[HN Gopher] Powering the Lunar Base ___________________________________________________________________ Powering the Lunar Base Author : mercutio2 Score : 116 points Date : 2021-08-07 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (caseyhandmer.wordpress.com) (TXT) w3m dump (caseyhandmer.wordpress.com) | zardo wrote: | With 1/6 g, no wind, and no quakes, I'm not sure you can rule out | building a 3km tall tower without actually doing a design study. | llukas wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Moo... | inglor_cz wrote: | Also, extreme temperature changes. At least compared to | Earth. | unchocked wrote: | I find it odd that the author dismisses hydrogen storage largely | based on the requirement to mine water for electrolysis and then | goes on to propose using ~12,000 tonnes of water for thermal | energy storage. | tuatoru wrote: | 12 000 t of water is a large swimming pool (about 5 Olympic | pools) and could be used as such, perhaps. | | Edit: using hydrogen for steelmaking or other reductive | processes yes; for energy storage, we have better choices. | You'd make it as you need it. | baybal2 wrote: | Storing water does not require pressure vessels, nor cryogenic | coolers. | errantspark wrote: | It pretty definitely requires pressure vessels if you care | about it's phase. | natosaichek wrote: | Well it requires a closed container that maybe has to take | a few psi of water pressure. It doesn't require anything | that can tolerate thousands of psi like hydrogen does. | nine_k wrote: | More importantly, water does not diffuse through metal | vessels. | sfifs wrote: | Personally, I think the most viable long term option would be to | build solar farms with 120 degrees separation on the moon's | circumference so you'd always have a fairly constant amount of | solar power generation & run a HVDC grid. From what I can make | out, a 1000 Amps capable Aluminum Composite core power cable | seems to weigh about 500kg per km [1](I may be mistaken here, | happy to be corrected). Moon's circumference is about 10000 km & | so you'd need about 7000km of cabling or about 3500 tons. That's | only about 20-40 Starship trips to transport the cables itself. | Maybe with some minimal cladding (no rain/ice etc on moon), it | could possibly even be laid or buried on the ground vs. requiring | pylons. Once the solar panels are installed, there's little | maintenance needed compared to earth (dust) and you could | progressively add over time. | | [1] https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/480556O/3mtm-accr- | techni... | ramshanker wrote: | There must be a redundancy of minimum 2 independent cables | though. Can't risk losing power with any single fault event. | kwhitefoot wrote: | Just add another 3000 km of cable to complete the ring main | then every point is supplied from both directions. | tuatoru wrote: | That 1000 A rating probably assumes some conductive and | convective cooling, and earth-surface temperatures. | | It'd need to be bigger. And 1000 A isn't much if you're | planning to make anything at scale on the Moon. | | Great idea though. | bishoprook2 wrote: | Is there somewhere on either pole with constant partial | sunlight? or is there some sort of 'seasonal' tilt? | | I like the idea of the three power stations, but you still need | enough backup power for eclipses. | politician wrote: | The cable could be manufactured from the Aluminum in the Lunar | regolith which could simplify the logistics. | jfk13 wrote: | Although shipping the cable-manufacturing plant out there | might not be entirely trivial either. | nkingsy wrote: | How many starships full of copper would be required to run a hvdc | line between enough points to get constant coverage? | baybal2 wrote: | Moon is 10% aluminium, with that constrain, I doubt copper will | see much use for long range transmission. | voakbasda wrote: | Mining and refining aluminum takes a huge amount of power, so | you're back to hauling tons of wire to build the initial | infrastructure. Mining is definitely the way to go after that | bootstrap stage, but this question remains: is this the best | bootstrap plan? | inglor_cz wrote: | You have a shitton of solar power at your disposal _during | the lunar day_. Lunar surface is raked by the full solar | constant of power, no atmosphere = no attenuation. That is | quite a sizzle. | | So you can smelt a lot of aluminium during the fortnight | when the sun is up. And build a web of wires around the | entire Moon so that during the cold and dark lunar night | you can get power from the other side of the Moon. | gpm wrote: | But one of the key observations from this article is that | we won't be power constrained, we will be constrained by | _consistent_ power, since power at night costs far, far, | more than power during the day. | | If we can ship some extra solar panels up and refine | aluminum during the day, to reduce the cost of power at | night, it seems likely to be entirely worth it. | javajosh wrote: | It's funny, I never thought of electricity as being a big issue | for a moonbase. There are so many ways to store potential energy | - you could, for example, put a bunch of moon rock/dust on a | platform and run electric motors to raise it for 14 days, and | then, during the lunar night, allow the platform to lower and | generate electricity. But the remarkable 300 deg temp swing is a | dream for power generation, although the OP is right that you'd | need a medium (e.g. lots of water) to harness it as a carnot | engine. Still, fun to think about since it's a hard, but not | unsolvable problem. | gpm wrote: | I'm a fan of this comment: | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/powering-the-l... | | TL;DR - Just don't be there during long winter nights. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | Apparently McMurdo Station needs 7000 tons of assorted supplies | each year. Assuming Moon Base runs on a similar scale, that's an | initial annual budget of $7bn _just for the shipping._ | | This assumes air and water are solved problems and don't need to | be shipped. | | Note that oxygen != air. 100% oxygen atmospheres are not a good | idea for extended stays. | | Nitrogen is not common on the Moon. Nor is carbon (for filtering | or other organic applications.) | | It's not easy to imagine a lunar base generating >$7bn of returns | every year. Apart from space tourism, there isn't a whole lot you | can do/build/sell on a moon base that has more value on Earth | than it would cost to transport back here. | | Of course you could argue Science, and that's fair enough. But | literally all the commercial arguments I've seen have been | "Something will no doubt appear" - which is possibly not going to | win over rational investors. | jhgb wrote: | > Apparently McMurdo Station needs 7000 tons of assorted | supplies each year. Assuming Moon Base runs on a similar scale, | that's an initial annual budget of $7bn just for the shipping. | | This would never be a real scenario. McMurdo supply runs are | not designed for such high transportation costs. With such | transportation cost expectations you'd be pressed to lower the | mass of the supplies in the first place so that the sum of the | cost of preparing the supplies and the cost of transferring | them were minimized. You need to compare two Pareto optima | completely, not just one axis of them. | ketzo wrote: | Yeah, but flipside, you're probably gonna need things on the | Moon that you wouldn't for a terrestrial base. I think it's | fair to assume that the $7bn a year figure is just a very | rough number, but still a useful one for understanding just | how outrageously expensive it would be to maintain a Moon | base. | jhgb wrote: | You kind of have a model of a lunar space station in the | form of ISS. That's definitely not 7000 tonnes of supplies | for a base. Maybe something like 15 tonnes per year or so. | aplummer wrote: | So that's 1% of the US military budget. Double it and it seems | affordable? What is the return on aircraft carriers 8-11, when | the next most powerful nation has 1. | taneq wrote: | Also let's be honest, aircraft carriers are super awesome and | fun and good for scaring brown farmers but in a modern war | against an equal power they're not especially practical. | Couple o' kinetic strikes and your $13 billion new toy is | slag on the ocean floor for like, what... cost to get mass to | LEO is $2600 per kg so if we want 100 special order | deliveries of 1-ton rods from God that's $2.6mil per rod = | $260 million to sink a $13 billion aircraft carrier and | destroy how many billions of dollars worth of F22s and | ammunition? | | Like, I love aircraft carriers, they're so cool. But also | physics says not so effective. :S | jeffdn wrote: | That's also assuming that the satellite that drops said | rods can maneuver into the orbit required to drop the rod | without: | | 1. getting knocked out at the commencement of hostilities | by an anti-satellite weapon | | 2. the Defense Intelligence Agency/National Reconnaissance | Office noticing and telling the carrier to change course | | 3. getting blown up by an anti-satellite missile fired by | an aircraft, or a member of the carrier's strike group | | Rods from god are a much more potent weapon when used | against static targets! | taneq wrote: | 1. Sure once we're under way but that doesn't change how | good they are from a first strike perspective. | | 2. As a species we can land a rocket on a barge, do you | think we can't land a big crowbar on a slowly moving | target? | | 3. Might make 2 more difficult but a 1-ton tungsten rod | is pretty durable. | | Certainly more potent against a static target but with | modern tech and one skilled, ethically ambivalent | engineer, these days you could probably hit a row boat. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Because the barge is carefully positioned to be in a | place this exact rocket drops from the sky. | | Satellites are not 'sitting in orbit', they are falling | on earth extremely fast, and not reaching it only because | they fall sideways. Since they go very fast, they have | immense momentum. To attack a target you have to steer | that momentum elsewhere, and _that_ takes a lot of energy | and precision,and you also have a _very_ small attack | area for every satellite. So to cover all earth reliably | you 'll need a constellation with numbers like Musk's | Starlink - i.e. thousands of satellites. | dnautics wrote: | Honestly the most important use of a carrier (especially | for china) is going to be in supporting naval vessels | interdicting against pirates harassing or stealing from oil | tankers shipping from the middle east; china depends on | mideast oil to feed its people. The us does not as of | 2019-ish, and may in the short to mid term cease protecting | international sea lanes especially in the mideast since we | are rapidly disengaging out interests in the area (e.g. | pulling out of Afghanistan). | [deleted] | kcb wrote: | I'd imagine in the opening phase of a war most orbital | military systems aren't going to last very long. | driscoll42 wrote: | The problem is that if you want one aircraft carrier on | active deployment, you really need three physical carriers. | One on patrol, one about to go on/off patrol, and another in | maintenance. So really 11 carriers lets you actively patrol | 3, maybe 4 zones. And again, that's just one carrier in that | area, if you can to concentrate resources you might get a few | more there, but then you're delaying maintenance/training. If | anything the US needs more carriers as recent years have | taught the navy. | | https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland- | security/25... | | https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy- | ships/a359282... | pirate787 wrote: | Except that aircraft carriers are obsolete-- sitting ducks | that will be sunk by long range guided missiles within | hours of the next Great Power conflict. Submarine carriers | with fleets of drones are the obvious replacement. | robertk wrote: | In fact, they have 2 in active service and are rapidly | constructing more. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-photos-show-chinas- | ne... | nsonha wrote: | As long as there is a race then it justifiable, is it | bigger fool economy or not quite? | dwaltrip wrote: | It looks like you are using a price of $1000 / kg to get that | figure. Prices will be much lower than that once fully reusable | rockets are widely deployed. | | Currently, equipment costing tens of millions $USD are thrown | away on every launch. It's hard to overstate the shift fully | reusable rockets will bring. | tintt wrote: | People were optimistic about LEO shipping costs when the | Space Shuttle program just started, but it didn't exactly | work out economically. Partially reusable F9 was meant to | decrease lunch costs, and it did, but not to the extent some | hoped. Starship, no doubt, will bring prices down, but then | again, even $1k/kilo to the moon surface sounds kind of... an | aspirational stretch. | sandworm101 wrote: | Retirement homes in the lower gravity? And there is the | helium-3 fusion dream. That's the purpose of so many recent | scifi moonbases. | garmaine wrote: | Helium-3 from the moon will never be a commercially viable | energy source. At best it might be captured incidentally as | part of other mining operations and sold to research labs. | There are just too many other fusion options that, while not | as ideal, have fuels that are vastly easier to obtain. | cstross wrote: | Get back to me on 3He fuel mining in the regolith after (a) | demonstrating a working 3He cycle aneutronic fusion reactor | (hint: it's _much_ harder than the D-T fusion cycle that we | haven 't got working yet, although ITER is supposed to | demonstrate it), and (b) ruling out other aneutronic fusion | fuels like, oh, proton-Lithium-7, or proton-Boron-11 ... | which are only somewhat harder to achieve than 3He fusion, | and which run on fuels readily available here on Earth. | | (My gut sense is that if aneutronic fusion is practical _at | all_ then it 'll be cheaper to build more expensive reactors | that can run on terrestrial fuels so cheap we use them for | car batteries and as an insecticide, rather than slightly | less difficult reactors that are fuelled by magic | extraterrestrial unicorn sparkle-dust.) | ben_w wrote: | I saw a blog calculate that regolith He3 was so sparse that | even with a reactor to use it in, one would make more | energy from purifying the metals, coil-gunning the purified | ingots just past the L1 point so they would fall to Earth, | and setting fire to the ingots. Or, entirely separately, by | pointing the ingots at electromagnets and collecting the | energy from the induced currents from electromagnetic | braking. | | (I wish I could find the original and link to it. For all I | remember it might have been you who wrote it). | medstrom wrote: | 70 wealthy retirees, each paying $100M annually. | nsonha wrote: | Let's coerce them into spending that money, in fact what do | old people need that much for, let's seize it for science | sonograph wrote: | The market for retirees who are willing to pay $100M | annually to live in a pressurized bubble on the moon is | maybe one or two, for only one annum | sandworm101 wrote: | I assume that catering to those 70 Uber wealthy might | increase cargo needs slightly. But it would cut down on | family visits. The kids might pay to have grandpa sent to | the moon. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | It is likely that permanent low gravity will kill them even | before boredom and depression from realization that the rest | of their lives will have to be spent in those small confines. | | (Low gravity is extremely unhealthy. And even a relatively | short 1-week stay in such conditions severely affects cardio | muscles, so that super-healthy astronauts have to exercise | for several hours per day to keep their heart in shape) | Nexialist wrote: | A paper I read recently (Harper 2016 - 10.1089/space.2015.0029) | has numbers based on the supplies needed to the ISS. | | The gist was, "Without some sort of recycling and/or use of in | situ resources, meeting the lunar settlement goal of 100 people | would require delivery of over 1 million kilograms of life- | support consumables per year." | | And then assuming a PLSS life support system you get to to | needing about 5500kg of consumables delivered per person per | year. | | [1] https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/space.2015.0029 | WalterBright wrote: | All the biomass would have to be recycled back into water and | food. | | The gating thing may be if lunar dust is workable as raw | material for soil or not. | LatteLazy wrote: | I can't tell you whether the figures are accurate, or if it's a | good investment but... | | $7bn is 20 usd per US citizen. If the US and EU did it together | its less than $9 per person per year. | | We can afford vastly more for aircraft carriers or walls | between the us and Mexico or farm subsidies admin costs or | medicare. | ben_w wrote: | Yeah, but one of the big parts of the Brexit referendum's two | Leave campaigns was moping about a number merely twice that | size being spent for all the combined benefits of a customs | union and single market (the absence of which is now being | blamed as a partial cause for empty supermarket shelves!), | not something which cynics already deride as a billionaire | size-measuring contest. Much as I love space, any proper | space program -- even ones well short of colonies -- must do | something tangible down on Earth. | LatteLazy wrote: | I'd be careful taking anything from the brexit campaigns as | evidence of anything. It was a baseless conclusion in | search of excuses... | | I take the wider point though. Its hard enough to get | voters to find money for anything other than pensions, tax | cuts or bombs. | | People love criticizing Bezos and Musk for spending money | on rockers. But I actually think they're fulfilling | something we as a society have sadly neglected. | samstave wrote: | Will we ever get to some other metric than "money" WRT | 'returns'? | | I've always wondered about this WRT "black budgets" and the | theories about Breakaway Civilizations; "Of what value does | 'Money' have in Space?" | | --- | | Lets assume that trillions are funnelled off into black budgets | for [purposes] -- that assumes that hte 'money' (fiat currency | (paper/the-concept-of-value/10101010s/etc)) is being used to | pay for/buy [goods/services] -- Where the hell is all this | money going? is there an economy and a place where such vast | amounts are being spent. | | Lets assume they are paying their | engineers/suppliers/companies/etc - the Deep Workers far beyond | the depths of SkunkWorks etc - where exactly is that money | going? What are they buying. | | This has been the biggest flaw for me in thinking about | Breakaway Civs - and spending money/making money in Space. | | If we were to assume that the moon had some set of valuable | minerals/etc that would be beneficial to mine and then return | to earth, where is the value in mining Tungsten on the Moon | (given your shipping calc, for example) and bringing that back | to earth unless the earth had none of said resource... | | Personally, it would be interesting to think about how a | production capability could be built on the moon to support the | fabrication and manufacture of vessels on a lunar-orbitting | ship-dock, which then could carry on to mars/wherever... and | pull from the resources of metals on the moon, which AFAIK is | supposed to have a lot of metal... | | Further, why has Musk constantly talked about "going to Mars", | but said seemingly very little about doing a dry-run, proto, | etc to the Moon first? | | Shouldnt building a Moon-base be much more immediately | important than a Bezos-esque trip to Mars? | | FFS SpaceX is talking about getting to Mars, but all the | required life support eco-system requirements do not appear to | have been even addressed? | | It all feels amiss... Please enlighten me. | tintt wrote: | $7bn is just a third of NASA budget, it's doable, but you're | right, there's no reason to go as big as McMurdo Station with | today's technology. | taneq wrote: | > Assuming Moon Base runs on a similar scale, that's an initial | annual budget of $7bn just for the shipping. | | Wow that seems like a lot, which figures for launch and payload | delivery are you using? Because NASA was like $1mil per kg to | LEO and isn't SpaceX like $5000? | go_elmo wrote: | Looking forward for the re-boost of nuclear space-technology so | many scientific opportunities! | aerophilic wrote: | The idea I have always liked, though have never done the numbers | on, is a giant "heat pipe" that would circle the moon. You could | put it on any latitude you want, but you effectively take | advantage of the temperature gradient to continuously flow a | gas/liquid around the moon. That in turn turns turbines attached | wherever you need the power. | alphydan wrote: | for those interested, this Austin startup is hiring and building | potential lunar bases: https://www.iconbuild.com/technology/space | papito wrote: | This doesn't even mention Helium-3? Come on. | ncmncm wrote: | Lunar Helium-3 is a mirage. There is no plausible scenario | where trying to gather lunar He-3 turns out well. | Diggsey wrote: | How about two/three sites around the Shackleton crater which beam | power back and forth wirelessly across the crater as each site | goes in and out of sunlight? | ncmncm wrote: | Cabling would be the thing. | | Shackleton Crater might make an awesome radio telescope. | edgyquant wrote: | This is a sexy idea. I don't know if it would work, but it | would be fun to work on | h2odragon wrote: | dont miss the bit on "remotely beamed microwave power." | | "silly idea" it may be but now i _want_ a mega-maser as described | for my own sporting purposes. | coatdoor wrote: | Wouldn't you just use earthlight and normal solar panels? The | internet says moonlight is 1/345th the power of sunlight but | once you factor in Earth's larger radius and larger albedo you | get 1/9th the power of sunlight. IE you just use 10 times as | many solar panels to get you through the night. | jhgb wrote: | > The internet says moonlight is 1/345th the power of | sunlight but once you factor in Earth's larger radius and | larger albedo you get 1/9th the power of sunlight. | | That sounds weird. As per Wikipedia, Sun's apparent magnitude | is around -26.7, full Moon's is -12.7, so the Sun is 400000 | times brighter than the Moon under the best circumstances. | Earth being larger can't correct this by three orders of | magnitude. | MCllorf wrote: | I'm not trained in STEM at all but these discussions are always | a little confusing for me because if our goal is to bootstrap | mining/manufacturing in space, why does everyone jump to | expensive, complicated and inefficient solutions like "energy | lasers" when we've had power lines for like 150 years and can | make them on-site much more easily? | jdavis703 wrote: | This question is answered in the article and I guarantee you, | most STEM specialities will never discuss this particular | problem. | | Anyways, the TL;DR is all those cables weigh a lot, so | launching them in to space isn't cheap. | whatshisface wrote: | Well, cables are going to be cheaper at some distance and | power beaming will be cheaper at a greater distance, and the | question is, where's the crossover. | h2odragon wrote: | Look at the efficiency numbers on contact free charging | pads. "Beaming" fails for power transmission immediately; | it needs other factors to justify the efficiency hit; and | once you're out of near field its much much worse. | gpm wrote: | Microwave transmission of power hits 70 or 80% efficiency | http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/shu2/ | | What you're seeing with phones isn't microwave, but | inductance, very different technology with very different | benefits/drawbacks. | sjansen wrote: | The article mentioned why very quickly while discussing | building multiple solar farms so that at least some aren't in | shadow at the same time: sending enough cable up on rockets | to connect all of them would be more expensive than the | "expensive, complicated and inefficient solutions". | extrapickles wrote: | Its likely because bringing a smelter and wire drawing | machine don't feel "space age". Also most people think of | small bases where its not cost effective to bring a bunch of | manufacturing capacity as quite a few processes don't scale | down well. Mining is another issue as you would need to find | good sources of each major metal within transportable | distance of your base. | | With the current capital cost of ~$50/W to beam power, its | reasonable to think about for small endeavors, but for a base | designed for 100k people making power lines onsite is better, | as you will need that manufacturing capacity for other things | anyway. | Uke wrote: | it might be a weight constrain? | extrapickles wrote: | Its probably more realistic to put a few satellites in orbit of | the moon and beam power from them. This keeps the distances | down so the transmitter and receivers can be more reasonably | sized. | | If you also switch to laser power beaming, they can illuminate | the existing solar farm so a separate receiver is not needed. | h2odragon wrote: | I'm totally in favor of any plan that has multiple megawatt | SPACE LASERS as part of it, yes. | hereforphone wrote: | Do they expect to outdo the sun? | h2odragon wrote: | In one very specific frequency band, at one comparatively | small place, yes. by a large amount. Ocean vs firehose. | | Or, better: In the same way every "daytime headlight" you see | is outdoing the sun. | hereforphone wrote: | Which 'frequency band'? | https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spectral-power- | density-o... | jhgb wrote: | The one that the receiver is the most sensitive to. The | fact that sunlight comprises many wavelengths is the | reason why single-junction cells have comparatively low | efficiency. | rrss wrote: | microwave | hereforphone wrote: | Brilliant answer | h2odragon wrote: | > Achieving a beam that narrow (1/2000000 rad) from the | Earth would require a phased array spaced out over a much | larger area, at least 200 km at 5 Ghz (6cm). | | I doubt they'd want a very large band but in microwave | work I dunno what counts as "large". | | and i'm a little afraid to go look deeper into this | because i'll wind up tearing up junkyard microwave ovens | and building something i shouldn't. | hereforphone wrote: | It won't let me reply to your response to _my_ response | to this comment. But just let me say that as an engineer | with tons of RF experience, you 're full of shit. | IggleSniggle wrote: | At least one person here is exploring an idea and trying | to learn. I don't get how that makes a person "full of | shit" | jacquesm wrote: | Maybe you should add the HN guidelines to your 'tons of | RF experience' and see where that leads you? | TigeriusKirk wrote: | This thread would be interesting if you would show your | work. I'm here for interesting ideas, not people | declaring their expertise without educating us. | | Educate me. | hereforphone wrote: | I'm not the one making the wacky assertions. Ask the | parent posts to demonstrate their claims first. | h2odragon wrote: | The only assertions I've made are that im interested in | this idea. The assertions the blog post made included a | link to another post [1] under the text "I have written | more than once about how silly this idea is". referring | to "the space-based solar power trope." | | You're arguing against ... what then? | | [1] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space- | based-so... | macintux wrote: | One of you is performing some mildly interesting | speculation out of confessed limited knowledge. One of | you is being rude, insulting, claiming to be the expert, | but offering no new information. | | One of you is contributing to the thread, at least. It's | not you. | hereforphone wrote: | The headlight vs. sun comparison (which I think was an | edit?) is irrelevant because we're comparing the amount | of energy deliverable over distance. The energy delivered | by the sun (at a tenable band) vs. the energy delivered | by the remote transmitter on earth, after the 'link | budget' has been applied (taking into account distance, | atmospheric attenuation, and so on) are the two things | that need to be compared. | h2odragon wrote: | I beg you pardon, im not arguing for the idea of a earth | to moon microwave power link as viable. or sensible. I | think it's _beautifully insane_ , i have severe doubts | about the actual practicality of such a thing, etc. | | But thats the thing: now i want to do a mad max maser on | a truck with maybe dozens of magnetrons if i could tow a | generator... | | It fits with my "Orbital Slingshot" project so well, too. | hereforphone wrote: | What is your Orbital Slingshot project? | h2odragon wrote: | I'm glad you asked :) | | It's a totally silly idea to built a big ass slingshot | that throws things as high as possible. I figure calling | it an "Orbital Slingshot" makes it at least as viable and | investment worthy as some of the other efforts [1] and | [2] forex. | | If I can get my daughter to do some artwork I might fire | up a web page for it finally. | | [1] https://www.space.com/23015-slingatron-reusable- | launch-syste... | | [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/spinlaunch-is- | using-la... | [deleted] | rrss wrote: | Ok, check my math. | | basics: solar constant: 1.36 kW / m^2 | earth-to-moon range: 400 km | | parameters from the article: frequency: 5 | GHz -> wavelength: 6cm earth antenna array linear | dimension: 200 km transmit power density: 100 W/m^2 | | Let's assume that the earth antenna array elements are | 50m wide, and spaced out such that they cover 1% of the | total 200km * 50m area, for a total antenna aperture of | 1e5 square meters (10% of the SKA). Combining the stated | transmit power density of 100 W/m^2 with the antenna | area, we get a total transmit power of 10 MW. | | Throw it at Friis: power density at moon | = transmit power * earth antenna area / (range^2 * | wavelength^2) = 10e6 watts * 1e5 m^2 / ( 400e3^2 | m^2 * 0.06^2 m^2) = 1.73 kW / m^2 | | Atmospheric attenuation at 5 GHz is pretty minimal. If we | conservatively assume 20% loss, I think we still end up | with a higher power density at a single frequency than | from the sun across the entire spectrum. | | I don't think anything like this will ever be built, but | I don't see why it is impossible. Where's the mistake? | inglor_cz wrote: | > earth-to-moon range: 400 km | | Three zeros seem to be missing. | rrss wrote: | yikes, thank you | state_less wrote: | I'd imagine they'll need to do a number of electrochemical | reactions to make oxygen to breathe and fuel to burn, etc... Use | an oversized solar array and store the chemical products in | tanks. Batteries are chemical stores too, no? Anyhow, not sure of | the efficiency of all these reactions, but more panels could help | until further reaction improvements can be made. | Diggsey wrote: | The article does consider that option via splitting and storage | of water, and then recombination via hydrogen fuel cells. | | According to the article the mass of the storage vessels needed | to store 2 weeks of pressurized hydrogen and oxygen are | comparable with the mass of batteries you'd need, although I | haven't done the calculations myself... Intuitively I would | expect this to be more efficient than batteries though. | gpm wrote: | I think the point here is rather that power load at night can | be much lower than power load during the day, if most of the | energy is going to optional processes like making oxygen | and/or rocket fuel. | ncmncm wrote: | If you are storing gases at the lunar pole, liquid is the | right form. Then the tanks are very light and cheap. | Liquifying gases is very easy there. | fnord77 wrote: | another Musk fanboi, redoing the speculative work that NASA did | in the 70s and then claiming credit for it. | ttul wrote: | So, nuclear then. | edgyquant wrote: | It's both hilarious and sad that we don't talk about nuclear | because other countries will think we're building bombs. I | definitely think the space treaty has to go and be replaced by | a reasonable treaty that allows militarization of space. | | Right now it's akin to nobody building planes that can Cary | more than a single person (and no cargo) because they know it | gives the other party an advantage | MichaelZuo wrote: | You want to allow every nation to be able to militarize | space? Since that's what a renegotiated UN treaty implies. | edgyquant wrote: | Yes. We are only putting it off at the moment and it's | hampering progress. If we could put nukes in space it would | remove the stigma of using nuclear energy. And other | countries could build their defenses so they aren't as | worried. We should build a more realistic treaty that | doesn't hamper progress. | gpm wrote: | You're creating an imaginary strawman and arguing against it | here. | | The space treaty does not ban nuclear power, only nuclear | weapons. Nuclear power is just for the most part not worth | it, and in the rare cases where it has been worth it, we've | used it, in the form of RTGs because that's the only form of | nuclear that has ever made sense for any space mission we've | launched. Nuclear power is talked about a _ton_ in the space | community, with everything from "here's a way we could | potentially power spacecraft to bases" to "hey, maybe we | could build a nuclear powered rocket engine and get much | better mass ratios when we send things to mars". | edgyquant wrote: | I said that because nuclear weapons are restricted when | anyone _wants_ to build anything nuclear in space it gets | put on the back burner because no one wants to piss of | other countries (who are understandably afraid of it being | a covert weapon.) | | I didn't create a strawman, you did by claiming I did and | then arguing against that. You did by claiming it's talked | about in the "space community," whatever that means, when | we're talking about actual space infrastructure in the | implementation phase. | gpm wrote: | It is simply not the case that nuclear weapons being | restricted means anything nuclear in space gets put onto | back burner. And there is no serious opposition from the | poliferation from despite your strawman that there is and | your strawman that it is forbidden by the otuer space | treaty. This is not a strawman on my part, I am directly | addressing the argument you actually made in your | comment, even if I was wrong it would not be a strongman, | and I resent the fact that you would say "no you" when it | is obviously false. | | Space community here is just a throwaway phrase I used | for the various entities involved in Space, space | agencies like nasa and the esa, research agencies like | darpa, and the huge groups of contractors around them. | For instance the latest award of funding that I'm aware | of from the US is that General Atomics was awarded $22 | million in April of this year for nuclear thermal | propulsion research (and theoretically to demonstrate in | on orbit by 2025, I'm fairly skeptical that they will | meet that goal): https://www.ga.com/general-atomics- | awarded-darpa-contract-to... | inglor_cz wrote: | The tricky part about nuclear in space is that you either | manufacture the fuel somewhere off Earth too, or you need to | launch it from Earth, with a non-zero chance of the rocket | failing and tons of highly radioactive fuel contaminating the | atmosphere. | | I would probably risk that on a rocket that proved to be | reliable enough, say, 500 launches in a row without a single | failure. | ncphil wrote: | Yeah. Nuclear may not make sense here on Earth -- even | Antarctica -- where the environmental and human health | consequences are practically unavoidable (especially when | implemented by the lowest bidder), but space outside of LEO is | another matter. NASA is in fact looking at it. | https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks- | nuclear.... Although the idea of migrating researchers to a | sunlit base when night falls at their primary base has | potential, it's probably going to be more practical to stand up | a whopping big RTG or full-on fission reactor a distance off | from the habitats. Space borne fission plants are going to be | necessary anyway if we're ever going to send people to the | outer solar system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). We might | as well learn how to make them work on the Moon ("It's a damned | research project!"). | devoutsalsa wrote: | Nuclear is basic the safest (and climate change friendly) | form of power generation am we have. Isn't it? | ncmncm wrote: | On Earth's surface? No. But various forms make sense | elsewhere. | ncmncm wrote: | A smallish chunk of Strontium-90 would safely power quite a | lot of moonbase for years, as the Soviets did their remote | lighthouses. Strontium-90 is the ideal radionucleide; | emitting negligible gamma rays or neutrons, it just sits | producing heat. | | For power in the cloudtops of Venus, Titan, Saturn, Uranus, | or Neptune, a full-scale nuclear reactor is as simple as a | naked atomic pile hanging near the bottom of a big fabric | tube with a wind turbine at the top, supported by a balloon. | All the radiative output goes into heating the air around the | pile, which rises and drives the wind turbine, which is the | only moving part. | | On the gas giants, it would have to be supported by a hot-air | balloon, because the atmosphere is hydrogen. | | On all four planets, surprisingly, gravity is very close to | Earth-normal. (On Titan it is rather less.) Orbital velocity | at the gas giants is much higher, though, so as comfortable | as it might be there, it's hard to get home from them. | andyxor wrote: | the only answer is nuclear, simply because of energy density | required for space applications. | | the creators of the original solid-core Krusty/Kilopower reactor | are trying to commercialize the tech, I hope they have enough | funding (@sama, I hope this is on your radar) | https://www.spacenukes.com/ | | This is the first fundamentally new reactor actually built and | tested by NASA in more than 50 years (vs. countless paper | designs) https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/fission-surface- | power... | | EDIT: I highly recommend watching the presentation by David | Poston "Space Nuclear Power for Mars" | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luQfEYs2L0w | baybal2 wrote: | I don't see battery storage as a problem for the first outpost, | but yes, kilopower reactors were made exactly for this. | | Another option for early missions is just to limit them to 14 | days. | | Heating of the base can be achieved by preheating the regolith | deep beneath the surface. With regolith density we know, it | should be well feasible. | | Thermal insulation can be made very efficient in space because | there is no atmosphere. | | I see a nuclear/rtg base power for life support, and solar | powered regolith smelting following the 14 day cycle. | Robotbeat wrote: | That's pretty reasonable. Particularly since nuclear (fission | or radioisotope) produces a lot more heat than electricity | (thermal to electrical conversion efficiency is just 23% for | Kilopower and 3-9% for RTGs), so using it for base heating | during the night is a much better argument. And even some | solar powered rovers like Spirit and Opportunity used small | radioisotope heat sources to stay warm. | Robotbeat wrote: | "The answer is nuclear" is repeated often but often is an | innumerate answer. Kilopower for most uses in the inner solar | system performs considerably worse than solar. The power to | weight ratio of Kilopower is about 6-7W/kg, no better than old | time RTGs. UltraFlex solar panels do about 150W/kg near 1AU. | | Nuclear in the lunar case may be useful for base power due to | the long lunar night which makes storage pretty heavy, but | nuclear is actually usually WORSE performance than solar, | producing much less power for the same mass. It's only in the | outer solar system around Jupiter or in niche cases like lunar | night where nuclear has a solid lead on solar. Otherwise it's | similar or worse, besides being a lot more expensive. ~$100 | million for 10kWe Kilopower. | slfnflctd wrote: | > in niche cases like lunar night | | Why would lunar night be considered a niche case? Wouldn't | this affect any and every long term installation? | Robotbeat wrote: | No. The lunar night is 14 days long, which means you need | 336 kWh of storage for every kilowatt of constant power. In | orbit, you only need maybe 30 minutes of battery, so | 0.5-1kWh per kilowatt of power. Mars surface has a similar | day/night cycle as Earth, plus a need for margin for dust | storms, so nuclear is roughly the same mass as solar if you | need near constant power, but still solar is potentially | cheaper if you need a LOT of power. | inglor_cz wrote: | Another nearby place with really long nights is Mercury. | | Well, Venus too, but surface conditions are absolutely | unsurvivable for people. While you can build an | underground city on Mercury. | andyxor wrote: | i think you are missing the point of Kilopower, it was to | build a working micro reactor prototype on realistic | timeframe and actually ship it, they have designed the | extension of this to MW scale where energy density is order | of magnitude better. | | Nuclear scales better than any other source of energy. How | many sq feet of solar panels do you need for 1, 10, 100, | 1000, 10000 MWe, now translate it to lbs and $$$ cost | (including shipping to the moon or mars base), also consider | dust and lunar night conditions affecting solar use. | | if you look at scaling it vs. weight and cost (including | maintenance and replacement panels over 20-30 years), solar | is no competitor to nuclear. | Robotbeat wrote: | No, the larger nuclear power plants (50kWe) NASA has | developed to reasonable TRL are still around the same power | to weight ratio. Nuclear, in addition to everything else | like the dynamo and the reactor itself, requires heavy | radiators. | | Also, Kilopower has a SHORTER lifespan of about 15 years | whereas solar can last 30-50 years (solar degradation is | much slower than is often claimed, at least when we'll | engineered and in the absence of high humidity) as there's | no moving parts and nothing to refuel. Remember, | terrestrial nuclear reactors are regularly refueled | (annually?) and maintained. | | The traditional argument has always been that nuclear | scales better than solar, but usually such comparisons are | looking at sandbagged, outdated solar panels and very low- | TRL nuclear designs relying on super high rejection | temperatures (ie unrealistic) or shorter lifespans. | | I'm not anti-nuclear by any stretch, and I fully support | increased funding and deployment of nuclear power, but I | think there has been a lot of hand waving by some nuclear | advocates. If you look at actually achievable, near term | nuclear designs, none of them perform anywhere near as good | as solar does in orbit near 1AU, and it's not even close. | It's surface applications or outer solar system where | nuclear has a chance against solar. Outside of those cases, | solar is much more powerful for a given weight (meaning | cheaper to transport) plus being far cheaper to build and | not requiring special launch vehicle risk mitigations | (currently, the only nuclear-rated launch vehicle is Atlas | V... and every nuclear launch must be approved by the | executive branch). | | (A human Mars base may benefit from a mix of power sources | for resiliency purposes.) | mschuster91 wrote: | I wonder... we used to use electrically heated stone as storage | medium for heating homes, until it became uneconomical due to | energy price hikes. | | A lunar base could electrically heat up a _lot_ of easily mined | rock and use that to store enough heat to keep the base warm | enough? | bbojan wrote: | Yes, but that's not an issue here. Life support would require a | lot of electrical energy, not heat. | mschuster91 wrote: | What do you need for basic human life support? Light, oxygen | generation/CO2 removal, water, and electricity for vehicles | and work appliances. | | Oxygen and water can be stored in tanks sufficient enough to | ride out the 14 days dark cycle, LED lighting is extremely | efficient (especially if everything is under 9m of moon soil, | so no light can escape useless to space), the only thing that | may be a problem is CO2 removal - no idea how much energy | that uses. | gpm wrote: | I think CO2 depends heavily on what you're doing with it. | | You filter CO2 out of the atmopshere using zeolite beds at | relatively low temperature/high pressure, you then recharge | those by venting the beds at relatively high | temperature/low pressure. | | If you're venting the CO2 to space (they do on the ISS), I | don't have numbers/proof to back this up but you probably | don't need much energy at all. You just pass air through | the absorbing bed at ~1ATM (i.e. with a fan), and a heat | exchanger from the venting bed to the absorbing bed might | even be enough to keep the temperatures in the right range. | | If you're capturing the CO2 afterwards however, you | probably need some more energy-expensive machinery. Again, | I don't have numbers, but you're definitely talking about | running a compressor to force the venting CO2 into a tank | now, and you might want to compress the absorption side as | well to get a bigger pressure gradient. | | The only real use of that captured CO2 is to recycle it | into something useful (e.g. O2 and CH4 using the sabatier | reaction), and that reaction is going to be endothermic, | but you can probably just store the CO2 until you have | sunlight and do it then. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-07 23:00 UTC)