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

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.



square is not the problem, moron,

it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels

Serigo wrote:

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.


square is not the problem, moron,


Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?


it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels


They actually weigh very little and you could just make them on Mars
(which is why you start with nuclear reactors for your high power
sources). Dust is easly managed. The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays. You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat. In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.


square is not the problem, moron,


Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?

answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no
volumes, no costs, nothing

no wonder you are lost.



it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels


They actually weigh very little

WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables.

and you could just make them on Mars

WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to
mfgr a panel ?



Dust is easly managed.

WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either

The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays.

WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means
you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100.


You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat.

WRONG. why have them shade each other ?


In addition to letting the dust just slide off them,

WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A
slide does not clean.

this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.


WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway.

"Serigo" wrote in message ...

On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the
US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.


square is not the problem, moron,


Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?

answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no
volumes, no costs, nothing

no wonder you are lost.



it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels


They actually weigh very little

WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables.

Compared to the cost of other items, that's not much. And as Musk is
bringing down the cost, the mass is easy.


and you could just make them on Mars

WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to mfgr
a panel ?



Dust is easly managed.

WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either

Why can't you sweep it off?
And if you want to use a gas... hmm.. funny thing, you've got this whole
ATMOSPHERE there.


The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays.

WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means
you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100.

Cite on staying that way for months?
And remember, the rovers didn't have anyone who could go out there and brush
them off if needed.
A base of people will have.. you know, PEOPLE to do so.




You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat.

WRONG. why have them shade each other ?



In addition to letting the dust just slide off them,

WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A slide
does not clean.

this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.


WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway.

Which is what batteries are for. This is independent of the angle of the
panels.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In sci.physics Serigo wrote:
On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.


square is not the problem, moron,


Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?

answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no
volumes, no costs, nothing

no wonder you are lost.



it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels


They actually weigh very little

WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables.

and you could just make them on Mars

WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to
mfgr a panel ?



Dust is easly managed.

WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either

The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays.

WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means
you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100.


You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat.

WRONG. why have them shade each other ?

Maximum energy is intercepted when the array is point south and angled
at an angle equal to the latitude of the location. Anything other
than that further reduces the available power per square meter by
a factor related to the sine of beween the collector and normal to
the sun.

In addition to letting the dust just slide off them,

WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A
slide does not clean.

The periodic winds will blow most of the dust off, just as it does on
the rovers. Just expect your already small power to be further reduced
periodically.

this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.


WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway.

Wrong answer, it reduces the total daily power.

--
Jim Pennino

Le Oct/16/2016 à 4:00 PM, Serigo a écrit :
On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:

On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for
the US
section at 120kw.
So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.

Sigh.

Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.

To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
3,000 square meters of solar panels.


Sigh.

Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.


square is not the problem, moron,


Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?

answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no
volumes, no costs, nothing

no wonder you are lost.



it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels


They actually weigh very little

WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables.

and you could just make them on Mars

WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to
mfgr a panel ?

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

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?



--
Jim Pennino

Le Oct/17/2016 à 1:28 AM, a écrit :
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

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:31:05 PM UTC+13, wrote:
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.


Mars has a semi-major axis that is 1.524 AU. That means the average solar intensity normal to the rays from the Sun is 1368/(1.524^2) = 589 Watts/m2. Hyper-efficient solar panels, which I helped originate with the multi-junction solar cell, have today achieved 70% efficiency, and will soon attain 85% efficiency, their theoretical limit. At the lower level this is 412 W/m2. A sphere has 4x the surface area of a circle the same diameter. Thus, the average power output of a panel on the surface of Mars is 103 W/m2.

Thin disc lasers of 70% efficiency are also possible.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=29420

Here, sunlight is concentrated to an intensity of 2.18 MW/m2 and that is converted to usable laser energy that is beamed to a bandgap matched PV device to produce electrical energy on demand with 65% overall efficiency. A 610 meter diameter concentrator, made of GBO multi-layer polymer film

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...ull?siteid=sci

Focuses light on to a 10 meter thin disc laser array, that beams energy 17,000 km to the Martian surface, from an aerostationary orbit. This 610 meter diameter disc intercepts 172.1 MW of solar energy and produces a laser beam 120.5 MW in intensity. That beam is focused on a 10 meter diameter receiver using conjugate optics, 17,000 km away. This receiver generates 111.9 MW of electrical power.

The GBO multi-layer film is 0.005 mm thick and masses 80 grams per square meter. The entire disk masses 2.34 metric tons! An 0.8 mm thick wafer that's 10 meters in diameter, that forms the thin disc laser array, and active optical beam forming device, masses 180 kg. A total of 2.52 tonnes. This is easily deployed by the spacecraft prior to entry into Mars's atmosphere.


Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive,

Not really. Mars surface is 14% by weight water ice. So that's abundant! With very few clouds and a thin atmosphere, sunlight is abundant too. Of course laser beaming from space is highly efficient as well.

Water is produced by solar electrolysis;

4 H2O + energy --- 4 H2 + 2 O2

9 litres of water is broken down into 1 kg of hydrogen gas and 8 kg of oxygen gas using 142 megajoules of energy. The satellite described earlier could process 788 kg/second of hydrogen from 7.1 kilolitres of water per second.

Hydrogen reduces CO2 extracted from the atmosphere to methane and water

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O

Here 4.3 kg of CO2 is combined with 0.788 kg of hydrogen per second to produce 1.576 kg of methane per second and 3.65 kilolitres of process water which is recycled. 15.48 metric tons per hour require 16 screw compressors each capable of compressing 100,000 cubic meters of Mars atmosphere per hour - each consuming 0.1 MW - so, a total of 1.6 MW is required to run these compressors - to raise pressure fro 6 millibar to 5.1 bar. The CO2 is then liquified, and purified, and processed further with microwaves to break the CH4 down into elemental carbon and hydrogen

CH4 + energy --- C + 2 H2

which costs another 2 MW to convert 1.576 kg/sec of methane into 1.182 kg of elemental carbon along with 0.394 kg of process hydrogen. This eliminates the need for fresh water, and reduces the energy consumption in the first step by half - or alternatively doubles the production rate for a given power input.

Carbon is combined with silica to produce silicon and carbon monoxide.

2 C + SiO2 --- 2 CO + Si

3.152 kg/sec of carbon + 7.880 kg/sec of silica equals 7.354 kg/sec of carbon monoxide and 3.678 kg/second of silicon metal.

So, 111.9 MW of power produces 3.678 kg/sec of silicon metal from silica found on Mars. 30.48 MJ/kg. It takes 2 kg to cover a square meter with silicon panels. Silicon nanowires can be hydrogenated to adjust their bandgap energy directly, making hyper efficient solar panels possible that are 70% efficient.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0427.pdf

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005026626A3?cl=en

Of course, methane can be made into a wide range of plastics - including the GBO film described to allow operation of highly concentrating solar panels, improving mass efficiencies by reducing mass accordingly.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...ut-waste/?_r=0

The cost per kg of plastic is about half that of silicon. Running at the concentration described above, 2.34 tonnes of plastic is required for each 0..18 tonnes of silicon. A system operating on the Martian surface generates 1/4 the power level, so the power is 28 MW - whilst the plastic has an energy cost of 35.1 gigajoules and the silicon has an energy cost of 5.4 gigajoules. An overall energy cost of 40.5 gigajoules to produce 28 MW of averaged power on the Martian surface. This is a replication time of 24 minutes!

So, if we started with a dish 1128 mm in diameter, intercepting 1 sq meter of sunlight, that had a micro-scale process on board that took silica carbon dioxide and sunlight to make copies of itself, it would have a doubling time of less than half an hour. Let's say inefficiencies extend this time to an hour. The surface area of Mars is 144.37 trillion square meters. Starting with ONE square meter, with a doubling time of ONE HOUR. We have

LN(144.37e12)/ln(2) = 47.036 ~ 48 hours.

after landing a solar powered self replicating system would have the entire surface of Mars covered with solar panels.


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?

A small one square meter self replicating system that is solar powered and uses CO2, H2O and SiO2 found on Mars to make GBO multi-layer plastic film reflector, and hydrogenated silicon nanowire with tuned photovoltaic systems, could cover the entire surface of Mars with solar panels in 2 days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUj8JRAYu8

Once that were in place, the entire surface could then be transformed into habitats. 25 trillion tons of CO2 is converted into 6.8 trillion tons of carbon and 18.1 trillion tons of oxygen. There is also 500 billion tons of nitrogen. Enough nitrogen to fill 534 trillion cubic meters of space with atmosphere equivalent to Earth at sea level. This is sufficient to cover the entire Mars surface to a depth of 3.7 meters (12 ft)




--
Jim Pennino

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?


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?


You've had this explained to you repeatedly. 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.


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