A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 17th 16, 07:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In sci.physics Alain Fournier wrote:
Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM, a ?crit :
In sci.physics Alain Fournier wrote:

snip

You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You
need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your
own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency
panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in
order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on
Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area.

Alain Fournier


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.

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?


Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a
guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of
paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall
correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and
another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very
efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency
of commercial panels, but they were cheap.


Alain Fournier


40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means
you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to
generate 1 MW.

Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures
you have to build and concrete into the ground.

You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to
build the support structures and a cement plant to install them.

You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper.

You will not have any of those things until you have installed the
very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them.

It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high
efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your
own high efficiency panels and mounting structures.



--
Jim Pennino
  #13  
Old October 18th 16, 12:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

wrote:

In sci.physics Alain Fournier wrote:
Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM,
a ?crit :
In sci.physics Alain Fournier wrote:

snip

You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You
need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your
own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency
panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in
order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on
Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area.


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.

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?


Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a
guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of
paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall
correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and
another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very
efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency
of commercial panels, but they were cheap.


40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means
you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to
generate 1 MW.


So about a 300 meter square, then. And note that Alan is talking
about cells someone made in their basement. It won't be hard for a
real foundry to do better than that.


Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures
you have to build and concrete into the ground.

You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to
build the support structures and a cement plant to install them.


There are other ways to do it. Concrete is easy.


You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper.


Copper could potentially be a problem, as we haven't found any
concentrated copper deposits yet, but we have examined very little of
the Martian surface.


You will not have any of those things until you have installed the
very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them.


For some moderate value of 'very large'. When did Earth humans start
using copper and how much installed power capacity did they have at
the sites where they used it? Both the copper age and the iron age
occurred before humans even started keeping records. Earth humans
made steel before the birth of Christ.

Yes, wholesale production of large pieces is harder, but you talk like
this is an insurmountable barrier and it quite obviously is not.


It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high
efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your
own high efficiency panels and mounting structures.


Actually, it's probably cheaper initially to use nuclear power. DOE
has designed small (suitcase sized) reactors that would provide around
40 kW each. They're going to build the first one for testing next
year. Want a 160 kW nuke plant? It's the size of four suitcases.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #14  
Old October 18th 16, 02:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

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.


For extra Credit list the problems,
(hint, there are 8 major problems)


You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot. Go back to your
cave.




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. DOH!


and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?

f*ck that !!


I love how you make up the answers for other people.


take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
factories here.


That won't help you. You still won't have a job.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #15  
Old October 18th 16, 02:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Serigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.

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 .


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars. Serigo Policy 11 October 19th 16 12:14 PM
Interplanetary Helicopters & Interplanetary Automobiles HVAC[_2_] Misc 1 February 18th 10 09:20 PM
Pentagon Pushes for Smaller Satellites, Faster Launches [email protected] Policy 1 June 24th 07 07:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.