that time is zero...
:
: I shouldn't have to explain this to you Fred - but the moon isn't a
: perfectly aligned orange. Nor are we building bases on pins hundreds of
: kilometers above the orange's surface.
:
: D.
:
:Moon has a 1.5 degree tilt to the ecliptic.
:
:The area that can be planted is very small; a thin line, because the moon
:rotates, and the light is coming in horizontal, not vertically. So the
:first row of plants is going to put the second row of plants in partial
:shadow, and the third row in more shadow, and so on. No atmosphere to
:create "diffuse" light and all that.
:
:You can plant them on a hill, but the hill will not always be on the
:sunny side of the moon, due to the rotation.
:
:Nope. You're going to have to use artificial lighting and lots of man
:made energy.

Uh, who's talking about growing plants?

Do you read?

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

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...

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

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:02:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
: :On Thu, 21 May 2009 03:42:56 +0000, Alan Erskine wrote: :
: : "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message :
: news : : What you really want to do is... (wait for it) ... build a :
: manufacturing plant on Mars. Once on Mars, you can use Martian :
: materials, so you don't have to bring as much mass up. :
: : 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.
: :
: :Smelting is a process that usually involves Carbon, which the moon does
: :not have.
: :
:
: And which you do not need, since you've got a plethora of free energy
: and would like to keep the oxygen anyway.
:
:1) No, you don't have a "plethora" of free energy.
:

Yeah, you do.

:
:2) Please describe the method you're going to use to convert aluminum
xide to aluminum + oxygen, with no carbon (for electrodes) and no
:hydrogen, and no fluorides. What are you doing? The Deville process? You
:need carbonates for that, and again, that means carbon.
:

Personally, I'm going to use fluorine. Yes, you have to ship some in,
but you can then recycle it essentially forever.

:
: :
: :You will not be doing any smelting on the moon. :
:
: Horse manure.
:
:By definition, smelting is the process combining carbon and metal oxides,
:heating it up, and getting metal and carbon dioxide.
:
:No carbon, no smelting.
:

No, that is not the definition of 'smelting'. That's the process
typically used for it on carbon-rich earth, but other smelting
processes are available.

: :Yes. You get 2X the solar energy on the moon than you do on Mars. :
:
: You get 2X *at best*. It's usually much lower than that. Now further
: deduct for that atmosphere you're so proud of, dust, etc.
:
:Irrelevant. Given that there is liquid water found on Mars, it is
ossible to tap into the temperature difference on the surface (which is
:quite cold) and easily obtain large amounts of "geothermal" energy on
:Mars.
:

You can do the same thing on the Moon. In fact, without the
atmosphere the temperature differences will be even greater between
shaded and unshaded regions.

: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.

A parabolic mirror is not "large amounts of equipment".

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