I guy I used to work with, whose first name was Dave, had a favorite saying. He liked to say "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't be living." So, what about that? Isn't it useful, in a pragmatic sense, to have a sense of humor about things? Well, it can certainly take the edge off some social tensions. I bring this up because of what someone said about me in reference to a post I made on the subject of space. He was ridiculing my ideas that I have been exploring here. I answered back, but kept my anger somewhat in check. All the time, I was wondering if I was taking it all too seriously. Was I not able to take a joke?
But being a rather stubborn sort, I continue to soldier on ( or space cadet on ) with these ideas. Because I am getting more and more sure that they could work.
Incidentally, this guy who made fun of me with this space cadet remark is on Huffington Post. It is mostly left wing site which I make comments from time to time. This particular comment was about how to create jobs. People need jobs nowadays. There isn't enough of them. So, I made the suggestion that we could launch solar powered satellites from the moon. These in turn could supply power to Earth which could be used to solve the transportation fuel problem we have here in the USA. Rather than to say too much more about it, an interested reader can go to Huffington and pick up the thread there.
On the subject at hand, the idea of making space pay, I would like to get past all the baloney and see if it can work. Let's consider this a thought experiment. Can it work?
Let's see my progress on this. I posted about Stirling engines and nukes as a power source on the moon. You definitely need power sources to do anything on the moon. Today I have been reading about fresnel lenses. I remembered reading about these in connection to generating solar power. Seems like somebody in Australia was making solar cubes and selling them. The solar cubes used fresnel lenses to concentrate the rays of the sun on the photovoltaic cells. This made them more efficient.
This idea may be useful on the moon too. Not necessarily using solar cubes, but the fresnel lenses. You can make fresnel lenses out of plastics. With an earlier post, it appears that plastics can be manufactured by using yeasts. The yeast could produce plastic from carbon dioxide. You would need a way to use carbon dioxide on the moon. What better way than to make plastics with yeast and with the plastic make fresnel lenses? You can make the photovoltaics from all the silicon on the moon. Now you have two elements for making photovoltaics from in situ resources of the moon. You could use these on the moon, and/ or you could launch them into geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. From there, you can beam down the energy to Earth which can earn a profit from operations on the moon.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
3 comments:
A question or two about the yeast scheme. Isn't yeast alive and wouldn't it die in a vacuum? How could you harvest carbon dioxide unless the yeast is in a controlled atmosphere? How big would the controlled area have to be in order to make enough to suit your purposes? I'm asking a lot of simple questions because I've never heard of this process, not to be a smarty boots.
Yes, I think it would definitely not be in good shape in a vacuum. So naturally it needs a controlled environment. In order to answer the other questions, I would have to know more about yields and efficiencies and such things. Although this could be a vaporware claim, there have been numerous claims that biotechnology can engineer organisms to produce all kinds of useful products. This isn't the only story that I have heard about this kind of thing. Maybe it is vaporware, who knows? I am assuming that it isn't.
A little further thought on that. The amount of material needed would be substantial. Yet, if you were to build a facility that could provide power for thirty years at 10 cent a kilowatt hour, you could rake in over 30 billion dollars in the lifetime of the thing if it was about 4 miles square. The cost to manufacturing plus all interest costs would probably be less, but I am guessing. In the end, you would still have launch facilities on the moon and the opportunity to expand it further.
Post a Comment