Talk:Site Selection - Revision history

Jarogers2001: /* Which technologies to use */ some fuel cell technoplogies and a couple of miscellaneos interesting developments

2007-04-20T22:14:26Z

Which technologies to use: some fuel cell technoplogies and a couple of miscellaneos interesting developments

Jarogers2001: /* Which technologies to use */

2007-04-20T20:23:50Z

Which technologies to use

Jarogers2001: /* Which technologies to use */

2007-04-18T18:01:31Z

Which technologies to use

Mdelaney: /* Which technologies to use */

2007-04-15T13:40:08Z

Which technologies to use

Jarogers2001: /* Do the Moon under present limitations, or not do it at all. */ on the SPS option

2007-04-15T03:03:29Z

Do the Moon under present limitations, or not do it at all.: on the SPS option

Jarogers2001: /* Which technologies to use */

2007-04-15T02:24:22Z

Which technologies to use

207.114.25.219: /* Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all. */

2007-04-14T19:25:17Z

Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all.

Cfrjlr: /* Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all. */ first, need a revenue stream.

2007-04-14T19:11:08Z

Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all.: first, need a revenue stream.

Cfrjlr: Topaz reactor :- Technical specifications :- http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm

2007-04-14T16:52:34Z

Topaz reactor :- Technical specifications :- http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm

Cfrjlr: buying the reactors versus launching them

2007-04-14T16:48:05Z

buying the reactors versus launching them

Show changes

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 :-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-::Ill add more examples as i find them again  -- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
+::Eneco has developed a method on a chip to convert heat directly to electricity.  Info [http://www.eneco.com/technology.html here].  Heat producing devices could be equipped with this tech, allowing energy lost via heat to be scavenged back into the system when loss cannot be afforded (second week of lunar night).
+::Uniross has come out with a new rechargeable battery [http://www.rechargeablesonline.com/catalog/index.php here].  Small scale.  Scalability needs to be verified.
-::Eneco has developed a method to convert heat directly to electricity.  Info [http://www.eneco.com/technology.html here].  Heat producing devices could be equipped with this tech, allowing energy lost via heat to be scavenged back into the system when loss cannot be afforded (second week of lunar night)
+::'''flow batteries/fuel cells'''
+::[http://plurionsystems.com/technology.html Plurion zinc/cerium redox batteries]
-::more to come  [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
+::[http://www.zbbenergy.com/products.htm ZBB zinc/bromine batteries]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 20 April 2007
Line 196:		Line 196:
	:-- [[User:Mdelaney\|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)		:-- [[User:Mdelaney\|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

−	~~I'll pull some stuff up on friday~~. ~~im a bit swamped~~	+	::Ill add more examples as i find them again -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Eneco has developed a method to convert heat directly to electricity. Info [http://www.eneco.com/technology.html here]. Heat producing devices could be equipped with this tech, allowing energy lost via heat to be scavenged back into the system when loss cannot be afforded (second week of lunar night)
		+
		+	::more to come [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 18 April 2007
Line 195:		Line 195:

	:-- [[User:Mdelaney\|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)		:-- [[User:Mdelaney\|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'll pull some stuff up on friday. im a bit swamped

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 15 April 2007
Line 185:		Line 185:

	I also find many of the recent scientific developments in power storage to be very encouraging, and it may be prudent to anticipate significant improvements in commercial battery technology over the next decade. Off the shelf equipment is a cheaper option if it can handle the space environment. -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)		I also find many of the recent scientific developments in power storage to be very encouraging, and it may be prudent to anticipate significant improvements in commercial battery technology over the next decade. Off the shelf equipment is a cheaper option if it can handle the space environment. -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	:At 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] said:
		+	::''I also find many of the recent scientific developments in power storage to be very encouraging, and it may be prudent to anticipate significant improvements in commercial battery technology over the next decade.''
		+	:Can you provide examples?
		+
		+	:I've never found information on a battery that can hold a sunstantial charge with low loss for a period of 2 weeks, other than perhaps the good ol' Lead Acid battery, which is probably out of the running for our purposes.
		+
		+	:Most recent longlife rechargeables possess the disadvantage of having fairly low capacities.
		+
		+	:-- [[User:Mdelaney\|Mdelaney]] 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 15 April 2007
Line 159:		Line 159:
	Yet I even question whether the "do it cheap" approach is viable. The questions is "how cheap"? or what do you mean by "cheap"? If the revenue stream is zero, then one dollar of cost is expensive. By my definition, "cheap" means "small compared to the revenue stream", or profitable. So the first question to ask is: What is the source of our FIRST revenue stream, how much will it be, and when can it be delivered? Until that question is answered, the concept of "do it on the cheap" really means nothing. For example, I was involved with the Transorbital company commercial Trailblazer moon probe, so I have some experience with that conundrum. The revenues did not meet the costs, and the company defaulted on at least one major invoice (ref 2005 Federal lawsuit: ISC Kosmotras versus Transorbital Inc, Eastern Virginia Federal District Court). There are at least three other companies who have tried commercial lunar projects and failed, e.g. Lunacorp, Blastoff! and Applied Space resources. There is not yet a single example of a successful commercial lunar business. I am perfectly willing to have another shot at it, but first I need to know what is the revenue stream. I am waiting for your call.... [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)		Yet I even question whether the "do it cheap" approach is viable. The questions is "how cheap"? or what do you mean by "cheap"? If the revenue stream is zero, then one dollar of cost is expensive. By my definition, "cheap" means "small compared to the revenue stream", or profitable. So the first question to ask is: What is the source of our FIRST revenue stream, how much will it be, and when can it be delivered? Until that question is answered, the concept of "do it on the cheap" really means nothing. For example, I was involved with the Transorbital company commercial Trailblazer moon probe, so I have some experience with that conundrum. The revenues did not meet the costs, and the company defaulted on at least one major invoice (ref 2005 Federal lawsuit: ISC Kosmotras versus Transorbital Inc, Eastern Virginia Federal District Court). There are at least three other companies who have tried commercial lunar projects and failed, e.g. Lunacorp, Blastoff! and Applied Space resources. There is not yet a single example of a successful commercial lunar business. I am perfectly willing to have another shot at it, but first I need to know what is the revenue stream. I am waiting for your call.... [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

		+	:I doubt that the NASA mission will provide any revenue stream at all. It may be necessary to write off the NASA expenditure as infrastructure. NASA has begun mentioning commercial partnerships, and it may be these partnerships, tourism, research, and otherwise, as well as international endeavors cooperating yet remaining independent of the NASA plans that will provide a revenue stream. Once a lunar presence is established and sustainable the commercial and SPS options (derived from lunar materials) may become more appealing. The Pentagon is showing interest in the tactical implications of SPS providing power to troops in remote or politically unstable areas now that the VSE is in motion. Think Tactical to Practical and you may find the military industrial complex becomes an ally instead of an adversary in NewSpace and Lunar ventures. Thats a good deal of PR and lobbyist money on your side if you don't mind the company.
		+
		+	:An initial test may be found in the research currently being done at the Center for Advanced Materials at the University of Houston, under Alex Ignatiev. The idea is to use a robot to sinter regolith and produce thin film solar cells from regolith, then use the sintered regolith as a substrate. The vacuum of space is ideal for producing these cells en mass, and once power has been established, Alex explains, "you can think about taking that extra energy and beaming it to Earth or elsewhere in space." This robot is in the arly design phase and would manufacture and lay the cells using the same unit. A slightly more detailed article can be found in Chemical & Engineering News V.85 No.6 Feb.5 2007 Pages 23-25.
		+	:-- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 15 April 2007
Line 177:		Line 177:

	----		----
		+
		+	Let them protest when a reactor is purchased by a private company, launched, and landed with private/foreign equipment. The up side of a private contract verses a treaty is that if a product isn't delivered on time, the contact may be canceled and the manufacturer may be sued, depending on contract stipulations. This is a matter separate from the NASA reactor issue as I doubt a NASA reactor idea will ever take off due to the political implications.
		+
		+	I also find many of the recent scientific developments in power storage to be very encouraging, and it may be prudent to anticipate significant improvements in commercial battery technology over the next decade. Off the shelf equipment is a cheaper option if it can handle the space environment. -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 14 April 2007
Line 140:		Line 140:
	Mike, here is a link to some tehcnical specifications. I am not sure if this info is public domain or not, so I am only posting the link, rather than the contents of the article. http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)		Mike, here is a link to some tehcnical specifications. I am not sure if this info is public domain or not, so I am only posting the link, rather than the contents of the article. http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

−	== Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all. ==	+	== Do the Moon under present limitations, or not do it at all. ==

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 --[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-----
+Well that is one approach. i.e. "Do it cheap". Another approach would be to sell a big revenue stream, e.g. solar power satellites.
 == Which technologies to use ==

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 :Personally I'm sick and tired of all the planning going to waste, it's been possible to build a base on the moon for nearly 40 years. Let's just get on with it.
 :On the subject of a small nuclear power station, those have been successfully demonstrated since the 50s, they're in lot's of submarines and aircraft carriers. The French have some fairly small civilian ones. We'll probably have to contract that out to a vendor like say "British Nuclear Fuels" (BNFL), "British Energy" or their US or French counterparts who's names escape me. Though personally I'd prefer one from one of the US Navy, Royal Navy or French Navy. Again, we'd probably have to pay them to install and run it. Just don't buy a used one from a Soviet sub. -- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 134: / Line 136: @@
 :I'd forgotten the Soviet/Russian space program used those. What's their reliability rating like?
 :10kW might be enough to overnight a small outpost for about 5-10 people.
 :-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 == Do the Moon under present limitations, or do not do it at all. ==