|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.
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 ? For extra Credit list the problems, (hint, there are 8 major 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. and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ? f*ck that !! take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building factories here. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:20 PM |
Pentagon Pushes for Smaller Satellites, Faster Launches | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | June 24th 07 07:20 AM |