News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by dghughes on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:36PM (#34264342)
Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier? No atmosphere and on always being blasted with sunshine.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by josh11b on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:41PM (#34264423)
There is no place on the moon that isn't in shadow 14 days at a time. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering-the-l...
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by amelius on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:50PM (#34264555)
Near the poles?
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by Fordec on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:55PM (#34264647)
Only works if your bases are at the poles. Which for some missions works, but it's a limitation if your project needs to be anywhere else.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by Nomentatus on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:22PM (#34265076)
https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe...

There's a famous-in-the-area ex-NASA blogger with good (not perfect) articles on the topic, but I can't Google and find him 'cause authoritative institutions now seems to trump and drown out mere experts on Google.

Others here cite him: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog-series-co...

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by TaylorAlexander on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:19PM (#34265034)
Maybe use solar panels to split lunar ice water in to hydrogen and oxygen, then use that to run fuel cells in the dark periods.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by LarryMullins on Thursday January 05, 2023 @04:04PM (#34266549)
14 days of lunar night would get quite cold. Maybe you could use the bases' water tanks as thermal batteries.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by Nomentatus on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:36PM (#34265298)
Tall lunar pole towers: https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe...

Maybe better: nuke the moon and reduce a few key crater rims, then use much shorter towers. Could be that a series of regular bombs might be more effective and less likely to "alarm the horses (general public.)"

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by ehnto on Friday January 06, 2023 @03:28AM (#34272353)
Given the satellites need to be geostationary, don't they have the same issue? I know due to the higher altitude you would get more time in the sun but I feel like even one to two days would be too much distruption (2 days battery storage would be crazy expensive to send up but maybe that equation changes one day)
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by napier on Friday January 06, 2023 @03:31AM (#34272372)
Beam the power around the moon from where it's sunny at any given time to wherever needs it, using phased array orbital substation reciever-transmitters. No atmospheric interference to result in high rates of transmission loss. Might prove cost efficient.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by JumpCrisscross on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:42PM (#34264435)
> Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier?

Dust.

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by nakedrobot2 on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:52PM (#34264597)
there is no wind on the moon.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by JumpCrisscross on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:05PM (#34264805)
> there is no wind on the moon

There is near a Moon base, which is presumably where you’d need power.

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by ben_w on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:27PM (#34265156)
"Near" is a relative term; 10 km is a rounding error for resistive losses even in a mediocre cable at unspectacular voltages, even 1000 km isn't much loss for an HVDC cable, and it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor if SpaceX's Starship price estimate works out.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by JumpCrisscross on Thursday January 05, 2023 @02:42PM (#34265400)
I was going to rebut with distance and maintenance, but it's a hell of a lot easier to go 10km over than 10km up. (I think?)

> it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor

Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's motion through the Earth's magnetic field?

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by ben_w on Thursday January 05, 2023 @03:28PM (#34266073)
> Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's motion through the Earth's magnetic field?

Not sure, but my gut feeling says no: the Moon is a very long way from the Earth relative to the Earth's size, therefore the magnetic field is likely to be fairly uniform around the Moon and so that can't extract much work.

That said, one fun idea I've had is to just assume that the Dark Energy expansion of the universe is pushing the Moon away very slowly; 73 (km/s)/Mpc * distance to the moon ≈ 9.5e-10 m/s, which is pretty close to the actual current Moon-Earth recession speed.

Plugging that into the formula for far-field gravitational potential energy given the mass of Earth and the Moon, that's about 170 GW at the present time.

(But don't go trying to crowd-fund a Dark Energy field reactor on my say-so: At my [rather limited] level of understanding, it looks like physicists haven't yet reached any sort of consensus as to whether or not Dark Energy might work like that).

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by JumpCrisscross on Thursday January 05, 2023 @04:27PM (#34266877)
I'll shoot you the DEFCoin white paper.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by WJW on Thursday January 05, 2023 @03:13PM (#34265843)
My gut feeling says that it is not impossible but you would probably need many loops around the moon to generate a sufficient coil, making the whole thing cost prohibitive. You could probably dot some solar farms around the equator of the moon and loop them all up with a big cable for a fraction of the price.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by LarryMullins on Thursday January 05, 2023 @04:27PM (#34266872)
Laying ten thousand kilometers of cable to loop around the moon sounds like a huge undertaking, even if you've got a rocket that can bring the cable there.

What would the cable layer look like? A huge robotic rover? Could you get all 10,000 km onto one spool, or deliver new spools to it?

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by ben_w on Friday January 06, 2023 @04:28AM (#34272732)
I doubt this is a good guess, given I'm neither a civil engineer nor a space engineer, but my guess would be it would look like a machine for laying a railway.

It's a Starship-scale project: something like 100 launches, which is only feasible because Starship is targeting such low launch costs.

I don't know (see previous disclaimer) but I wouldn't be surprised if (assuming circumlunar power is even the chosen solution) this is done by sending up an aluminium factory instead and processing regolith.

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by LarryMullins on Thursday January 05, 2023 @04:12PM (#34266663)
There's still a bit of dust falling on the moon, kicked up by meteorite impacts and perhaps electrostatic effects. Probably not enough dust to cause issues though.
Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by dirkc on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:43PM (#34264465)
Two reasons I can think of

1. A moon day is 28 earth days, thus 14 days of darkness

2. Ice are in permanently shaded areas near the poles of the moon, it might be easier to setup satellites to beam down power rather than setting up in 2 locations

Re:Caltech to Launch Space Solar Power Technology Demo into ... by elil17 on Thursday January 05, 2023 @01:55PM (#34264639)
In addition to what others have said, it takes more fuel/energy to land a payload on the moon than it does to orbit one.