| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brad Guth" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2006 10:37:11 PM |
| Object: |
unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
Here's yet another perfectly good example of a viable topic that should
have been getting some expertise attention, yet obviously because this
flywheel consideration involved the moon and of the notions contributed
by an outsider, whereas such it's essentially DOA/Usenet banished.
The original topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ec116473e9741c38/3b8c009a59d3b7e8?q=Flywheel+energy+storage&rnum=1#3b8c009a59d3b7e8
Contributed from: wbo
Flywheel energy storage has been suggested for use on the Moon (see
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/flywheel-energy-storage.html ). But I
haven't seen a proposal to use lunar materials in the systems to reduce
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
might have a capacity of about 100kWh so, for a small colony using
100kW, we would need a farm of 336 such units to hold enough energy for
a lunar night. Rather than the compact flywheel units available on
Earth (see Active Power Co. or Piller GMB), these units would take
advantage of the vacuum and elbow room on the Moon. Each would be atop
a short tower with solar panels on the sides, have two 10m arms tipped
with sacks or containers for 100kg of regolith, and would spin at 3000
rpm. Perhaps 90% of the total mass could be regolith. One such
standardized unit might be used to power a small research shack,
emergency shelter, or 'gas station' for a rover/buggy.
-
wbo,
It seems that your flywheel notions of energy storage are right on
target, though have you considered upon what the likes of lunar basalt
as converted into extremely tough fiber is worth?
How many TW are you thinking about eventually storing?
How much hourly energy demand per soul are we in need of?
Why limit the flywheel application to the lunar surface, and not
otherwise share that notion for that of incorporating a massive
flywheel as situated within LL-1?
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
| User: "jonathan" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 08:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140410231.044035.99630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here's yet another perfectly good example of a viable topic that should
have been getting some expertise attention, yet obviously because this
flywheel consideration involved the moon and of the notions contributed
by an outsider, whereas such it's essentially DOA/Usenet banished.
Think smaller for energy storage of the future.
Scientific American issue reports on reinvention and
miniaturization of battery
http://www.mphasetech.com/
And it's only 32 cents a share right now. Ticker xdsl.
In a couple of years.....
The original topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ec116473e9741c38/3b8c009a59d3b7e8?q=Flywheel+energy+storage&rnum=1#3b8c009a59d3b7e8
Contributed from: wbo
Flywheel energy storage has been suggested for use on the Moon (see
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/flywheel-energy-storage.html ). But I
haven't seen a proposal to use lunar materials in the systems to reduce
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
might have a capacity of about 100kWh so, for a small colony using
100kW, we would need a farm of 336 such units to hold enough energy for
a lunar night. Rather than the compact flywheel units available on
Earth (see Active Power Co. or Piller GMB), these units would take
advantage of the vacuum and elbow room on the Moon. Each would be atop
a short tower with solar panels on the sides, have two 10m arms tipped
with sacks or containers for 100kg of regolith, and would spin at 3000
rpm. Perhaps 90% of the total mass could be regolith. One such
standardized unit might be used to power a small research shack,
emergency shelter, or 'gas station' for a rover/buggy.
-
wbo,
It seems that your flywheel notions of energy storage are right on
target, though have you considered upon what the likes of lunar basalt
as converted into extremely tough fiber is worth?
How many TW are you thinking about eventually storing?
How much hourly energy demand per soul are we in need of?
Why limit the flywheel application to the lunar surface, and not
otherwise share that notion for that of incorporating a massive
flywheel as situated within LL-1?
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 11:25:48 PM |
|
|
Earth needs terawatts of green/renewable energy as of yesterday.
Batteries that only consume vast amounts of energy in order to R&D,
plus having to mass produce and sustain in viable usage (not to mention
disposal factors) are not a solution, they're a good part of the energy
drain and limited resource problem.
The h2o2/aluminum battery or energy cell is getting about as good as
battery density and Earth-friendly birth to grave efficiency gets.
The likes of h2o2/c3h4o is the fuel alternative that's extremely clean,
of high density and thus exactly what the doctor ordered for keeping
our Hummers, yachts and jests going strong and faster than ever.
The 25 kw/m2 of footprint that offers clean/green and totally renewable
energy density is also doable as is, w/o battery and even w/o
flywheels.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 08:46:41 PM |
|
|
Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here's yet another perfectly good example of a viable topic that should
have been getting some expertise attention, yet obviously because this
flywheel consideration involved the moon and of the notions contributed
by an outsider, whereas such it's essentially DOA/Usenet banished.
The original topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ec116473e9741
c38/3b8c009a59d3b7e8?q=Flywheel+energy+storage&rnum=1#3b8c009a59d3b7e8
Contributed from: wbo
Flywheel energy storage has been suggested for use on the Moon (see
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/flywheel-energy-storage.html ). But I
haven't seen a proposal to use lunar materials in the systems to reduce
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
might have a capacity of about 100kWh so, for a small colony using
100kW, we would need a farm of 336 such units to hold enough energy for
a lunar night. Rather than the compact flywheel units available on
Earth (see Active Power Co. or Piller GMB), these units would take
advantage of the vacuum and elbow room on the Moon. Each would be atop
a short tower with solar panels on the sides, have two 10m arms tipped
with sacks or containers for 100kg of regolith, and would spin at 3000
rpm. Perhaps 90% of the total mass could be regolith. One such
standardized unit might be used to power a small research shack,
emergency shelter, or 'gas station' for a rover/buggy.
-
wbo,
It seems that your flywheel notions of energy storage are right on
target, though have you considered upon what the likes of lunar basalt
as converted into extremely tough fiber is worth?
How many TW are you thinking about eventually storing?
How much hourly energy demand per soul are we in need of?
Why limit the flywheel application to the lunar surface, and not
otherwise share that notion for that of incorporating a massive
flywheel as situated within LL-1?
Brad, is there any technical subject that you are not an expert on?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"
"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 11:57:33 AM |
|
|
In sci.space.policy Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
Adding mass to the system does not help with energy storage.
If you've got a given mass of carbon fiber in 'arms', then you gain
nothing in terms of energy storage capacity by adding extra mass to the
ends.
(OT newsgroups trimmed)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earl Colby Pottinger" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 04:28:03 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> :
In sci.space.policy Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
Adding mass to the system does not help with energy storage.
If you've got a given mass of carbon fiber in 'arms', then you gain
nothing in terms of energy storage capacity by adding extra mass to the
ends.
Ian you are suggesting that Brad do RealWorld math. His brain can not handle
such data.
Earl Colby Pottinger
--
<Cruising, building a Catamaran, Rebuilding Cabin, New Peroxide Still Design,
Writting SF, Programming FOSS - What happened to the time?>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 05:21:38 PM |
|
|
Earl Colby Pottinger,
Tell you what my brown-nosed and otherwise dumbfounded friend. I'll
put up my LL-1 multi-megatonnage worth of massive counter-rotating
flywheels as per say up against your whatever multi-kg flywheel(s)
that's having to be associated with the surface gravity and
horrifically nasty dust of our salty as well as reactive moon, and
perhaps with each of us having a laser cannon pointed at one another
should tell real soon which of these flywheel methods offered the most
stored energy.
Exactly how many TJ or rather hundreds of MWhr worth of energy were
your wossy little flywheels going to store?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 01:20:11 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.space.policy Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
cost. I suggest that we import bearings, generator/motors, and carbon
fiber or Kevlar arms/containers from Earth to the Moon. Each unit
Adding mass to the system does not help with energy storage.
If you've got a given mass of carbon fiber in 'arms', then you gain
nothing in terms of energy storage capacity by adding extra mass to the
ends.
Sounds like you're saying that if 90% of the system is dead weight, not
contributing to the strength of the system, then we have to slow down,
reducing the stress on the load-bearing fiber components, which reduces
the energy of the system anyway. Got it. So it's a wash: any
spinning, load-bearing parts should be high-strength materials, spun up
to a sizeable fraction of their ultimate strength.
But to reduce launch costs for a massive energy storage system, it
would then make sense to make those high-strength fibers from local
materials, say basalt glass fibers. In the dry lunar environment,
these should have pretty good ultimate strength (see 'Moon Miner's
Manifesto discussions on 'Glax' composite material). Since a flywheel
stores more energy if the mass is farther out, forget arms: spin the
glass fibers into a hollow cylinder, easier to fabricate than
varying-cross-section arms. Suspend the cylinder from Earth-imported
bearings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 02:00:20 PM |
|
|
wbo; But to reduce launch costs for a massive energy storage
system, it would then make sense to make those high-strength
fibers from local materials, say basalt glass fibers. In the
dry lunar environment, these should have pretty good ultimate
strength (see 'Moon Miner's Manifesto discussions on 'Glax'
composite material). Since a flywheel stores more energy if
the mass is farther out, forget arms: spin the glass fibers
into a hollow cylinder, easier to fabricate than varying-cross
-section arms. Suspend the cylinder from Earth-imported bearings.
wbo,
What "Earth-imported" bearings?
Other than end-stop safety bearings which could also be of a magnetic
nature, there shouldn't hardly be any stinking physical bearings even
if the damn thing amounted to a megatonne.
Even at that, a very slight ceramic and/or diamond/ceramic based
bearing is going to be absolutely impressive since everything is at
nearly zero G.
Might I ask; is LL-1 another one of those taboo/nondisclosure zones
that's top-secret and/or need-to-know?
From LL-1 the flywheel stored energy can flow freely and efficiently
via tether towards the lunar deck or off towards getting damn close to
mother Earth, or easily accomplish both at the same time.
As I's just informed Ian Stirling.
At LL-1 there's nearly absolute zero G and about as much of a nearby
accessible vacuum and thus clean environment as you're going to get
without leaving the solar system.
Thus a 100 megatonne flywheel made extensively of composite basalt and
a few other lunar based fibers and elements such as titanium (which is
entirely doable) is certainly going to store a wee bit more energy than
any one kg flywheel that's spinning at nearly "c", which by the way is
not sustainable nor hardly doable.
At LL-1 there's are no volume nor limitations of flywheel mass, and
there's certainly damn little if any friction via the local environment
nor should there be physical bearings involved. Therefore, a
multi-tonnage flywheel as energy storage is just the best ever ticket
in town, as well as situated along with offer whatever crew(s) the
enormous safety advantage of such being roughly 60,000 km away from
that otherwise reactive and downright nasty lunar deck.
LL-1 and especially of the LSE-CM/ISS is also by far offering the
utmost rocket energy efficient task of getting whatever's terrestrial
or lunar to/from LL-1.
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Spencer" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
01 Mar 2006 09:18:50 AM |
|
|
In article <1140463211.270557.268430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<wbogen@visteon.com> wrote:
But to reduce launch costs for a massive energy storage system, it
would then make sense to make those high-strength fibers from local
materials, say basalt glass fibers...
Unfortunately, getting a high-strength material that way -- especially
with simple processes -- is speculative at best.
Yeah, you can build flywheels with lunar materials, but they're likely to
be very heavy for even small amounts of energy storage.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
01 Mar 2006 04:00:42 PM |
|
|
Henry Spencer; Unfortunately, getting a high-strength material that
way -- especially with simple processes -- is speculative at best.
Yeah, you can build flywheels with lunar materials, but they're likely to
be very heavy for even small amounts of energy storage.
Good grief almighty folks.
The shape and of whatever volumes or of the final megatonnage that a
pair of counter-rotating flywheels in LL-1 means absolutely nothing,
except affording the capacity of storing and subsequently delivering
terawatts on demand, as in the sky's the limit.
How many hundred speculative terajoules would you like to deal with?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 01:02:02 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling,
At LL-1 there's nearly zero G and about as much nearby vacuum as you're
going to get without leaving the solar system.
Thus a 100 megatonne flywheel made extensively of composite basalt and
a few other lunar based fibers and elements (which is entirely doable)
is going to store a wee bit more energy than any one kg flywheel that's
spinning at nearly "c", which by the way is not sustainable nor hardly
doable.
At LL-1 there's no volume nor mass limitations, and there's certainly
damn little if any friction via the local environment nor having
physical bearings involved. Therefore, a multi-tonne flywheel as
energy storage is just the best ever ticket in town, as well as
situated along with the enormous safety advantage of such being roughly
60,000 km away from that otherwise reactive and downright nasty lunar
deck.
It's also by far the most rocket energy efficient getting whatever
to/from LL-1.
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 02:17:25 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling,
That's rather odd. I thought that I'd posted this, whereas it got taken
into the GOOGLE/Usenet and yet lo and behold, there's still no sign.
Thus I'll try again.
At LL-1 there's nearly absolute zero G and about as much of a nearby
accessible vacuum and clean-room environment as you're going to get
without leaving the solar system.
Thus even a 100 megatonne flywheel made extensively of composite basalt
and a few other lunar based fibers and elements, such as titanium
(which is entirely doable), is certainly going to store a wee bit more
energy than any one kg flywheel that's spinning at nearly "c", which by
the way is not sustainable nor hardly doable.
At LL-1 there's are no volume nor limitations of flywheel mass, and
there's certainly damn little if any friction via the local environment
nor should there be physical bearings involved. Therefore, a
multi-tonnage flywheel as energy storage is just the best ever ticket
in town, as well as situated along with offer whatever crew(s) the
enormous safety advantage of such being roughly 60,000 km away from
that otherwise reactive and downright nasty lunar deck.
It's also providing by far the most rocket energy efficient task of
getting whatever to/from LL-1.
A recent offering by "wbo"
wbo; But to reduce launch costs for a massive energy storage
system, it would then make sense to make those high-strength
fibers from local materials, say basalt glass fibers. In the
dry lunar environment, these should have pretty good ultimate
strength (see 'Moon Miner's Manifesto discussions on 'Glax'
composite material). Since a flywheel stores more energy if
the mass is farther out, forget arms: spin the glass fibers
into a hollow cylinder, easier to fabricate than varying-cross
-section arms. Suspend the cylinder from Earth-imported bearings.
wbo,
What "Earth-imported" bearings?
Other than end-stop safety bearings which could also be of a magnetic
nature, there shouldn't hardly be any stinking physical bearings even
if the damn thing amounted to a megatonne.
Even at that, a very slight ceramic and/or diamond/ceramic based
bearing is going to be absolutely impressive since everything is at
nearly zero G.
Might I ask; is LL-1 another one of those taboo/nondisclosure zones
that's top-secret and/or need-to-know?
From LL-1 the flywheel stored energy can flow freely and efficiently
via tether towards the lunar deck or off towards getting damn close for
the laser cannon transfer to mother Earth, or just as easily accomplish
both at the same time.
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
21 Feb 2006 12:14:47 PM |
|
|
In sci.space.policy Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ian Stirling,
That's rather odd. I thought that I'd posted this, whereas it got taken
into the GOOGLE/Usenet and yet lo and behold, there's still no sign.
Thus I'll try again.
At LL-1 there's nearly absolute zero G and about as much of a nearby
accessible vacuum and clean-room environment as you're going to get
without leaving the solar system.
Thus even a 100 megatonne flywheel made extensively of composite basalt
and a few other lunar based fibers and elements, such as titanium
(which is entirely doable), is certainly going to store a wee bit more
energy than any one kg flywheel that's spinning at nearly "c", which by
the way is not sustainable nor hardly doable.
Nowhere near C, 5km/s or so.
And why isn't it sustainable?
Everything is lighter, the bearings are lots easier, if they don't have
to carry lots of static load, and the generators are smaller at high
RPM.
You can probably even make the 'arms' rigid, to avoid annoying problems
at spindown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
21 Feb 2006 02:43:27 PM |
|
|
Nowhere near C, 5km/s or so.
OK, I'll buy into that. Moving a few kg at 5 km/s is worth 25e6 X mass
is worth doing, and worth four times that much energy density if using
a pair of such as counter-rotating elements.
And why isn't it sustainable?
Energy in = energy out X Eff ( - whatever energy it takes to R&D,
create and service for the lifespan of that flywheel unit simply isn't
exactly what I'd call an energy win-win situation ). In other words,
how many new and improved flywheels can be fully created and put to
work as based entirely from the energy storage capacity of a given
flywheel? (I believe it's a fairly serious negative number of a decimal
point as having lots of zeros before reaching the first digit)
<Everything is lighter, the bearings are lots easier, if they don't
have
to carry lots of static load, and the generators are smaller at high RPM.
You're thinking terrestrial or even worse being within the lunar
surface environment which really sucks. Whereas in LL-1 (roughly
60,000 km away from the moon), regardless of the counter-rotating
flywheel megatonnage; Other than magnetic, what bearings?
You can probably even make the 'arms' rigid, to avoid annoying problems
at spindown.
In LL-1 there's no limitations as to the shape, volume, megatonnage or
of whatever's the required infrastructure. The inner most realm of
these counter rotating wheels (aka main hub) can for example provide a
circular habitat zone, as for accommodating those folks within as
having a sufficiently large enough diameter of good volume as
surrounded by a sufficient protective mass that'll represent an
internal walk-around environment of 1-G, as providing their LL-1
home-sweet-home away from home. Going further outboard to where the
imposed G forces are near the structural safety-limits of the basalt
and of whatever other composites plus titanium fibers seems perfectly
doable in order to establish whatever degree of TJ energy storage that
might vary the counter-rotating velocity by as much as +/-20% (+/-10%
per wheel), which I believe represents a rather huge energy influx
storage capability and/or that of taking such energy on demand without
significantly upsetting the status quo of whomever's onboard the mid or
central portion of this unit.
I'm thinking 36,000 TJ as a perfectly viable energy storage capacity is
a good starting point, although the relatively empty LL-1 sky is the
limit of seemingly accepting whatever that near-zero G environment can
accommodate. Thus 36e6 TJ should be doable.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
25 Feb 2006 10:48:56 PM |
|
|
Nog
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ec116473e9741c38/48950e8b450543f9?hl=en#48950e8b450543f9
Lunar night? The dark side is always night. The daylight side is always
light. It's rotational period equals it orbital period. Why use combersome
flywheels when solar cells can do the same thing without moving parts. 100
150 watt panels will generate 15 k watts 110/220 volts. 1000 panes will
generate 150 kilowatts. Would it make more sense to bring the technology up
to the moon to manufacture them up there? There is plenty of sand and
silica. It would be full time power since the sun always shines. You could
run power lines to the dark side and illuminate it.
Earthshine makes the lunar night nearly as bright as by day upon a
cloudy Earth.
Obviously PV cells can not store energy, and they certainly do not like
hard-X-rays.
Obviously taking micro impacts upon the likes of PV cells isn't going
to last for long.
Obviously lord "Nog" is another primo naysayer and golden brown-nosed
rusemaster to boot.
However, running of power lines to the opposit side of the moon isn't
such a bad idea.
Each human that's accomplishing any good on the nighttime/earthshine
illuminated moon needs the benefit of having a minimum energy resource
of 10 KW (maximum of 100 kw).
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
27 Feb 2006 03:03:15 PM |
|
|
Proposed lunar energy storage system
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ec116473e9741c38/69dcae9f7c11c7be?hl=en#69dcae9f7c11c7be
I've noticed how this topic is into avoiding the counter-rotating
flywheel proven worth of energy storage, as though such impressive
capability and energy storage capacity of such utilizing the
do-everything efficient LL-1 placement is taboo/nondisclosure, or
perhaps simply need-to-know (aka off limits).
There's no ongoing mention of the lunar polarity and direct
electrostatic energy worth, much less of storing terajoules of tether
dipole energy extraction, or is there anything that might possibly
relate to the LSE-CM/ISS. It must be something I'd said.
It seems they're all intent upon using those relatively pathetic PV
cells that simply wouldn't last nor persay store squat worth of energy,
and there's not even a word as to what a robust stirling process could
much better obtain since there's so much primary plus absolute loads of
secondary/recoil IR to work with, not to mention a polar situated 300 K
thermal differential potential if such were located on top of most any
significant polar ridge.
I can't but wonder what their real problem or topic ruse actually is.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
27 Feb 2006 09:08:43 PM |
|
|
Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've noticed how this topic is into avoiding the counter-rotating
flywheel proven worth of energy storage, as though such impressive
capability and energy storage capacity of such utilizing the
do-everything efficient LL-1 placement is taboo/nondisclosure, or
perhaps simply need-to-know (aka off limits).
Sorry, Brad, because you let the secret out about the 1 kilometer-
square Venus pixels, and because you are unable to prevent
disinformation assets from infecting your computer with all kinds of
nasty viruses, you have been scratched off of the "need-to-know" lits.
--
"Good come back *****!"
"Didn't you bet a merit badge in Gopher Choking, bugger Boy?"
"We don't discuss religion anymore you fucking idiot! Eat some more *****"
-- Honest John, Christian evangelist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Honest John" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
27 Feb 2006 09:13:48 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:270220062008433182%art_deco@127.0.0.1...
Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've noticed how this topic is into avoiding the counter-rotating
flywheel proven worth of energy storage, as though such impressive
capability and energy storage capacity of such utilizing the
do-everything efficient LL-1 placement is taboo/nondisclosure, or
perhaps simply need-to-know (aka off limits).
Sorry, Brad, because you let the secret out about the 1 kilometer-
square Venus pixels, and because you are unable to prevent
disinformation assets from infecting your computer with all kinds of
nasty viruses, you have been scratched off of the "need-to-know" lits.
Fart demands you submit to an anal probe at Fart's house.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Tehbot" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
27 Feb 2006 09:52:52 PM |
|
|
Honest John <honestjohn@centurytel.net>, screeched in
<I7mdnV04se3uIp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@centurytel.net>:
Fart demands you submit to an anal probe at Fart's house.
/BURP/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Honest John" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
27 Feb 2006 10:01:15 PM |
|
|
"Fred Tehbot" <fred.tehbot@seedy-dna-slurpee-machine.org> wrote in message
news:7DEA0258.5DA748EB.B892FE29.13DE3EDD.BE586135.D20643BA.81F5995B.E8D6EC98.46166E9A.39A4EE1B.054BED06.ED544B26.E98E434E.0C447A3A.741D7623.230226D9.85783DD4.124B41B0.C6A57CBA.21A724A6.F60FEDEC.4048489F@faulty-big-jake-the-one-eyed-snake.com...
Honest John <honestjohn@centurytel.net>, screeched in
<I7mdnV04se3uIp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@centurytel.net>:
Fart demands you submit to an anal probe at Fart's house.
/BURP/
Beer?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
28 Feb 2006 01:21:41 AM |
|
|
Folks, check out the usual topic fuckology by Art Deco, Honest John and
Fred Tabbot.
Thus exactly as I have said before, the really bad-***** Jews that
collaborated with the Third Reich are trying once again to get Jesus
Christ back on a stick.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
28 Feb 2006 10:57:07 PM |
|
|
Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Folks, check out the usual topic fuckology by Art Deco, Honest John and
Fred Tabbot.
Thus exactly as I have said before, the really bad-***** Jews that
collaborated with the Third Reich are trying once again to get Jesus
Christ back on a stick.
Guthspeak Lexicon:
fuckology (uncert.) - ad hominem employed by Brad Guth when someone
points out his blatant logical fallacies, usually non sequiturs.
--
"Good come back *****!"
"Didn't you bet a merit badge in Gopher Choking, bugger Boy?"
"We don't discuss religion anymore you fucking idiot! Eat some more *****"
-- Honest John, Christian evangelist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Honest John" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
28 Feb 2006 11:00:34 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:280220062157077595%art_deco@127.0.0.1...
Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Folks, check out the usual topic fuckology by Art Deco, Honest John and
Fred Tabbot.
Thus exactly as I have said before, the really bad-***** Jews that
collaborated with the Third Reich are trying once again to get Jesus
Christ back on a stick.
Guthspeak Lexicon:
fuckology (uncert.) - ad hominem employed by Brad Guth when someone
points out his blatant logical fallacies, usually non sequiturs.
From: (Art Deco)
Subject: Hardworking DWM, 50, looks 30,135, N/S, N/D, disease free,
Date: 1996/12/08
Message-ID: <32aa1525.552270@news.gainv.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 202926776
x-server-date: 8 Dec 1996 01:23:36 GMT
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to:
newsgroups: alt.personals.ads
no kids,stay at home type, non-macho,easy going,honest,
faithful,sensual, affectionate,witty, atrocious puns, not politically
correct, ex-60's hipster. King of the pack rats. Not into
sports,hunting, fishing,politics, religion, rap, dogs, S/M, B/D,or
traditional family value crap. Interests include, plants, ecology,
antiques,old movies,music, art,writing, computers, film
production,classic cars, flea markets and garage sales. Looking for
LTR with WF,25+, no kids, dogs, 60 foot pythons. Must be skinny,
happy, horny, not sexually dead, like massages, country living, cats,
have good sense of humor and a vocabulary higher than 50 words. Art,
graphics or acting background a plus. I'm not looking for a maid,
slave or cook. Please, no gameplayers, pathological liers, psychotics,
drunks, junkies, golddiggers, inmates or greed/power trips. Sincere
only. Reply to:
fart_deco@127.0.0.1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Honest John" |
|
| Title: Re: The troubles with jealousy... |
28 Feb 2006 11:01:53 PM |
|
|
Honest John <honestjohn@centurytel.net>, reviled in=0D=0A<86ednaPt5K-xt5jZRVn-gQ@centurytel.net>:=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> I get severe anxiety and depression.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
01 Mar 2006 05:37:52 PM |
|
|
Speaking a little further as to the storage of lunar related energy.
Here's an original thought that's clearly 'outside the usual box' of an
idea; Why not start off small, and then get really B I G !
Why does any counter-rotating flywheel format of energy storage need to
be huge to start with?
Why can't the first few installations and/or improvements be of those
100% derived from Earth?
Where the hell have I once suggested or implied that * B I G * is the
one and only alternative?
Establishing our foothold on LL-1 is an absolute no-brainer, with an
initial platform of a few tonnes situated within the somewhat
interactive mode of LL-1 doing it's station-keeping thing, whereas from
that point on it's but one efficient step at a time. Each month
receiving another 100t worth of whatever from Earth. Eventually
accomplishing a tether as anchored into the moon is simply part of plan
Duh-101, as per the tether dipole element being the second phase of
plan Double-Duh-101.
Where's the limitations or insurmountable problem(s)?
Where's there room for MOS Usenet/NASA naysayism?
What the hell is your dumbfounded problem this time?
All that I've ever suggested is to first think LL-1, then think as
small as you'd like, then think BIG (really BIG!).
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
29 Mar 2006 03:14:13 PM |
|
|
Topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
From: - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:50 am
Email:
Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.tech
Sounds like we need to make flywheels from lunar glass fibers. I have
the impression that glass can be quite strong if made in an anhydrous
environment, which Luna certainly is. Has anyone tried melting lunar
simulant (maybe with most of its metal contamination removed) in a
vacuum to make glass, then strength-tested the glass while still in a
vacuum?
-
Topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
From: Michael Smith - view profile
Date: Wed, Mar 15 2006 11:41 am
Email: "Michael Smith" <smi...@netapps.com.au>
Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.tech
I think the next expedition to the moon should start by landing a large
semi-autonomous rover. The rover will serve as a mobile habitat. It
will stay in daylight all the time, which makes it easy to use solar
power to keep it running.
Crews would be landed close to the rover at sites chosen by remote
sensing. Spacecraft similar to the apollo LM would do fine for this
task.
Having a mobile habitat enables you to solve a number of problems apart
from the power issue. Crews would be able to explore diverse terrains
during each mission. If a solar flare creates a hazard the rover and
crew would be able to look for shelter inside a rille or lava tube.
The rover wouldn't have to move very fast. It could stay close to one
pole to reduce the travel needed to keep it in sunlight.
-
Michael Smith and "wbo",
Because of the "sci.space.tech (moderated)" little extra that's parked
within your cross posting is why the honest likes of so many folks and
especially the likes of myself are being restricted and/or banished as
to just the "sci.space.policy" portion of this topic. Thus others and
I can't even honestly contribute my two cents worth without our having
to exclude as to whatever the original author had intended, and as you
can plainly see that no one other gives an actual hoot about your input
or that of those contributing to the original "wbo" topic author
anyway. In spite of all the mainstream naysayism that clearly sucks
and blows, there are perfectly good ideas here, including those of
your's, but apparently there's no cigar to being had, meaning that the
rusemaster borg collective of MIB(Usenet cops) are not exactly pleased,
much less happy campers.
Your "large semi-autonomous rover" is however a darn good if not
terrific idea, perhaps as a lunar metro bus(LM-1 or LMB-1), that which
can represent as much as 600t that'll equal just 100t upon the moon, as
per assembled on location plus having been locally applied with extra
reinforcements of basalt fiber and JB-WELD as the tough composite
covering becoming sufficiently robust and fully capable of
accommodating a dozen folks with lots of their bulky gear and
technology for assisting their task. With 200 m2 of track drive gets
the LMB-1 surface loading down to 500 kg/m2 (50 g/cm2), that which in
such dusty places is fairly certain to sink to whatever's the hard-rock
bottom of that otherwise light and fluffy moon dust.
Cutting this rover/LMB-1 mass down to just 60t (10t upon the moon)
would become a terrific improvement in dealing with the extremely
slight surface tension of what's there to behold in meters deep layers
of such light and fluffy debris that's also very dark and nasty as well
as electrostatic charged. However, at 60t there's simply not going to
be a sufficient degree of shielding for accommodating those nasty
daytime expeditions, although via earthshine expeditions should be a
whole lot better off anyway.
Perhaps you'll also need to consider upon having a good nuclear reactor
nearby, for accommodating 10 kw/person at your lunar bus depot, and
possibly even a smaller reactor for the LMB-1 itself). Whereas I'm
thinking this item should be of not greater than 60t for providing the
base of operations with 120 kw, therefore a mere 10t as situated upon
the lunar deck seems perfectly doable once an actual fly-by-rocket
lander becomes the status quo of getting such payloads safely onto the
deck. Unlike terrestrial applications, the reactor as per intended for
the moon need not be all that shielded.
Worth reading; Small Nuclear Power Reactors: <
http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm >
This is what I'd recently contributed to "Geoffrey" within the topic of
"Moonbase Power". Plus I've added a wee bit to the end of this one.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ef1749afd956a853/2522cb00f9b37060?lnk=st&q=%22of+what's+similar+to+PVs+is+the+prospects%22&rnum=1&hl=en#2522cb00f9b37060
I believe the solar wind driven moon dust is going to represent enough
of a compromise to the life and/or serviceability of those PVs,
especially as such moon dust being of carbon/soot coated elements of
salt, iron, titanium and of whatever's within basalt plus the vast
remains of countless meteor impacts and of their secondary shards
contributing that of just about everything imaginable including the
kitchen sink, along with most everything being so electrostatic charged
to the max. A mechanical wiper or perhaps a central spinning element
if not having the entire array kept as spinning should help keep the
lens clear enough, unless the harsh abrasive aspects of that nasty
moon-dust is simply too aggressive, although a diamond coated PV lens
might resolve that issue.
Of robust PVs or not, I'd still have to vote for the compact and much
greater energy density of having a small and reliable 24/7/365 reactor
as my resource of nearby energy (10+kw/brave soul), as perhaps not
situated quite so nearby if there's ever a problem of leakage and
you're situated downwind of that reactor as it's going postal. It
seems being north or south of that sucker by a km should be more than
sufficient.
However, of what's entirely similar to PVs is the prospects of having
the physically robust nature of a hermetically sealed solar-stirling
method of a moon based energy producing unit, that's roughly better off
than twice as good of energy conversion efficiency/m2 than of PVs, and
unlikely to stop ticking unless directly impacted by one of those
incoming or that of a high velocity item as passing near the surface,
such as a fairly common cm3 size of meteor that's going to do a real
number upon anything that's naked upon the lunar surface, whereas even
the secondary impact shards are going to be damn nasty if not lethal to
all but the most robust of applied technology.
Obviously the solar-stirling alternative is considerably more massive
than of those wussy solar-PVs that'll take up a great deal of volume
and otherwise proceed to die-off by at least 10% per year (up to as
much as 25% per year), but perhaps still sufficiently less massive than
the nuclear reactor option. Of course, with using the LSE-CM/ISS
tether elevator as the method of deploying man and machine to/from the
lunar surface, as such there's no longer a limitation as to the given
tonnage that can be safely and efficiently managed. What do you think
about the solar-stirling alternative?
-
Certainly the flywheel suggestion of applied energy storage is
representing another terrific alternative to the h2o2/aluminum
fuel-cells, as for accommodating the surplus of energy that's derived
by either solar-PV or solar-stirling alternatives, and with a 4.8 GPa
composite fiber that's easily obtained from local resources of basalt
and of processed via solar energy being the do-everything key element
for making such flywheels as robust as you'd care to make them,
therefore nearly unlimited energy storage capability, especially if
those items were that of a counter-rotating set of flywheels as
situated in the nearby LL-1 zone, whereas the vast black sky that's
otherwise absolutely chuck full of vibrant starshine is the limit,
meaning that we're talking of unlimited size, shape or mass, and of
having absolutely zero bearing loads as well as the least possivble
rotating friction that's to being found unless you're operating
somewhere out past Mars.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
29 Mar 2006 01:35:19 PM |
|
|
Topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
From: - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:50 am
Email:
Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.tech
Sounds like we need to make flywheels from lunar glass fibers. I have
the impression that glass can be quite strong if made in an anhydrous
environment, which Luna certainly is. Has anyone tried melting lunar
simulant (maybe with most of its metal contamination removed) in a
vacuum to make glass, then strength-tested the glass while still in a
vacuum?
-
Topic: Proposed lunar energy storage system
From: Michael Smith - view profile
Date: Wed, Mar 15 2006 11:41 am
Email: "Michael Smith" <smi...@netapps.com.au>
Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.tech
I think the next expedition to the moon should start by landing a large
semi-autonomous rover. The rover will serve as a mobile habitat. It
will stay in daylight all the time, which makes it easy to use solar
power to keep it running.
Crews would be landed close to the rover at sites chosen by remote
sensing. Spacecraft similar to the apollo LM would do fine for this
task.
Having a mobile habitat enables you to solve a number of problems apart
from the power issue. Crews would be able to explore diverse terrains
during each mission. If a solar flare creates a hazard the rover and
crew would be able to look for shelter inside a rille or lava tube.
The rover wouldn't have to move very fast. It could stay close to one
pole to reduce the travel needed to keep it in sunlight.
-
Michael Smith and "wbo",
Because of the "sci.space.tech (moderated)" little extra that's within
your cross posting is why the honest likes of so many others and
especially the likes of myself are restricted and/or banished as to
just the "sci.space.policy" portion of this topic. Thus others and I
can't even honestly contribute my two cents worth without having to
exclude as to whatever the original author had intended, and as you can
plainly see that no one other gives an actual hoot about your input or
that of those contributing to the original "wbo" topic author anyway.
There are perfectly good ideas here, including those of your's, but
apparently there's no cigar to being had, meaning that the rusemaster
MIB(Usenet cops) are not exactly pleased, much less happy campers.
Your "large semi-autonomous rover" is however a darn good if not
terrific idea, perhaps as a lunar metro bus(LM-1 or LMB-1), that which
can represent as much as 600t that'll equal just 100t upon the moon, as
per assembled on location plus having been locally applied with extra
reinforcements of basalt fiber and JB-WELD as the tough composite
covering becoming sufficiently robust and fully capable of
accommodating a dozen folks with lots of their bulky gear and
technology for assisting their task. With 200 m2 of track drive gets
the LMB-1 surface loading down to 500 kg/m2 (50 g/cm2), that which in
such dusty places is fairly certain to sink to whatever's the hard-rock
bottom of that otherwise light and fluffy moon dust.
Cutting this rover/LMB-1 mass down to just 60t (10t upon the moon)
would become a terrific improvement in dealing with the extremely
slight surface tension of what's there to behold in meters deep layers
of such light and fluffy debris that's also very dark and nasty as well
as electrostatic charged. However, at 60t there's simply not going to
be a sufficient degree of shielding for accommodating those nasty
daytime expeditions, although via earthshine expeditions should be a
whole lot better off anyway.
Perhaps you'll also need to consider upon having a good nuclear reactor
nearby, for accommodating 10 kw/person at your lunar bus depot, and
possibly even a smaller reactor for the LMB-1 itself). Whereas I'm
thinking this item should be of not greater than 60t for providing the
base of operations with 120 kw, therefore a mere 10t as situated upon
the lunar deck seems perfectly doable once an actual fly-by-rocket
lander becomes the status quo of getting such payloads safely onto the
deck. Unlike terrestrial applications, the reactor as per intended for
the moon need not be all that shielded.
Small Nuclear Power Reactors: < http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm >
This is what I'd recently contributed to "Geoffrey" within the topic of
"Moonbase Power".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ef1749afd956a853/2522cb00f9b37060?lnk=st&q=%22of+what's+similar+to+PVs+is+the+prospects%22&rnum=1&hl=en#2522cb00f9b37060
I believe the solar wind driven moon dust is going to represent enough
of a compromise to the life and/or serviceability of those PVs,
especially as such moon dust being of carbon/soot coated elements of
salt, iron, titanium and of whatever's within basalt plus the vast
remains of countless meteor impacts and of their secondary shards
contributing that of just about everything imaginable including the
kitchen sink, along with most everything being so electrostatic charged
to the max. A mechanical wiper or perhaps a central spinning element
if not having the entire array kept as spinning should help keep the
lens clear enough, unless the harsh abrasive aspects of that nasty
moon-dust is simply too aggressive, although a diamond coated PV lens
might resolve that issue.
Of robust PVs or not, I'd still have to vote for the compact and much
greater energy density of having a small and reliable 24/7/365 reactor
as my resource of nearby energy (10+kw/brave soul), as perhaps not
situated quite so nearby if there's ever a problem of leakage and
you're situated downwind of that reactor as it's going postal. It
seems being north or south of that sucker by a km should be more than
sufficient.
However, of what's entirely similar to PVs is the prospects of having
the physically robust nature of a hermetically sealed solar-stirling
method of a moon based energy producing unit, that's roughly better off
than twice as good of energy conversion efficiency/m2 than of PVs, and
unlikely to stop ticking unless directly impacted by one of those
incoming or that of a high velocity item as passing near the surface,
such as a fairly common cm3 size of meteor that's going to do a real
number upon anything that's naked upon the lunar surface, whereas even
the secondary impact shards are going to be damn nasty if not lethal to
all but the most robust of applied technology.
Obviously the solar-stirling alternative is considerably more massive
than of those wussy solar-PVs that'll take up a great deal of volume
and otherwise proceed to die-off by at least 10% per year (up to as
much as 25% per year), but perhaps still sufficiently less massive than
the nuclear reactor option. Of course, with using the LSE-CM/ISS
tether elevator as the method of deploying man and machine to/from the
lunar surface, as such there's no longer a limitation as to the given
tonnage that can be safely and efficiently managed. What do you think
about the solar-stirling alternative?
Certainly the flywheel of applied energy storage is representing
another terrific alternative to the h2o2/aluminum fuel-cells, as for
accommodating the surplus of energy derived by either solar-PV or
solar-stirling alternatives, with a 4.8 GPa composite fiber that's
easily obtained from local resources of basalt and of processed via
solar energy being the do-everything key element for making such
flywheels as robust as you'd care to make them, therefore nearly
unlimited energy storage capability, especially if those were that of a
counter-rotating set of flywheels as situated in the nearby LL-1 zone,
whereas the vast black sky is the limit, meaning that we're talking
unlimited size, shape or mass, and absolutely zero bearing loads.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: unmoderated: Proposed lunar energy storage system |
20 Feb 2006 02:45:48 PM |
|
|
That's rather odd. I thought that I'd posted this, whereas it
seemingly got taken into the GOOGLE/Usenet archives and yet lo and
behold, there's still no sign. Apparently I can't directly contribute
to the likes of "Ian Stirling". Thus I'll have to try this again and
again just for good measure, by way of having to repost this portion to
myself.
This was intended for Ian Stirling,
At LL-1 there's nearly absolute zero G and about as much of a nearby
accessible vacuum and clean-room environment as you're going to get
without leaving the solar system.
Thus even a 100 megatonne flywheel made extensively of composite basalt
and a few other lunar based fibers and elements, such as titanium
(which is entirely doable), is certainly going to represent the storage
of a wee bit more energy than any one kg flywheel that's spinning at
nearly "c", which by the way is not sustainable nor hardly doable.
At LL-1 there's are no volume issues nor limitations of flywheel mass,
and there's certainly damn little if any friction via the local
environment, nor should there be physical bearings involved.
Therefore, a multi-tonnage flywheel as energy storage is just the best
ever ticket in town, as well as situated along with offering whatever
crew(s) the rather enormous safety advantage of such being roughly
60,000 km away from that otherwise reactive and downright nasty lunar
deck.
It's also providing by far the most rocket energy efficient task of
getting whatever to/from the LL-1 zone that's essentially a mutual
gravity-well sanctuary.
Another recent offering by "wbo"
wbo; But to reduce launch costs for a massive energy storage
system, it would then make sense to make those high-strength
fibers from local materials, say basalt glass fibers. In the
dry lunar environment, these should have pretty good ultimate
strength (see 'Moon Miner's Manifesto discussions on 'Glax'
composite material). Since a flywheel stores more energy if
the mass is farther out, forget arms: spin the glass fibers
into a hollow cylinder, easier to fabricate than varying-cross
-section arms. Suspend the cylinder from Earth-imported bearings.
wbo,
What "Earth-imported" bearings?
Other than end-stop safety bearings which could also be of a magnetic
nature, there shouldn't hardly be any stinking physical bearings even
if the damn thing amounted to a megatonne.
Even at that, a very slight ceramic and/or diamond/ceramic based
bearing is going to be absolutely impressive since everything is at
nearly zero G.
Might I ask; is LL-1 another one of those taboo/nondisclosure zones
that's top-secret and/or need-to-know?
From LL-1 the flywheel stored energy can flow freely and efficiently
via tether towards the lunar deck or off towards getting damn close for
the laser cannon transfer to mother Earth, or just as easily accomplish
both at the same time.
-
Brad Guth
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
