Moon base and knowledge repository plans

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Seems the Euro space agency is considering building a repository of knowledge with transmitter (tgt'd at earth) in the event of planet wide disaster or war. Among other things, it has directions for growing seeds and other crops. Question;if one doesn't know how to plant a seed how are they going to know how to "tune in" and get the knowledge?

They are also planning on a growing plants on the moon test (in an enclosed space of course). Seems the tulip is first candidate.

(don't let the link throw you off, they seem to have some "Real" articles there):

http://2012supplies.com/blog/?p=188
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
I'm sure the Libertarians want to know if you can grow marijuana on the moon. ;)
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
I'm sure the Libertarians want to know if you can grow marijuana on the moon. ;)

as long as there is an economical way to get it back


QUESTION: what is the reason we do not put hazardous waste (chemicals, nuc waste, etc) into space?
If its orbit degrades wouldn't it all burn up on re-entry?
Just curious
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
The cost would be astronomical and whatever you send up remains in orbit, which is a potential hazard to astronauts and satellites (debris can pick up speed quite easily). The only viable solution involving garbage in space would require sending it away from our planet, say, the sun or Jupiter where it would be consumed but we come back to massive cost.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
The cost would be astronomical and whatever you send up remains in orbit, which is a potential hazard to astronauts and satellites (debris can pick up speed quite easily). The only viable solution involving garbage in space would require sending it away from our planet, say, the sun or Jupiter where it would be consumed but we come back to massive cost.
ok thanks

Now wouldn't that be a spectacular Anthropocentric act? pollute the solar system for mankind's benefit

reminds me of those voyager eps' with the inter system toxic waste runners
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Wasn't that the premise of Space 1999? We were using the moon as a nuclear waste dump and something exploded and knocked the moon out of Earth's orbit? (Something like that from what I recall)
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
Wasn't that the premise of Space 1999? We were using the moon as a nuclear waste dump and something exploded and knocked the moon out of Earth's orbit? (Something like that from what I recall)

They were hoarding nuclear waste on the moon. One of the storage sectors exploded and the explosion "thrust" the moon out of orbit. Loved the show but, damn, was the premise hokey. :icon_lol:

See, that shit could fly in the 70s but it wouldn't last 5 minutes if it were made today.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
They were hoarding nuclear waste on the moon. One of the storage sectors exploded and the explosion "thrust" the moon out of orbit. Loved the show but, damn, was the premise hokey. :icon_lol:

See, that shit could fly in the 70s but it wouldn't last 5 minutes if it were made today.

I dunno, after all, we've got tons of people who buy lousy premises in shows today like TWD and Revolution. I honestly didn't expect Revolution to be a hit due to the completely lame premise but there it is, doing well, oy!
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
ok thanks

Now wouldn't that be a spectacular Anthropocentric act? pollute the solar system for mankind's benefit

reminds me of those voyager eps' with the inter system toxic waste runners

Better would be to eliminate the waste by rejecting all of the consumption of fossil fuels and investing in massive reform of the power infrastructure. Massive cost, a MAJOR threat (fatal) to oil companies and the power companies they own. Capitalism is the incentive to continue things as they are. Remove the profit by nationalizing power and water and food supplies. Then we will have more incentive to make it more efficient because taxes will be paying for it. A giant fuel cell plant could power an entire state with no emissions except pure, drinkable water. But then, oil companies cannot make any money on you can they? :facepalm:
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Better would be to eliminate the waste by rejecting all of the consumption of fossil fuels and investing in massive reform of the power infrastructure. Massive cost, a MAJOR threat (fatal) to oil companies and the power companies they own. Capitalism is the incentive to continue things as they are. Remove the profit by nationalizing power and water and food supplies. Then we will have more incentive to make it more efficient because taxes will be paying for it. A giant fuel cell plant could power an entire state with no emissions except pure, drinkable water. But then, oil companies cannot make any money on you can they? :facepalm:

What you're detailing is the complete overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure. Of course there will be resistance to that. Such large, global changes have to happen slowly and they almost never happen by government fiat. That's the mistake we're making, this thinking that we can legislate a new energy source. We can't. As it is solar and wind suck ass as energy producers. I'm talking BTU output. They can't compete against fossil fuels in that regard, they simply can't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the oil companies per se, I'm just explaining how it is pure and simple. As it is I see zip wrong with using natural gas to power things and for that matter I know that coal processing and burning has gotten light years better than it once was. We're not choking out tons of mercury and other noxious substances that we once were with coal as a power plant energy source. The problem is that the enviro-whackos are too limited in their thinking and they want to legislate ourselves out of existence. They don't give a shit about reality and the fact that coal can crank out the BTU's in much higher numbers and more efficiently than windmills or solar panels can. Will that change? Will solar and wind get so good that they are cost effective? Meh, I doubt it.

Personally I would like to see more done in the way of "artificially" producing natural gas. You can't tell me that we can't "compost" agricultural waste with some super gas producing bacteria and make tons of that shit ourselves. And as for Global Warming, I don't give a shit. Let this mutha burn! I'm sick of the cold. I want it as hot as possible. Mankind is an adaptable species so we'll get by just fine if the oceans rise (they won't). And if the midwest turns into a desert then great! I'll grow some freakin' cacti! Let Canada and Greenland produce our wheat and shit like that.

Now mind you, this could just be the shiraz I had with dinner talking, so think about what I've said because God knows I haven't. ;)
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
Hydrogen based fuel cells. Requires no transport. generates 3x more energy output than gasoline at the same volume, fuel pumps separate hydrogen from h20 on site and the by-product is water.

It doesn't require a massive undertaking to convert to hydrogen. The resistance comes from big oil and car parts industry. Hydrogen doesn't require an engine with hundreds of moving parts that are subject to replacement, oil changes, etc. Conversion would kill off more than just big oil. It really has nothing to do with how massive an undertaking it is. It's all about greed.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
Hydrogen based fuel cells. Requires no transport. generates 3x more energy output than gasoline at the same volume, fuel pumps separate hydrogen from h20 on site and the by-product is water.

It doesn't require a massive undertaking to convert to hydrogen. The resistance comes from big oil and car parts industry. Hydrogen doesn't require an engine with hundreds of moving parts that are subject to replacement, oil changes, etc. Conversion would kill off more than just big oil. It really has nothing to do with how massive an undertaking it is. It's all about greed.

You said it better than I did but we are EXACTLY on the same page.

exactly-9991500973.png

--- merged: Dec 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM ---
What you're detailing is the complete overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure. Of course there will be resistance to that. Such large, global changes have to happen slowly and they almost never happen by government fiat. That's the mistake we're making, this thinking that we can legislate a new energy source. We can't. As it is solar and wind suck ass as energy producers. I'm talking BTU output. They can't compete against fossil fuels in that regard, they simply can't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the oil companies per se, I'm just explaining how it is pure and simple. As it is I see zip wrong with using natural gas to power things and for that matter I know that coal processing and burning has gotten light years better than it once was. We're not choking out tons of mercury and other noxious substances that we once were with coal as a power plant energy source. The problem is that the enviro-whackos are too limited in their thinking and they want to legislate ourselves out of existence. They don't give a shit about reality and the fact that coal can crank out the BTU's in much higher numbers and more efficiently than windmills or solar panels can. Will that change? Will solar and wind get so good that they are cost effective? Meh, I doubt it.

Personally I would like to see more done in the way of "artificially" producing natural gas. You can't tell me that we can't "compost" agricultural waste with some super gas producing bacteria and make tons of that shit ourselves. And as for Global Warming, I don't give a shit. Let this mutha burn! I'm sick of the cold. I want it as hot as possible. Mankind is an adaptable species so we'll get by just fine if the oceans rise (they won't). And if the midwest turns into a desert then great! I'll grow some freakin' cacti! Let Canada and Greenland produce our wheat and shit like that.

Now mind you, this could just be the shiraz I had with dinner talking, so think about what I've said because God knows I haven't. ;)

A fuel cell array as large as the typical oil refinery could power an entire STATE. In Torrance and Long Beach are refineries which are bigger than some small cities in LA County. Typical fuel cell technology:

fuel-cell-diagram.gif


Hydrogen can easily be made every day by simply solar cell generated electrolysis of water, and seawater will also do for this, BTW. Just find a way to dispose of the minerals left behind. But say you have an array of say....10 giant fuel cells about a 100feet by 100feet by 600feet tall, you are talking power generation on par with a large hydroelectric plant. Enough to power the state and have some left over.;). Fuel cells could make hydroelectric plants obsolete, as well as nuclear power generators. But right now is the cost of the platinum power which is used as the catalyst. I think that a synthetic catalyst will be invented to allow the use of a much cheaper one. Still, this is something that would basically eliminate the oil producing companies and the infrastructure they represent. It would stop the pumping of oil, and this eliminate the need for supertankers, oil derricks, offshore drilling platforms, and would eliminate more than a million jobs worldwide.

But it would be incredibly cheap. So much so that nobody could profit on it. MILLIONS of industries which have grown like a parasite on the oil companies would evaporate in relevance. If course, the plastics industry would continue to be needed, unless...oh wait: http://www.epa.gov/ord/gems/scinews_field_dreams.htm Thats right, a significant number of plastics are now CORN based (renewable).

So, could it be any clearer now why we are not moving forward? The lost of jobs precludes life without a job (that pays a paycheck) being a bad thing. Working is always needed. But having your survival based in money you make for working is unnatural and drives the need to "have a job" (which really means to make money in the Western system). Its gonna collapse eventually and probably sooner than later.

Time for the Star Trek government...what will it be? Perhaps this Moon based repository will best serve as an example of one of the least progressive eras in the history of Humankind? I am certain that in 1950 when people buried time capsules to preserve their "high state of advancement", they never imagined that most of what they considered near and dear just seems "campy" to us. I think that Moon repository will prove to be much the same.
 

mzzz

Well Known GateFan
Solar energy is currently just too inefficient for practical purposes. I know this because I did an internship designing a mini-low-orbit satellite. The energy generation is dependent on the the size of the solar panels and ultimately how much energy is transferred through all the intermediaries (from sun to solar panel, from solar panel to actual useful energy via conversion, energy to batteries, etc.). It just isn't useful on earth in its current form (high cost of maintenance, restriction to where sun's rays strike the earth which is usually near the Tropics and fringes of the equator, overall inefficiency of conversion to useful energy, and just volume issues since you need a very large amount of solar cells for doing practical things). Think time and money is better spent on nuclear sources of energy which is ultimately more efficient than most of them.

There's also another issue that I think could be addressed. We really do waste energy, because the transportation of energy from place to place could be made more efficient with the use of superconductors as opposed to current methods using normal conductors. But I forget what issues come out of implementing superconductors in energy transport. Think there can be research done though for practical implementation.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
Solar energy is currently just too inefficient for practical purposes. I know this because I did an internship designing a mini-low-orbit satellite. The energy generation is dependent on the the size of the solar panels and ultimately how much energy is transferred through all the intermediaries (from sun to solar panel, from solar panel to actual useful energy via conversion, energy to batteries, etc.). It just isn't useful on earth in its current form (high cost of maintenance, restriction to where sun's rays strike the earth which is usually near the Tropics and fringes of the equator, overall inefficiency of conversion to useful energy, and just volume issues since you need a very large amount of solar cells for doing practical things). Think time and money is better spent on nuclear sources of energy which is ultimately more efficient than most of them.

I completely agree. But I think we are talking about direct conversion. Doing it that way is incredibly inefficient. But using it to drive electrolysis to produce hydrogen is very cheap. Then the hydrogen can be sent to fuel cells. The amount of hydrogen generated in a day from solar cells could easily fuel the array even on sunless days.

There's also another issue that I think could be addressed. We really do waste energy, because the transportation of energy from place to place could be made more efficient with the use of superconductors as opposed to current methods using normal conductors. But I forget what issues come out of implementing superconductors in energy transport. Think there can be research done though for practical implementation.

Good point. If the infrastructure were wireless and lower power, we could transmit the power Tesla style. :)
 

mzzz

Well Known GateFan
I completely agree. But I think we are talking about direct conversion. Doing it that way is incredibly inefficient. But using it to drive electrolysis to produce hydrogen is very cheap. Then the hydrogen can be sent to fuel cells. The amount of hydrogen generated in a day from solar cells could easily fuel the array even on sunless days.



Good point. If the infrastructure were wireless and lower power, we could transmit the power Tesla style. :)

It's not practical, you're just adding another layer of inefficient energy conversion. The other issue is that hydrogen is not naturally occurring. It must be extracted from other compounds using even more energy just for the extraction process for large volumes. Then you have other issues such as transportation of the material and storage issues. Also, hydrogen fuel cells have a pretty low energy yield. You'd need significantly large amounts to generate useful amounts of energy, which means an even larger infrastructure compounding on the transportation and storage issue.

What? Wireless power? Don't know what you're talking about with Tesla.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
What you're detailing is the complete overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure. Of course there will be resistance to that. Such large, global changes have to happen slowly and they almost never happen by government fiat. That's the mistake we're making, this thinking that we can legislate a new energy source. We can't. As it is solar and wind suck ass as energy producers. I'm talking BTU output. They can't compete against fossil fuels in that regard, they simply can't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the oil companies per se, I'm just explaining how it is pure and simple. As it is I see zip wrong with using natural gas to power things and for that matter I know that coal processing and burning has gotten light years better than it once was. We're not choking out tons of mercury and other noxious substances that we once were with coal as a power plant energy source. The problem is that the enviro-whackos are too limited in their thinking and they want to legislate ourselves out of existence. They don't give a shit about reality and the fact that coal can crank out the BTU's in much higher numbers and more efficiently than windmills or solar panels can. Will that change? Will solar and wind get so good that they are cost effective? Meh, I doubt it.

Personally I would like to see more done in the way of "artificially" producing natural gas. You can't tell me that we can't "compost" agricultural waste with some super gas producing bacteria and make tons of that shit ourselves. And as for Global Warming, I don't give a shit. Let this mutha burn! I'm sick of the cold. I want it as hot as possible. Mankind is an adaptable species so we'll get by just fine if the oceans rise (they won't). And if the midwest turns into a desert then great! I'll grow some freakin' cacti! Let Canada and Greenland produce our wheat and shit like that.

Now mind you, this could just be the shiraz I had with dinner talking, so think about what I've said because God knows I haven't. ;)


Locally here in north central pa, we of course have the frakkers doing the natural gas drilling--luckily they haven;t majorly F'd anything up in a while. they are though polluting the h3ll out of the streams and rivers-not with any chemicals but with their heavy use of unimproved roads in and out of the woods. the streams are filling with sub-surface mud and other debris. only recently have the drilling companies been compelled to fix the roads they have messed up.

Only one farm house north of here was screwed out of their well water. now the gas company that did it has to bring them a pallet of bottled water every week. you know how hard it is to wash clothes or to shower with bottled water? But that is all the courts will make them do.

the "big sell" for the state and companies to us was "it will bring in millions of dollars in jobs and re-start the economy". Well, no it hasn't, aside from some single moms getting security jobs at the well sites-and only temporary ones at that-it has seen nearly no LOCALS get jobs. the workers are brought in from texas, colorado and Wyoming among others. they are not buying houses or moving their families here. they stay in cheap motels at company expense and eat cheap take out food (they make upwards of $25/hr starting pay). Some towns invested big in new restaurants and better motels that tried to stay open but now are just more empty real estate after only being built three yrs ago.

Drilling has just slowed down to a near stop due to the drop in natural gas prices. their is a huge surplus between the old standard wells and the marcellus ones. there is no one and nearly nothing to use it all over and above what is being used now.

Several dealers in the area have begun offering natural gas powered cars, however, there are only two or three refueling stations in the state. not very practical.

the local landfills that take in trash from 4 hours away in Jersey have been "producing" methane for several years now. here is a link to that op:

http://www.veolianorthamerica.com/case-studies/greentree-landfill/

but again-few to no customers

which leads me to say that if this on hand tech of natural gas burning is not catching on what do you think the chances of hydrogen would? it will only go forward as the market demands it- yes the favorite line of corporations.

if they can not make significant amounts of money from a technology they will not field it

it is kind of like us wanting syfy to run sci-fi; we are told that it doesn't make money to do so, so we get sharktopus.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
It's not practical, you're just adding another layer of inefficient energy conversion. The other issue is that hydrogen is not naturally occurring. It must be extracted from other compounds using even more energy just for the extraction process for large volumes. Then you have other issues such as transportation of the material and storage issues. Also, hydrogen fuel cells have a pretty low energy yield. You'd need significantly large amounts to generate useful amounts of energy, which means an even larger infrastructure compounding on the transportation and storage issue.

What? Wireless power? Don't know what you're talking about with Tesla.

Wireless power. Exactly. And I gave the dimensions of the power cells. Electrolysis of seawater into hydrogen and oxygen is cheap and easy. You can do it with a mere 1.5v solar cell. Hydrogen is most certainly naturally occurring. :). It is quite abundant actually. What transportation and storage of what?

controllable-hydrogen-generation-from-water_kjzqL_11446.jpg
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Hydrogen based fuel cells. Requires no transport. generates 3x more energy output than gasoline at the same volume, fuel pumps separate hydrogen from h20 on site and the by-product is water.

It doesn't require a massive undertaking to convert to hydrogen. The resistance comes from big oil and car parts industry. Hydrogen doesn't require an engine with hundreds of moving parts that are subject to replacement, oil changes, etc. Conversion would kill off more than just big oil. It really has nothing to do with how massive an undertaking it is. It's all about greed.

This is something to think about. I know that Iceland has been trying to convert to hydrogen based fuel for about a decade now. It will be interesting to see if they can do it in wide scale production, from cars to fishing boats, in the next few years. This will be how it comes about if at all; a smaller country that embraces it and really tries to work the kinks out. I just don't see that happening quickly in a larger country though, for all the reasons we've stated.

As an aside I still remember learning about "planned obsolescence" in my Economics 101 class back in middle school. It was eye opening to discover that companies made products to wear out so we'd have to perpetually buy more of those products (and keep employing those people who manufacture them). Talk about naive! :anim_59:
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
This is something to think about. I know that Iceland has been trying to convert to hydrogen based fuel for about a decade now. It will be interesting to see if they can do it in wide scale production, from cars to fishing boats, in the next few years. This will be how it comes about if at all; a smaller country that embraces it and really tries to work the kinks out. I just don't see that happening quickly in a larger country though, for all the reasons we've stated.

As an aside I still remember learning about "planned obsolescence" in my Economics 101 class back in middle school. It was eye opening to discover that companies made products to wear out so we'd have to perpetually buy more of those products (and keep employing those people who manufacture them). Talk about naive! :anim_59:

Even in countries which want to explore the possibilities, the oil companies will stop it. They also own the patents on almost every type of battery made. They usually own the privatized power companies in every country that has them as well. They WANT to be able to continue to sell oil/power at a profit no matter how much it hurts the environment or how many resources it consumes.
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
This is something to think about. I know that Iceland has been trying to convert to hydrogen based fuel for about a decade now. It will be interesting to see if they can do it in wide scale production, from cars to fishing boats, in the next few years. This will be how it comes about if at all; a smaller country that embraces it and really tries to work the kinks out. I just don't see that happening quickly in a larger country though, for all the reasons we've stated.

There's the Scandinavian Hydrogen Highway, which is already a reality:

http://www.scandinavianhydrogen.org/

California has hydrogen cars on the road and has also started deploying hydrogen fuel stations:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm

Here's a map:

http://cafcp.org/index.php?q=stationmap

As an aside I still remember learning about "planned obsolescence" in my Economics 101 class back in middle school. It was eye opening to discover that companies made products to wear out so we'd have to perpetually buy more of those products (and keep employing those people who manufacture them). Talk about naive! :anim_59:


Of course. Light bulbs are a prime example. A light bulb will never burn out in a perfect vacuum. Edison's light bulb still lights up, to my recollection. However, they're able to manufacture light bulbs with limited life spans and label the life span on the bulb.
 
Top