Solar belt around the moon planned by Japanese engineers

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Descrier

Solar belt around the moon planned by Japanese engineers
Published on November 29, 2013

A Japanese engineering firm have announced plans to build a Lunar Ring around the moon’s equator to collect energy from the sun’s rays and “beam” it back to earth.

Shimizu, the construction and engineering firm behind the audacious idea, plan to construct a 400km-wide belt stretching around the entire equator of the moon for 11,000km. These solar panels would be able to absorb more of the sun’s energy as there would be no atmospheric interference, and then they plan to beam the energy back to earth as microwaves and focused lasers, which would then be converted into electricity back on the earth’s surface.

The company claims that this could generate as much as 13,000 terawatts of energy, nearly 1000 times the total yearly energy usage of the planet.

The company have said they they plan to have a pilot demonstration by 2020 and begin construction on the project by 2035, explaining:

“Virtually inexhaustible, non-polluting solar energy is the ultimate source of green energy that brings prosperity to nature as well as our lives”

Read more: http://descrier.co.uk/science/2013/11/solar-belt-around-moon-planned-japanese-engineers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=solar-belt-around-moon-planned-japanese-engineers

[MADem]

1. Yeah, like beaming massive amounts of energy down on the earth, controlled by one nation, is a good

idea....

These are the guys who are dealing with Fukushima...what could possibly go wrong?


Oh, so sorry...didn't mean to burn Moscow to cinders, there.....

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Um, that is not what Shimizu's plan is about

In their plan presented on their website, they very clearly state (in Japanese) that this would be an international effort. Not controlled by one country, definitely not controlled by TEPCO.

http://www.shimz.co.jp/theme/dream/pdf/lunaring.pdf

[MADem]

33. ....they very clearly state (in Japanese) ...

You know, I used to be able to order a meal, ask for directions, and find the bathroom in Japanese, back a few decades ago, but I was never too swift at reading the language. so....

they very clearly state (in Japanese)

is probably not "very clearly stated" to most of us without fluency in the language!

The web page also has the word "dream" in it, so I'd not be surprised if this is a flight of fancy more than an actual plan....and if they really wanted an international effort, they'd put a few translations up in there (or at least make it possible to pull the text off the page and see what one could get off a web translator...)

But hey, thanks for the help!

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Here you go

Their "dream", in English

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/index.html

[MADem]

43. OK--it IS "dreams," proposals, concepts. There are no plans--this is just an idea barn.

I gotta say, I don't see this as terribly feasible, for the reasons outlined by others in this thread.

I like the Space Hotel better!

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/spacehotel.html

Reminds me of 20001: A Space Odyssey

[Art_from_Ark]

50. The English version leaves out some things from the Japanese version

such as the timeline of the technological development.

And why would they put specific plans out at this stage?

Shimizu does lay out what they think could be accomplished, and no doubt they have conferred with JAXA about this. JAXA is the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, which has close ties to NASA and which is involved with the International Space Station. In fact, JAXA even links to the Shimizu proposal on its web site.

http://fanfun.jaxa.jp/faq/detail/339.html

[MADem]

51. Art, this is a pipe dream. I don't see this happening in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes

of the next generations.

It's a horrible use of the moon, too.

We'll find a better, simpler, "takes up less space and energy" way to fix our energy problems. This is just, like I said, an "idea barn." Or, as the link you provided points out "fanfun."

[Art_from_Ark]

59. "Fanfun" is referring to taking questions from fans of JAXA

The question asked is 宇宙太陽光発電とはどんな計画ですか？ "What kinds of plans are there for generating electricity from solar power in outer space?" To which JAXA talks about what that would entail, including installing Space Solar Power Systems and providing a link to its research and to its YouTube video. After that, there is また、JAXA以外の企業・大学等でも次のような研究・構想がありますので、
あわせてご紹介します。 "We would also like to present the following research and concepts from non-JAXA companies, universities, etc.," among which is the link to Shimizu's plan.

Sure it might be a pipe dream. But powered flight at one time was a pipe dream, as was sending astronauts to the moon and bringing them back, as was sending space probes to other planets and even out of the solar system.

[MADem]

60. If people want to amuse themselves with this, no harm.

I just think fouling the moon to bring beams of energy to earth is a bit, well, halfassed. Surely there are better, easier, more sustainable ways to provide energy to humans rather than ruining a huge chunk of the moon and putting the "beam down" area "off limits," otherwise we'd get fried...

Let's make solar cells more efficient, embed them into building materials, like windows, siding, roofs, etc....let's develop wave technology....let's keep pushing wind.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. I am all for green energy

Heck, if I thought it would be cost-effective, I would install solar panels on my house. As it is, it would take at least 10 years to get back my investment, and I don't think I'll be around there that long. I do use passive solar heating with huge south-facing windows and tiny north-facing windows in the house, and at night, lights (which are the "energy-saving" type) are turned on only when they are being used. All appliances are also "energy-saving".

[MADem]

64. I know they are working on solar roofs that aren't "panels"--the solar tech is embedded in the

shingles or tiles or what-have-you. That's where we need to go, and we need to make the systems easier to install and use, and, of course, cheaper.

http://wonderfulengineering.com/reduce-your-electricity-bills-with-new-solar-roof-tiles/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingle

They aren't quite there yet, but they are on their way....

[Katashi_itto]

84. Whoever masters this technology and uses it, that country will be the Saudi Arabia of the 21st cent.

I hope we go with power Satelites. Same prinicple but closer to earth and we end up with space colonies at Lagrange Point 5 to build and maintain the arrays of satelites.

From L-5 colonization of the solar system is much easier.

[MADem]

87. Well, we'd need to shift our world paradigm from confrontation to cooperation.

Anyone controlling that satellite could jink the thing to aim at some city and fry it.

We'd need a LOT of trust to do anything like that.

Not saying it won't ever happen but we have a ways to go before we, as earthlings, are "boldly going" without trying to steal from one another and gain advantage.

[Katashi_itto]

88. Dude/dudette...you can't fry anything, not with the tech that would be used.

Solar power gets converted to low level Microwave energy... beamed to some recieving field located in some place like Death Valley. A huge field of "rectenna" that converts the energy back to electricity and sent to where ever.

But the design of the Powersat would be a fixed wide beam, not focused.

I mean it would not be healthy to stand under it for days, but you wouldnt have a Death Star weapon capable of vaporizing Hakensack, New Jersery (as much as you might wish) in one shot.

Although Lex Luthor did have the right idea about Hackensack...

[MADem]

89. Hey, my microwave oven can be set to defrost, or it can pop corn.

Who's to say some jerk might not find a way to turn that "low level" to high?

And who's to say some nefarious actor might not find a way to turn that wide beam to a focused one?

I hate to quote Saint Raygun referencing the Soviets, "trust but verify," though that's about the size of the situation!

We're just not at the place where we as earthlings trust one another that much...

[Katashi_itto]

92. I understand it would make a great James Bond film, but in real life;

An undertaking of this magnitude you would have a million eyes on the powersats. Every element built or purchased would be looked at.

You just can't keep Death Rays real secert, it's a problem nowadays. NSA found out the hard way.

Also would it matter to you if I told you that, to build a regiment of viable targeting Death Satelites, the design of the satelite would have to change enough (attitude jets, focusing arrays, etc.) to be noticed by anyone with half a brain?

I forgot, it was already made into a Bond movie too darn it.

Diamonds Are forever.

[MADem]

94. People get fooled all the time.

Argo, anyone (despite the Hollywood-ization of the film, that was a grand ruse...)...

The Glomar Explorer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer

Never Say Never Again....wasn't that a James Bond film, too?

[Katashi_itto]

95. Yep I know all about Glomar, very cool projet.

Never Say Never Again was an unoffical Bond Film, a remake of ThunderBall

Well, I pointed out all the things that would get noticed for a military grade weaponized satelite.

Not to mention if they put a shroud of secrecy around the sats that would kind make things ....noticable.

But hey if nothing else I for one look forward to making you serve the new glorious Japanese Empire!

We can make you rue the day you defeated Japan last time you Gaijin Devil!

[MADem]

98. Never mind a shroud of secrecy...you have to think like a screenwriter!

The story gets put out that a mini-asteroid damaged (insert name of inocuous part) of this peaceful satellite and a team has to go up to replace it. The team actually goes up and weaponizes the thing, and then .... muahahahahaha....they

Take Over the WOOOOORRRRRRRLLLLLLLLD!!!!!

[Katashi_itto]

111. :)

[RC]

114. A solar belt around the Moon?

If anyone cares to notice, the Moon orbits, moves around the Earth. A moving target. Low level microwave energy=low power out, even taking into consideration the many square miles of receiving antennas needed. To say nothing about an uninhabitable belt around this planet.
Just because those magical microwaves can boil water in an inclosed box, does not mean it can be beamed anywhere and still have useful power at the receive end. The conversion efficiency from microwave to 60 cycle Alternating Current, capable of powering anything useful is quite low.

[Katashi_itto]

116. I agree, I have always thought geosynchronous orbital powersats are more realistic.

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

However, either way, moon-based or orbiting powersat. You need a moon-based mining camp to supply the raw materials.

[Katashi_itto]

150. Several experiments show Microwave transmission is quite feasible

The SBSP concept, originally known as Satellite Solar Power System (SSPS), was first described in November 1968.[1] In 1973 Peter Glaser was granted U.S. patent number 3,781,647 for his method of transmitting power over long distances (e.g., from an SPS to Earth's surface) using microwaves from a very large antenna (up to one square kilometer) on the satellite to a much larger one, now known as a rectenna, on the ground.
Glaser then was a vice president at Arthur D. Little, Inc. NASA signed a contract with ADL to lead four other companies in a broader study in 1974. They found that, while the concept had several major problems – chiefly the expense of putting the required materials in orbit and the lack of experience on projects of this scale in space – it showed enough promise to merit further investigation and research.

William C. Brown demonstrated in 1964, during Walter Cronkite's CBS News program, a microwave-powered model helicopter that received all the power it needed for flight from a microwave beam. Between 1969 and 1975, Bill Brown was technical director of a JPL Raytheon program that beamed 30 kW of power over a distance of 1-mile (1.6 km) at 84% efficiency.

Microwave power transmission of tens of kilowatts has been well proven by existing tests at Goldstone in California (1975)[33][34][35] and Grand Bassin on Reunion Island (1997).


Comparison of laser and microwave power transmission.NASA diagram
More recently, microwave power transmission has been demonstrated, in conjunction with solar energy capture, between a mountain top in Maui and the main island of Hawaii (92 miles away), by a team under John C. Mankins. Technological challenges in terms of array layout, single radiation element design, and overall efficiency, as well as the associated theoretical limits are presently a subject of research, as it is demonstrated by the Special Session on "Analysis of Electromagnetic Wireless Systems for Solar Power Transmission" to be held in the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Antennas and Propagation.
In 2013, a useful overview was published, covering technologies and issues associated with microwave power transmission from space to ground. It includes an introduction to SPS, current research and future prospects.

I personally am not overly sure about the Moon based transmission idea. However Orbital Power Sats are I think more practical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

[EX500rider]

156. "rather than ruining a huge chunk of the moon"

Rather hard to "ruin" a airless rock with daily temperatures from -387F to +253F and no life forms.

[MADem]

157. When they put the new Hilton Hotel up there, and people start playing Moon Polo up there,

we'll see who calls it an "airless rock." And as for "no life forms" I'm betting the disco they put in on the top floor of the hotel will be rocking all night!

[sofa king]

159. We have "dreams" of our own, too!

Those of you who love hard science fiction will absolutely adore the Nasa Institute of Advanced Concepts publications:

http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/studies.html

(The Final Reports are mostly in .pdf format, requiring a .pdf viewer or plug-in.)

It isn't crazy at all to envision mega-projects of this scale because they're working on the premise of exponentially reproducing machinery, which is already among us in the form of 3D printers. Here's just one "advanced concept," which is what we call our own dreams:

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/880Chirikjian.pdf

If, for example, one spends a couple billion dollars to set up a single 100-ton operation on the lunar equator, and that facility is capable of reproducing itself in one year as well as building one square kilometer of solar, mining, and transport array within that year using only lunar materials, then the entire equator of the moon can be covered with solar arrays in about fifteen years. (circumfrence of the moon ~ 11,000 km; 2 ^ 14 = 16,384).

For both safety and station-keeping purposes, it's probably better to aim the microwave death-ray at the Earth-Moon L4 and L5 Lagrange points, ensuring that misdirection of the initial beam cannot easily be used on the earth, and then smaller beams would be directed to geostationary receivers. The process does not have to be particularly efficient, since any additional energy comes from outside of the earth's relatively closed thermodynamic system (in much the same way that hydrocarbons work today, by burning yesterday's energy in addition to the energy we are receiving from the sun today).

One problem that will have to be addressed is the fact that the addition of that much heat-energy to the earth might rival current global warming rates through hydrocarbon use, which are dumping stored heat energy at prodigious rates today. One way to avoid further heating the earth, and possibly even partially reversing the warming trend we have ignited, would be to beam the Earth's surplus power and collected heat-energy back to the moon, where it could be used to cook volatiles out of lunar material (for example, one could put a transparent lensed dome and rectenna over a large-ish crater and roast it with a microwave array from Earth's south pole to cook off and capture oxygen, He3, hydrogen and nitrogen). or to simply deposit the surplus heat someplace where it doesn't threaten us by re-melting some of the Moon's surface. So it might be the Earth that is training the death-ray onto the moon, using this plan!

We probably wouldn't be where we are today without the "dreams" of Wehrner von Braun and the visions (sometimes frighteningly cautionary) of artist Chesley Bonestell, so do not underestimate their power!

[WowSeriously]

44. We'd be in the Stone Age with that kind forward thinking

[Posteritatis]

70. Simcity is not a documentary. (nt)

[MADem]

78. Isn't that nice! nt

[wercal]

2. Sounds like a joke

[pnwest]

3. Sounds like a future war.

[demwing]

69. bingo

No one owns the moon, but we all know who'll own the solar belt.

Enormous revenue stream + centralization and control of vast resources = military target

[MyNameGoesHere]

4. Not really

people have been researching the idea for quite some time. Wiki has some decent notes about the research. Some testing has been done with varied results.

[wercal]

9. If its not a joke, its pure quackery

The dimensions given is 1.8 million square miles....half the size of the US. So these scientiets are going to build and launch into space enough solar panels to plaster half the US?

And put solar panels on an ateroid scared rock with no atmosphere?

And expect that the power generated by any one panel will ever exceed the power required to get it to space?

It can't possibly be a.serious article.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. man will never fly!

just saying

[wercal]

21. Over the last 150 years, we have collectively paved 60k square miles of the US

This plan proposes paving 1.8 million square miles (an area 30 times greater) with solar panels.

......just saying.

[Orrex]

22. Your objection is ridiculous. 1.8 million square miles?

Obviously they'll use the metric system.

[wercal]

25. You should have told me earlier...

It might work in metric units.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Goddamnit Orrex

You gotta warn people not to drink coffee while reading your posts. I'm serious. This is not the first time.

[Angleae]

56. Keyboard or monitor?

Fess up, which got ruined.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Pants.

Well, it could be worse. I was at least WEARING them.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. It is quite serious

This is from Shimizu's own web site:

http://www.shimz.co.jp/theme/dream/pdf/lunaring.pdf

[wercal]

20. They might really be 'researching' this,

But its as serious as a snake oil salesman doing clinical trials.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. I am sure scientist won't launch things into space

Japan and the USA have a space agency for such things. And I am quite sure our engineers aren't defeatist. Sometimes it's just too hard to think big. Lot easier to drill a hole and burn some more oil.

[wercal]

18. Being realistic isn't being a defeatist

I happen be an engineer my own little self. Tomorrow I've got to go in to work and finish some cost estimates....you see I've got a pretty good grasp of what it costs to cover the ground with asphalt....and anyone who does knows how flat out dumb and impossible it would be to cover one half of this nation with anything, especially something as expensive as solar panels. It could never be done on earth. Of course it can't be done on the moon.

And quite frankly the moon, not having an atmosphere, gets more than its fair share of asteroid hits....which might not be too great for 1.8 million square miles of solar panels.

But ignoring all that, I don't think these genius scientiste have run the numbers on how much energy it would take to make 1.8 million square miles of solar panels....and LAUNCH them into space! How many decades would they have to be there to offset that energy use.

And don't even get me started on the colony that would have to be established to house the people who would build this thing.

Its stupid. And it will never happen.

[MyNameGoesHere]

36. Well

I am happy there are always one or two folks around to remind everyone else that things just can't be done. Well played.

[mindwalker_i]

47. As much as I hate to say this

He has a point about launching that big of an ass-load of solar panels into space and getting them to the moon. The costs using chemical rockets for this are about as far from insignificant as it can get. Now, there are possibly other technologies that could do it for far cheaper. Robert Forward was working on rotating tethers that would orbit the Earth pick things up at altitudes where atmospheric pressure was very low, and fling them to various destinations. Such a system, with another at the moon, could get things from here to there using no more energy than getting the things to the pickup point above (most of) the atmosphere. Unfortunately Dr. Forward died of cancer about 10 years ago.

I haven't read the article and it's kind of late to take something like that on, so I don't know how they plan on solving the transportation problem. Maybe they plan on manufacturing the solar panels on the moon? That would be non-trivial as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Non-trivial, but significantly less problematic than building them on earth.

Even if you could make them 10 microns thick, on earth, they would still weigh too much.

You'd have to build them on the moon itself, out of lunar materials (theoretically possible).

[Sirveri]

153. you would build them in orbit out of asteroid mined materials.

Lunar colonization is a must for this to be achieved. However the entire concept is somewhat silly, why build solar panels there when we have so very many roofs here that go without solar panels?

[WowSeriously]

45. Amazing Americans made it to the moon with this defeatist attitude.

But we go fucking awesome killing machines!

[AtheistCrusader]

53. You wouldn't build them on earth.

You would build them out of lunar materials, where mining, smelting, and other ecological costs are negligible. Power is cheap, and plentiful. Just need a high degree of automation. And time. Lots of time. In fact, you'd spend the first long while building machines that fabricate panels, first, before ever building a panel.

[wercal]

73. Wait a minute...

Your name is Atheist Crusader....you're a skeptic, who doesn't just believe in any old thing.....

Yet you believe in this scheme?!?

Made my day.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Believe in it?

I believe it is technically feasible, whether this guy pulls it off or someone else, someday.

It could be done. Could it be done by him? In my lifetime?

No opinion.

[wercal]

106. Trust me, its not technically feasible

The high end projected lifespan of a solar panel is 40 years. They are proposing to pave 1.8 million square miles of the moon with panels. So we can calculate a rate that the panels would have to be produced at, in order for it to be up an running in 40 years, and 1/40th of the panels replaced every year. That would be 45,000 square miles of panels produced and installed in a year. Any rate slower than this would mean that the panels installed in year one need replacement before the project is complete...and it never gets complete - ever.

So lets look at 45,000 square miles per year. That's 123 square miles a day, or two square miles an hour of panels produced and installed. Any rate slower than this means the project isn't possible, period.

Can you think of anything that can be produced and installed at that rate? Certainly not concrete or asphalt or sod. I don't think a farmer can fertilize a field that fast. I don't even think a crop duster could spray 2 square miles in an hour. We aren't even close to being able to install 2 square miles of solar panels anywhere, in an hour, much less the moon.

So no, its not technically feasible. Scale is a very real constraint on feasibility, and the scale of this thing out-sizes the useful lifespan of a solar panel. And lets say the panels double in lifespan to 80 years...we're down to installing one square mile of panels per hour.

Now remember, this is perpetual. As panels end their useful life, they will have to be replaced, on a continuing basis, at a rate of one square mile per hour, to keep up.

That is frankly impossible.

[jeff47]

119. Actually.....

Can you think of anything that can be produced and installed at that rate? Certainly not concrete or asphalt or sod.

As of 2006, concrete production and installation could cover an 123 square mile area 3" deep per day.

This guy says one typical crop-duster covers 500 to 1000 acres a day. That's 0.7 to 1.5 square miles. For one crop-duster. I think we have more than 123 crop-dusters in the world.

Yes, each individual couldn't keep up. Fortunately it wouldn't be just one person.

Now, the really impossible part is the energy transmission problem - targeting a beam that accurately isn't a trivial problem, especially when both bodies are moving and spinning.

[wercal]

128. Ok, I went a bridge too far with the crop dusting

But lets get back to solar panels. Assuming they last 40 years (which I believe is a very high estimate in a moon environment), they would have to get replenished at a rate of 2 square miles a day. That's mined, built, installed....two square miles.

Solar is growing, and we are currently installing 3,300 MW a year in the US, or 24,000 acres, or 37.5 square miles of solar panels in this nation....per year. The per hour output of this nation is then 0.004 square miles.

So, the rate of installation on the moon would have to be larger than current US production by a factor of 500....and its on the moon....and the panels have to get moved thousands of miles from where they are built to where they are installed. And it has to keep up that pace forever.

It will never happen....any resources devoted to such a scheme are completely wasted...resources that could have been invested in research into proven sources of energy.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. I think the servicable lifespan of those panels might be a tad longer.

Also, they can be thinner, lighter, less material. little in the way of elements to stand up to, and little in the way of gravity to resist. Imagine a panel produced 1/10th the thickness of current panels.

Most of the necessary materials are clearly available in the moon. They can be mined, refined, and manufactured on-site. Mostly automated.

The serviceable lifespan would be longer as well, just due to the sheer starting point of efficiency, having it in full, nearly unobstructed atmosphere. (dust and only a VERY thin atmosphere to deal with.)

Handling BIG impacts might be a problem, I suppose. lots of dust across a lot of panels.

I would distribute the mining, refining, and production facilities, so distance from production to installation is minimized.

[wercal]

133. An article about moon dust

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/11/the-mystery-of-moon-dust.html

Panels would probably have a much shorter than normal lifespan. The mere fact that the sun's rays are unfiltered and accelerating the photo voltaic process should also reduce their life.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. I didn't look to see if there might be any filter-capable materials, but

I'm willing to bet there's something there that could be used for a filter to reduce the direct exposure.

Dust will be an issue. Might have to also produce Roomba-like bots to scrub them.

[wercal]

154. I'm not sure you're comprehending the scale

At 1.8 million square miles, and two ft wide robots that travels 100 miles a day, you would need 129,000 robots operating continuously, in order to clean the panels once a year.

At some point, its too much. Its not a good idea and I hope research dollars are not squandered on this.

[Laelth]

76. Quite so.

The panels would need to be manufactured on the moon from moon-mined minerals. Water for the process would be the big problem, I suspect, as most industrial processes require water. A permanent colony (just for maintenance) would be a necessity, as would a reliable Earth to Moon transportation system..

You raise sound objections, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this plan could work.

-Laelth

[reACTIONary]

81. But setting up a web site...

... to tout the idea is extremely cost-effective. And the more wild and impractical the idea, the more upside potential - at no additional cost!

[Katashi_itto]

86. You've no idea what you're talking about.

I work for a particular govt agency that deals with space.

This is no big deal. Once you get past the inital outlay. All the tech exsists.

Once you get past the intial deployment of the required equiptment and personnel.

1. Make sorties to the moon. Set up a base and nuclear reactor for your intial power supply.

2. Moon dust is nothing more than pulverized minerals. Titanium, aluminuim, silicon, Hydrogen and other gases bonded to the dust, driven by the solar winds.

5. Collect the dust from several football sized fields. 3 football fields could collect several million tons of raw marterials. You collect the dust with huge mobile industiral sized "Vacum Cleaners" think the size of Farmers Combines, either automated or man-piloted.

4. Using the reactor you pass the collected dust a plasma arc to release the hydrogen and other lesser gases to use for other processes like water, O2. Everything you need to reduce shipments to the moon.

5. The reactor powers a smelter. Dust goes in raw materials come out.

6. Raw materials go to an semi-automated factory to build the panels.

7. Panels are put in place using a comination of robots and drones.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. It would be a big deal, and the technology doesn't really exist yet

The "we can start production in 2035" is pretty ridiculous. As someone pointed out above, manufacturing without water is pretty much unknown. "Make sorties to the moon" with a nuclear reactor is, in itself, untested so far. So is a long term manned base on the moon, because this initial work is beyond any automation that could so far be done. As well as the people and all their life support, you'd have to send up huge amounts of machinery to form the factory that can then make more machinery, that can then start producing solar panels.

The amount of effort needed in the short term (what - the next century?) before you could benefit from it would make it a contributor to Earth's energy problems, at the point where we need to fix things now.

[Katashi_itto]

97. The hydrogen already bonded to moon soil solves the water problem.

The other tech needed already exists in different forms and in different uses. It would have to obviously be adapted. But the base tech is there. Short term. Anyones guess.

Long term, the real question is why wouldnt you plan long term to do this and address the long term global issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. And the machinery to extract that hydrogen will have to be transported up there

The amount of hydrogen existing in that form is also very small. In the mean time, you've got to keep alive all the people running the plant with material all brought from Earth.

Look how long it's taken to build the ISS, and do some simple experiments there. You're talking about transporting the components of a nuclear reactor to the moon, requiring far more lifting capacity, plus an entire habitat for many people - and assembling it all in one place. It's easy to rendezvous in orbit - you can use rockets to gradually bring 2 things together. We've never landed on the moon precisely - everything will have to be transported from the best landing site you can do to the assembly point. Including the components of a nuclear reactor that can then be assembled and started in an environment you've no chance of practising in. No, this is not going to happen in 22 years.

[Katashi_itto]

109. Totally Incorrect. Three tonnes of rock are needed to produce each tonne of oxygen

, and in tests the UK team saw almost 100% recovery of oxygen, he says. Fray presented the results last week at the Congress of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry in Glasgow, UK.

Scientists in Cambridge, UK, have developed a reactor that can make oxygen from Moon rock — a vital technology if plans to create a lunar base are to take off.

The heating demands are small too.

To heat the reactor on the Moon would need just a small amount of power, Fray notes, and the reactor itself can be thermally insulated to lock heat in. "It won't be a problem," he says. The three reactors would need about 4.5 kilowatts of power — not much more than that used to heat an immersion heater in a domestic boiler — which could be supplied by solar panels or even a small nuclear reactor placed on the Moon.

As for base set up. That can be automated. You can have several sorties of automated or robotsto set up the base.

Sadoway's reactor could even build itself. The interior would be Moon regolith — the powdery rubble that forms the Moon's surface — heated electrically to become molten, and the exterior would be solid regolith that has cooled. "We form the wall of the reactor by allowing the molten regolith to freeze," he says, but admits that starting the process is "tricky".

Sadoway says that with sufficient funding, he could have his system scaled up within two years. His process has been shortlisted by NASA and is receiving some funding from the agency. "Once we solve the materials problems at the lab scale we should be able to move quickly," he says

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. We both said *hydrogen*, not oxygen

You were talking about hydrogen present in tiny amounts from the solar wind - not oxygen that is part of the basic minerals of the moon.

[Katashi_itto]

118. Sigh....Here

this is the basic process of obtain O2 creation of H2O first then the second process makes theH and the O2
Pg 5
http://www.ou.edu/class/che-design/a-design/projects-2004/Oxygen%20Production%20in%20the%20Moon-Extended%20Summary.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. 'sigh' - that's about carrying hydrogen to the moon, and then using it in a cycle

to liberate oxygen from the rocks. You don't obtain hydrogen that way - you have to find some to start it, and you never get any extra out.

The alternative, which it mentions, is to use ice from craters at the poles, which is (a) not what you have been talking about (b) at the wrong end of the moon for an equatorial manufacturing facility.

[Katashi_itto]

124. You can do that either way. Process rocks or do the ice.

You dont need to be set in "stone" (hahahah made a funny) there are mutiple processes that are proposed and several that have been proven to work.

Bottom line is it's all workable.

The most important thing is have an operating moon mining colony. To supply whatever is built with the raw material needed.

Personally I think the moon panels are overkill. I would go with Oribtal Power Sats.

Either way, your "and the technology doesn't really exist yet" isn't correct.

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. At least read the paper you linked to before you claim to know what it says

No, it is not about getting hydrogen from rocks. It is, again, about using hydrogen to get oxygen from rocks. Just read it before you post it, next time.

And so, since you are throwing random links at us without reading them, in the hope that it will back up what you claimed earlier (whatever happened to the 'hydrogen from the solar wind' this started off with?), we can see your posts on this subject are worthless.

[Katashi_itto]

130. Your one to talk

Tried being polite.

I get condescending BS from someone who shifts the subject away from their initial premise, when that is refuted. Constantly looking for any excuse to turn the subject around to something they can be right in.

Who declares things like there was never any reactors in space when there was..you know what?

More power to you. Have fun!

[Katashi_itto]

121. Tiny amounts....Hmm I wonder what a ton of O2 broken down to H weighs....

As for reactors being unproven

A Lunar Nuclear Reactor
Tests prove the feasibility of using nuclear reactors to provide electricity on the moon and Mars.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/414770/a-lunar-nuclear-reactor/

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. Unless you've become an alchemist, a ton of O2 broken down produces zero hydrogen

since they're different elements.

Yes, that is completely unproven - it hasn't yet been done in space, and it's only a 40kW design. You want something to power a manufacturing facility. What they've 'proven' on Earth generated 2.3kW. About enough to power a kettle.

[Katashi_itto]

126. I was thinking of the ice, not O2 as I typed. As for your 2.3kw and

nothing in space is total BS

In 1965, the U.S. launched SNAP-10A, which was a 45 kWt thermal nuclear fission reactor that produced 650 watts using a thermoelectric converter. (It operated for 43 days before it was shut down due to a satellite malfunction--but remains in orbit today.)

As for what they are currently testing:

A fission surface power system based on the moon has the potential to generate a steady 40 kilowatts of electric power, enough for about eight houses on Earth. It works by splitting uranium atoms in a reactor to generate heat that then is converted into electric power. The fission surface power system can produce large amounts of power in harsh environments, like those on the surface of the moon or Mars, because it does not rely on sunlight...

The current fission reactor itself thats being tested is about 1.5 feet wide by 2.5 feet high, roughly the size of a carry-on suitcase, according to Werner. And there are no cooling towers.

"A fission power system is a compact, reliable, safe system that may be critical to the establishment of outposts or habitats on other planets. Fission power technology can be applied on Earth's Moon, on Mars, or wherever NASA sees the need for continuous power,"

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Thermoelectric reactors have been to the moon and beyond.

But I disagree that we would even need that. You'd simply send enough solar panels with the startup equipment for them to get cranking day one.

The interesting part will be developing an electric, low-gravity smelter, on any scale. Which is well underway, I imagine, with the different companies looking at ways to mine nearby asteroids.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. Sending enough solar panels for a smelter is still quite a weight

Perhaps they can be very thin, due to lower gravity (assuming they can be packed well enough to survive lift-off from Earth). Chemical processing in a vacuum (unless you provide the atmosphere), and in low gravity, just adds to the novelty of the situation.

I looked up the use of a thermoelectric generator by the Soviets; it was to keep the basic systems of their rover going in hibernation during the 14 day lunar night, while they used solar to power it during the day when it did the actual exploration. Any moon base has to solve a similar problem - a lot of battery storage, a transmission system from somewhere else (microwave satellites at Langrange points to a solar array on the far side?), or something similar. This grand scheme of a belt of solar panels would include transmission lines around the moon, I presume, but those could only be made and laid way into the project.

[wercal]

99. The Irony is Strong With This One

"You've no idea what you're talking about."



I just Loooove Step 1. "Set up base and nuclear reactor".....on the moon. As easy as Shake n Bake I guess.

Well I guess I just don't have the inside knowledge that you do "I work for a particular govt agency that deals with space."

But wait, I do....a high school classmate (and my father's pupil) is involved in the current Mars rover mission....and I happen to know that he spent almost ten years of his life getting one robot on Mars. But I'm sure it would be "no big deal" to get thousands of robots to the moon. And, oh yeah, that miniscule little detail about building a nuclear power plant on the moon. .

And I'm sure that, even though the Mars robot moves around at the pace of a drunk snail, these "robots and drones" on the moon would be much better...and be able to place 1.8 million square miles of panels on the irregular surface of the moon.

You do understand that 1.8 million square miles is half the size of the US, right? Do you think that a robot and drone army could mine, manufacture, and lay panels over half this country? I'm 135% sure that you couldn't even cover one county with this nonsense plan, much less half this nation....and of course its not gonna happen on the moon....like, you know....ever.

[Katashi_itto]

101. Wow...I am certainly glad we have you to tell us all about this.

You will also note that elsewhere earlier I spoke up for orbital Powersats as they were easier to construct. But hey you are the guru.

[wercal]

107. Here's a link to where I explain how this is impossible

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=660066

Feel free to explain why I am wrong. Don't just tell me I'm wrong - explain why I just don't know what I am talking about, in that post.

[Katashi_itto]

110. Oh I would never disagree with you. Your the obivous guru right?

After all you just ignored the fact i support obital powersats over the moon based setup.

[wercal]

113. Now hold on there partner

This is what you said to me:

"You've no idea what you're talking about."

Prove it. Explain to me where I am wrong. Show me where I have fucked up my calculations that show the impossibility of this nonsense...on the moon, in space, on Earth, anywhere.

You can't.

[Katashi_itto]

120. Sorry again refer to what i just said.

I really dont care if your right or wrong.

I am interested in the moon base and orbiting powersats as the primary energy venues.

Bully for you for your calculations, your brillant!

[wercal]

125. So you can't back up your statement

In which you said I don't know what I'm talking about...and you dismiss and deflect.

The funny thing is (and I know you can't see this)...my calculations are anything but 'brilliant' (yep you misspelled it ). They are simple 'back of a napkin' calculations that any fifth grader could do. Its simple division, man.

So once again, prove me wrong.

[Katashi_itto]

132. See 120

Lol!

[wercal]

137. I'll take that as an admission you were wrong

When you said I was full of shit.

So if I'm right, then which one of us is...

Never mind. Deep down you've always known the answer to that question.

[Katashi_itto]

139. You can pretend that, that fine.

I'm sure your a legend,

in your living room.

[wercal]

144. Projection. Get help for that.

[Katashi_itto]

145. Projection, lol I wondered if that would be your response

dragging that ego around must be hard

[wercal]

146. Admission of the problem

You're half way to recovery. Keep at it.

[Katashi_itto]

147. Wow..just to funny!

Your buttons are easy to push.

[wercal]

148. Things will get better for you.

You just have to learn how to not let your insecurities take over, and resist telling people they are wrong. I hope you see the difference - you are incapable of telling somebody their position is wrong....you have to say that THEY are wrong. You can fix that.

You'll probably come back with a retort...but really, take a breath, take a few days, and re-read this thread. And not just your interaction with me - also the entire oxygen and hydrogen subthread. And ask yourself who was unduly rude and Instigated conflict.

You can change.

[Katashi_itto]

149. lol, gets popcorn

[wercal]

151. Take a day, re-read the thread

Then you can get back with me.

[Katashi_itto]

152. ....Lol

Popcorn!

[wercal]

117. Simon and Garfunkel

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

[jeff47]

103. Actually, it is easy to set up a nuclear reactor on the moon.

The Soviets did it in the 1960s - they launched a nuclear-powered probe to the moon to conduct long-term experiments, in response to our Apollo program. If they could do it about 40 years ago, why do you think it would be so impossible with modern technology?

But I'm sure it would be "no big deal" to get thousands of robots to the moon.

Again, you are doing it wrong.

You don't get the robots to the moon. You only send to the moon the minimal amount of stuff you need to start a factory on the moon. Which builds the robots.

And I'm sure that, even though the Mars robot moves around at the pace of a drunk snail

Because it uses 2-decade-old technology to drive itself. The distance is too far for a human to remotely drive it. That isn't true for the moon. And if you wanted to go autonomous, computers are a wee bit better than two decades ago.

and be able to place 1.8 million square miles of panels on the irregular surface of the moon.

No, read the article again. They're planning to put the panels in lunar orbit.

And before you wander off into "OMG TONS OF ROCKETS!!!!" take a moment to remember the moon has a lot less gravity and virtually no atmosphere, so getting to orbit is much, much easier.

I'm 135% sure that you couldn't even cover one county with this nonsense plan, much less half this nation....and of course its not gonna happen on the moon....like, you know....ever.

Yep, just like all those people who told JFK man would never walk on the moon. like, you know.....ever.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. No, they sent a radio-isotope powered vehicle

There's a world of difference between that and a nuclear reactor capable of powering a manufacturing plant.

They are putting the panels on the surface (there are pictures). There'd be bugger all point in putting them in orbit, though - that would be a waste of energy.

[wercal]

108. I've got a hunch that the Soviet reactors weren't quite big enough to power this scheme.

Here's a link to another post of mine on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=660066

It would be impossible to even do a fraction of this project on earth, much less on the moon.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. I had an astronomy professor/NASA consultant who had a similar plan

His idea was to mine moon rocks for hydrogen, covert to microwave energy, and beam it back to earth. No, it hasn't happened, but it's also not impossible. The idea in the OP doesn't get filed with pie in the sky time machine plans. It's within the realm of possibility. It faces engineering and societal challenges, probably financial challenges too. But no, it's not quackery, and I doubt you'll be able to make any scientists recant.

[JHB]

41. Run a search on "powersat"

The concept has been around since the 70s. Maybe the technology has caught up, maybe not, but it's no joke.

[donco]

5. has the

Onion changed its name to Descrier?Gezzzzzzzzzz...think of "13,000 terawatts "hitting a few clicks from....??

[NickB79]

6. $10,000 per pound to launch Earth-orbit materials

There's not enough money on the planet to make this feasible with conventional tech.

Short of something wildly sci-fi, like a space elevator or autonomous robotic factories on captured asteroids, this won't make a dent in our energy needs.

[itsrobert]

11. They will build a robotic run factory on the moon.

And gently release the panels into lunar orbit.

[MADem]

37. And then, they'll zap any city that doesn't bow to their demands!!!

[WowSeriously]

46. How's your horse and buggy, fella?

[MADem]

67. We'll see how soon they're "beaming it down, Scotty" from the doggone moon.

Don't hold your breath--and that's applicable if you're holding the reins of a horse drawn buggy, or the steering wheel of a PRIUS.

[WowSeriously]

91. Does it bother you that other countries dare to dream?

I mean really, what kind of a fool nation would announce publically that they would put a man on the moon and bring him back?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Potentially feasible given the chemical composition of the moon.

[WheelWalker]

7. Of course, nothing could possibly go wrong with such an exquisitely simple plan.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. This would be a monumental engineering job...

and so expensive that it could not be done by any one nation state. It would solve the worlds energy problems for the foreseeable future. Great idea.

[Orrex]

10. I hope that they go at night, when the moon is out

Otherwise it'll be a total waste of time and resources.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Hopefully they do it during the full moon too!

[Orrex]

13. You fool! That's the worst time!

Go during a waning crescent, so you only have to put the belt around a tiny sliver of the moon, rather than the whole round thing!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Maybe they should...

...go to sun and beam the energy straight from the source to earth...

[wercal]

23. Winner!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. The only tricky part is...

...they have to go at night and be done before sunrise.

[wercal]

29. I think the winter solstice gives them the most time

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. During June they could...

...send folks from the Southern hemisphere since that's when their Winter solstice occurs.

[wercal]

35. Well I guess the sun is alot hotter in June.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. Not in the Southern hemisphere

[Orrex]

27. Finally, a voice of reason!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I've been accused of many things...

...never that.

[DeSwiss]

62. !!!!!

[defacto7]

39. I think the best way would be

to sent balloons up to passing comets and attach buckets to them. As they fly around the sun they will scoop up the energy. As they return toward earth they can sprinkle the energy down to earth where garden fairies will pick it off the flower petals and deposit the energy into the nearest ATM machine.

Man, that was a good wine at dinner.....

[mindwalker_i]

57. They should attach a really long rope to the moon

The use that to haul up freshly-made solar panels, and let them off before they actually get to the moon right at the orbit point. They could get a bunch of football players to haul up the rope.

[reACTIONary]

82. Wine? It sounds like something...

... a lot more "illuminating" might have been involved!

[penultimate]

79. teeeheee... I giggled.

[BlueStreak]

17. So who owns the surface of the moon?

[Overseas]

28. K&R. Sounds a lot better than fracturing all the shale and pumping toxic chemicals into the ground

to eke out every last ounce of "natural" gas.

Hydraulic fracturing should be stopped until all kinds of solar, wind and conservation projects have been tried on a massive scale. Fracking should be a last resort.

We need thousands of projects right now to conserve the oil we have already drilled so we can use it more carefully as a necessary part of the mix of energy sources we will need as we move toward these super solar systems.

[defacto7]

30. One question....

Why the moon?

Why not in high synchronous earth orbit? or even a Lagrange point. Why the moon? It's sexier I guess, gets more attention.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Well, if you put it on the moon, it'll get eclipsed from time to time.

But it has the advantage of; you'd not have to burn a bunch of reaction mass keeping it in place, since the large area of this plan would work a little bit like a solar sail.

It's only 1 newton per square foot, but you'd still have to account for it over time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Becasue they would make them from moon rock

Exploiting Lunar Resources



Lunar resources will be used to the fullest extent possible in constructing the Solar Belt.
Water can be produced by reducing lunar soil with hydrogen that is imported from the Earth. Cementing material can also be extracted from lunar resources. These materials will be mixed with lunar soil and gravel to make concrete. Bricks, glass fibers and other structural materials can also be produced by solar-heat treatments.

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/lunaring.html

[reACTIONary]

83. Because the company...

...is a civil engineering company. Building stuff on the ground is their thing.

[tinrobot]

34. 13,000 terawatts of microwaves beamed at our atmosphere? Yike.

Not sure if that sounds very safe. Any studies on how this affects the atmosphere... and anything else in the path of these microwaves?

[NickB79]

65. We won't have to cook poultry any longer for Thanksgiving

Just walk outside and catch one of the ready-baked geese falling from the sky after they fly through the beam.

[Politicalboi]

52. They can't take care of Fukushima

But they spend time and money on this. IMO by 2035, some of us will be living on the moon since planet earth melted.

[JI7]

61. maybe that's why they are trying this

[Posteritatis]

71. The company in the article was responsible for Fukushima?

Or are you just assuming that Japan's a hive mind of some sort?

[DeSwiss]

55. If Fukushima continues to spew radioactivity upon the planet.......

...at it's present rate, (or worse and more likely) at a higher rate than presently, by the time this ''idea'' could come to fruition there wouldn't be anyone left here to use the power.

- Who gives a shit about Moon Power when we're killing the fucking Pacific Ocean, dammit. Wake. Up.

K&R

Radiation Of The Pacific Ocean In The Next 10 Years - Japan Nuclear Disaster

TheCCCVideoChannel·Published on Feb 8, 2013
This is a 10 year timelapse of the radiation from Fukushima, Japan, contaminating the Pacific Ocean

A sequence of global ocean circulation models, with horizontal mesh sizes of 0.5°, 0.25° and 0.1°, are used to estimate the long-term dispersion by ocean currents and mesoscale eddies of a slowly decaying tracer (half-life of 30 years, comparable to that of 137Cs) from the local waters off the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plants. The tracer was continuously injected into the coastal waters over some weeks; its subsequent spreading and dilution in the Pacific Ocean was then simulated for 10 years.

The simulations do not include any data assimilation, and thus, do not account for the actual state of the local ocean currents during the release of highly contaminated water from the damaged plants in March--April 2011. An ensemble differing in initial current distributions illustrates their importance for the tracer patterns evolving during the first months, but suggests a minor relevance for the large-scale tracer distributions after 2--3 years.

By then the tracer cloud has penetrated to depths of more than 400 m, spanning the western and central North Pacific between 25°N and 55°N, leading to a rapid dilution of concentrations. The rate of dilution declines in the following years, while the main tracer patch propagates eastward across the Pacific Ocean, reaching the coastal waters of North America after about 5--6 years.

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 PBq for the net 137Cs input during the first weeks after the Fukushima incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq m-3 during the first two years, followed by a gradual decline to 1--2 Bq m-3 over the next 4--7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then still be about twice the pre-Fukushima values.

For more info visit:
http://oceanrep.geomar.de/14788/
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/50176

[NickB79]

66. People really love their sci-fi, don't they?

We can't even get more than a few percent of our energy needs ON THIS PLANET from solar panels and wind turbines, where they are far, far easier to install, maintain and hardwire into the local power grids, yet people think we're going to build a planetary microwave power grid within our lifetimes by orbiting moon-built solar panels?

We can't even get a man back to the moon with the current equipment we have (seriously, we no longer have the heavy-lift rockets to do so, and we're not gonna just pull out the blueprints for the old Saturn V rockets again), yet we're going to remotely build a fully autonomous, robotic lunar factory to mine, smelt and assemble MILLIONS of square miles of solar panels?

We might as well have a serious discussion about easing the food crisis on Earth by terraforming Mars, turning the planet into farm fields, and shipping the crops back to us. It's theoretically possible, but patently ridiculous with current technology. One day we could get there, but that day is many, many decades off, if not 22nd century and beyond.

The hubris of our species truly is astounding at times.

[ConcernedCanuk]

72. That'd get the Middle East off the hook . . .

.
.
.

USA would have no need for their oil . . .

Now, what would we do with all these pipelines . . .



CC

PS: - oops just had a terrible thought - the USA could suck up Canada's water much faster . . .

[bucolic_frolic]

74. More Global Warming

Yeah, add more solar energy to the earth, this will solve the problem.

Of course it will enrich the owners of the technology, and it's a
virtual pacifier to electrical engineers

[Laelth]

75. I very much hope this works. n/t

-Laelth

[MikeDuffy]

77. Suppose this (or some other approach(es)) succeeded and we actually had unlimited energy

Would that really solve the problems threatening life on earth?

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. It would solve an awful lot of them

We'd stop CO2 emissions; we'd have the energy to reverse them - manufacture coal, calcium carbonate, or some other carbon-containing solid we could bury. We'd have the energy to run huge desalination plants, meaning a large proportion of the world population that lives near the coast could get their water from the ocean, allowing the rivers to flow more naturally. You could grow a lot of produce really close to the market, with artificial heat and light. You could recycle more materials, rather than mining them. You could produce plastics from waste. With more energy, you don't need so much area to grow crops, meaning you can stop cutting down habitats. You'd have the energy to properly treat waste.

[MikeDuffy]

100. Thanks! We always need to be optimistic, but

this article touches on some of my concerns:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/more-money-we-have-less-we-care-about-impacts-our-consumption?page=0%2C1

[Ace Acme]

140. Thanks for raising an important point.

I went through that exercise back in the very few weeks that fusion power seemed like a panacea.

In the long run, would oodles of energy help us or hurt us? Don't we wind up abusing all the powers we're given?

I was very disappointed when computer-controlled fuel injection came along just in time to save the internal combustion engine's bacon. If not for that emission reduction, we'd surely have had viable auto batteries long ago, and cars built to last 500 years. But of course the manufacturers don't want 500-year cars. That's why they give us complicated internal-combustion hybrids with oodles of wearing parts instead. Why don't we have an external combustion steam or gas turbine hybrid? The thing that killed steam and gas turbines was that drivers had to wait 30 seconds to let the vehicle warm up before they could drive away. In a hybrid system you could drive on batteries while the engine warmed up.

[dembotoz]

85. at first i laughed, but upon further review--wouldn't that be cool

i mean is sounds like the plot for a james bond movie

but the research done to chase a dream such as this.....
we could learn so much

[Lint Head]

102. Lets see. Meteors. Asteroids. Space debris. No. It's not likely a solar belt would be

destroyed by anything in a safe place like outer space. They could use the business model that built the wonderful Fukushima power plant.
That worked out great didn't it.

[Posteritatis]

129. And another "all Japanese people are Fukushima engineers" poster!

Plus someone who clearly doesn't understand how spread-out space debris anywhere further up than geosynchronous orbit is.

Thanks for playing, though!

[Lint Head]

136. Are you calling me a bigot or a racist? I am not referring to "all" Japanese people.

Nor did I use the word Japanese in my reply. You insinuated it as a quote.
Do you have no sense of nuance? I understand distances and space "hit" debris chances. Do you understand the percentages of chance for a nuclear accident correlating to a tsunami anywhere in the world much less Japan? Do you understand that you do not know me or my education to make such an obvious insult.

I'm not playing. Especially with someone who un-educatedly attacks people they do not know.

[LongTomH]

112. The concept is basically Dr. David Criswell's Lunar Solar Power proposal from the 1980s

I first heard Dr. Criswell discuss his lunar solar power system concept at an International Space Development Conference back in the 1980s.

NASA was paying attention to Dr. Criswell and to Dr. Peter Glaser's solar power satellite concept. Now it seems, most of the work on solar power satellites is being done in Japan and China, with China expending much more in the way of resources for SPS.

Space solar power, like terrestrial solar, has become another classic example of: "Invented here -- sold there."

And, by the way, most of the objections I'm reading in this thread are exactly the same objections I heard more than 30 years ago, when the idea was first being discussed; which, I suppose is why other countries have taken the lead.



Dr. Criswell's Lunar Solar Power System, as envisioned by a NASA artist.

[OnlinePoker]

138. If they use microwaves, wouldn't that heat the water vapour in the atmosphere?

If not, why?

[Ace Acme]

141. Good question. Or create ozone? nt

[bananas]

155. Use a frequency which isn't absorbed by the atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission

[Incitatus]

142. 1,000 times the energy currently used?

Is that scale really necessary? If it is possible and they could beam the energy to multiple locations at a cheaper rate than energy could be produced on Earth, they could build plants all over the globe to receive the energy beams. They could make a lot of money dwarf any company in history while reducing carbon emissions. Of course, there is the problem with the line of sight from those beaming stations to Earth for only limited times each day. They would have to be able to store the energy during the times when the beams are not available. I would think simply building renewable energy plants (solar, wind, etc) on Earth would be cheaper and work just as well, but I'm not an expert.

[Socialistlemur]

158. Self promoting junk

And I plan to build a days on sphere around the sun to capture all it's energy and beam it to Alpha Centaurii using a warpspace laser. The centaurians pay more.

[grantcart]

160. They have overlooked one major cost factor:

Getting an easement from the aliens that are already there is not going to be cheap. Are they going to take bitcoins?