|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
There are no selenosynchronous orbits. One. You're orbiting in it. xanthian. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
JRS: In article , dated Thu, 17
Mar 2005 02:07:36, seen in news:sci.space.tech, Rick Jones . invalid.retro.com posted : Would the dark/night side of a lunar power grid be cold enough to be more easily (than on earth) constructed from superconducting materials? I believe that I have read that for an east-west line in mid-northern latitudes it would be enough to put the cable at the south side of the base of a trench-and-berm, in such a fashion that the cable could "see" a large amount of "sky" without ever "seeing" either the Sun or any surface illuminated by the Sun. Present-day "high-temperature superconductors" would be used. /\ / | \ / | \ -- direction of sun's rays / | \ / | -----------/ | /--------- | /----/ | /----/ |oo / +---+ -- © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. / © Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
{...] but in vacuum you'll be constantly generating high energy ions and electrons in the surrounding plasma, and possibly causing runaway discharge due to their collision with surfaces and secondary ion production. How much plasma is there on the Moon? I would have thought that the density of earth's atmosphere falls off rapidly after LEO (isn't drag negligible by MEO?). Does the solar wind have enough density to produce arcing? /dps -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Joe Strout wrote: 1. The Lunar Power Grid + electric furnace. Who cares if the electricity comes from solar panels on the other side of the moon or from a great big nuclear pile a couple of miles away... Running power lines all the way around the Moon is itself a daunting engineering challenge (though admittedly, one probably on the same order as a mass launcher and large-scale orbital manufactury). A reasonable solution, but not such a trivial one as to make lunar night a non-issue. A nuclear power plant is also a reasonable solution, but again, it doesn't offer the same flexibility or convenience as continuous sunlight. While admittedly not most efficient for the 1st such plant, if space based industrial civilization takes any sort of toe hold, the moon will develop such infrastucture in the same way that the Earth did... (i.e. Nuclear and fossil power plants in the Southern USA sell a *lot* of power to the the Northeast over the national power grid.) 2. Space furnace mirrors can point down at the lunar surface just as easy as at an orbital processing facility... Can they? From where? There are no selenosynchronous orbits. I was thinking of Lagrange points here... but the fact is that if you build several (3 at a minimum) sets of mirrors in lunar orbit, they can "trade off" power duties to lunar ground targets as they pass by overhead... I'm basically a skeptic of human nature though... I don't think there will ever be solar power satellites or really big solar mirror farms for the same basic reason: The ability to focus a power beam at any distance is equivalent to a space weapon of incredible power. No Government will ever allow it... unless there's been a major war and only one government has access to space. Building big Photovolatic arrays *might* be allowed though... as long as the facility it's attached to doesn't have a railgun. Gene P. -- Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Mar 2005, David Summers wrote: Then why don't we use such things on Earth? Nuclear power is WAY cheaper in Mexico (or even Nevada compared to New York)! The fact is, transmitting power via cables over long distances is expensive. The grid uses nearby sources, not far away ones. Losses on long distance power cables become very large very fast. Clearly you are unaware of the fact that we *do* ship *A LOT* of power over the grid to the Northeast and West Coasts... That's why a generator fault near Chicago or in Canada can cause cascade failure of the grid in New England... because without the long-haul power imports, the local grid sources *can't* carry the load. One of the leading exports of the south is generated power. We didn't let our environmentalists and carping shouts of NIMBY! NIMBY! stop us from continuing to build power plants from 1960-1990. (NIMBY = "Not In My Back Yard") Mississippi has more than enough Nuclear power to carry the entire (mostly agricultural) state... Nonetheless, it *also* operates several of the most modern and up to date fossil power plants in the nation as well... And the Texas sub-grid sells a lot of power to the West Coast... Gene P. -- Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
D Schneider wrote:
How much plasma is there on the Moon? I would have thought that the density of earth's atmosphere falls off rapidly after LEO (isn't drag negligible by MEO?). Does the solar wind have enough density to produce arcing? The concern would be that there would be a runaway discharge from secondary ions. You wouldn't need much to get that process started. Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"David Summers" wrote:
:Then why don't we use such things on Earth? Nuclear power is WAY :cheaper in Mexico (or even Nevada compared to New York)! : :The fact is, transmitting power via cables over long distances is :expensive. The grid uses nearby sources, not far away ones. Not these days. The grid uses whatever power is there and it can come from all sorts of places. This is why when there is a power failure these days it usually takes down huge geographic areas of the grid :Losses on :long distance power cables become very large very fast. Well, no. Ever heard of DC? Total transmission losses and distribution losses in the US amount to around 7.5%. This includes all the voltage step up and step down losses as well as line losses. This is hardly 'very large'. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Cameron Dorrough wrote:
If you were serious, you'd probably direct bury them - AIUI, moon dust is a great insulator. Its a great thermal insulator - this does not automaticly mean it is also a great electrical insulator (especially if fused by the electricty first). -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Gene P." wrote: 2. Space furnace mirrors can point down at the lunar surface just as easy as at an orbital processing facility... Can they? From where? There are no selenosynchronous orbits. I was thinking of Lagrange points here... but the fact is that if you build several (3 at a minimum) sets of mirrors in lunar orbit, they can "trade off" power duties to lunar ground targets as they pass by overhead... Neither of those is anywhere near as easy as focusing light at an orbital processing facility. The distance from any Lagrange point to the Moon is huge, requiring an enormous mirror and resulting in a rather broad hot spot. And in the case of several mirrors in low lunar orbit, you've now got rapid tracking issues -- not insurmountable, to be sure, but clearly not as easy as a mirror as part of your facility, facing the sun 24x7. I'm basically a skeptic of human nature though... I don't think there will ever be solar power satellites or really big solar mirror farms for the same basic reason: The ability to focus a power beam at any distance is equivalent to a space weapon of incredible power. Nonsense. The microwave power beam from a solar power satellite has half the power density of sunlight. You could walk right through it and probably wouldn't even notice. I don't think that mirrors could focus light on Earth's surface enough to cause major damage, either. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gene P. wrote: I'm basically a skeptic of human nature though... I don't think there will ever be solar power satellites or really big solar mirror farms for the same basic reason: The ability to focus a power beam at any distance is equivalent to a space weapon of incredible power. No Government will ever allow it... unless there's been a major war and only one government has access to space. Building big Photovolatic arrays *might* be allowed though... as long as the facility it's attached to doesn't have a railgun. I've been thinking about this ever since I noticed that Dyson Swarms + Phased Arrays + short wavelength beams = the ability to evaporate Earth mass worlds in about a week anywhere in the visible galaxy and the nearer galaxies (limited by orbital predictions). On the one hand, it explains the Fermi Paradox but I think in the short run, AU range beams aren't quite the centralizing force they appear to be. Once the range is long enough, it gets hard to nail ships that have some kind of on-board motive power. A large enough swarm may be able to get close enough to destroy a pesty array. Some laser designers are less robust that others: the X-Ray lasers that were discussed last year have 100% reflective mirrors until they are jostled by an atomic diameter or so, for example, after which heat losses will make the mirrors turn into plasma somewhere between "Uh" and "Oh". Kinetic Friendship Packages are one way to make this happen. Arrays are big and will have huge, targetable radiators. Other arrays can used a la MAD to limit antisocial applications of beams. In this case, balkanization limits tyranny. If the Mercurial Power Company and Harsh Overlords LLC starts talking about "natural monopolies", it may be best to just open fire on their corporate HQ. Even with terawatt beams, it takes a surprisingly long time to evaporate even small asteroids. Dig in and invest in _good_ mirrors. James Nicoll -- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ http://www.marryanamerican.ca http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 28, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | May 28th 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - April 30, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | April 30th 04 03:55 PM |
Space Calendar - March 26, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 26th 04 05:05 PM |
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | February 27th 04 04:40 PM |
Space Calendar - June 27, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 3 | June 28th 03 05:36 PM |