Advertisement
by Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Aaaaaaaaaaaaatopia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:39 am
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:47 am
Novus America wrote:Risottia wrote:
Nuclear reactors are a serious problem on Mars: how do you cool them?
You could probably use some sort of geothermal cooling. Or a heat exchanger to the Martian atmosphere. Mars is already cold. Also use a reactor with a negative void coefficient. Which self regulates heat.
Reactors do not have to be cooled by external water body.
We managed to put one on a aircraft for example.
by Risottia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:56 am
Novus America wrote:Risottia wrote:
Nuclear reactors are a serious problem on Mars: how do you cool them?
You could probably use some sort of geothermal cooling. Or a heat exchanger to the Martian atmosphere. Mars is already cold. Also use a reactor with a negative void coefficient. Which self regulates heat.
Reactors do not have to be cooled by external water body.
We managed to put one on a aircraft for example.
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:01 am
Risottia wrote:Novus America wrote:
You could probably use some sort of geothermal cooling. Or a heat exchanger to the Martian atmosphere. Mars is already cold. Also use a reactor with a negative void coefficient. Which self regulates heat.
Reactors do not have to be cooled by external water body.
We managed to put one on a aircraft for example.
The heat capacity per volune of the martian atmosphere is way lower than the terrestrial one.
And you'd have to carry refined nuclear fuel from Earth. I would guess using locally-produced PV panels would be easier , although slower.
by Novus America » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:03 am
Risottia wrote:Novus America wrote:
You could probably use some sort of geothermal cooling. Or a heat exchanger to the Martian atmosphere. Mars is already cold. Also use a reactor with a negative void coefficient. Which self regulates heat.
Reactors do not have to be cooled by external water body.
We managed to put one on a aircraft for example.
The heat capacity per volune of the martian atmosphere is way lower than the terrestrial one.
And you'd have to carry refined nuclear fuel from Earth. I would guess using locally-produced PV panels would be easier , although slower.
by Novus America » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:05 am
Grenartia wrote:Risottia wrote:The heat capacity per volune of the martian atmosphere is way lower than the terrestrial one.
And you'd have to carry refined nuclear fuel from Earth. I would guess using locally-produced PV panels would be easier , although slower.
Wind power + PV would be good for setting up the infrastructure to mine and refine nuclear fuel in situ.
by Stellar Colonies » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:33 am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Aaaaaaaaaaaaatopia wrote:can we make the middle of mars spin to create a magnetic field?
Floofybit wrote:Your desired society should be one where you are submissive and controlled
Primitive Communism wrote:What bodily autonomy do men need?
Techocracy101010 wrote:If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks
Parmistan wrote:It's not ALWAYS acceptable when we do it, but it's MORE acceptable when we do it.
Theodorable wrote:Jihad will win.
Distruzio wrote:All marriage outside the Church is gay marriage.
Khardsland wrote:Terrorism in its original definition is a good thing.
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.
North Californian.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.
The Confederacy & the WA.
Add 1200 years.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:58 am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Aaaaaaaaaaaaatopia wrote:can we make the middle of mars spin to create a magnetic field?
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:28 am
Stellar Colonies wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Aaaaaaaaaaaaatopia wrote:can we make the middle of mars spin to create a magnetic field?
It's easier to build a superconductive ring and operate that than it is to dig down to, melt, and spin up the core of Mars. You'd have to inject tons more energy than the first option just to keep generating a field long enough to be worth it.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:06 pm
Grenartia wrote:Stellar Colonies wrote:It's easier to build a superconductive ring and operate that than it is to dig down to, melt, and spin up the core of Mars. You'd have to inject tons more energy than the first option just to keep generating a field long enough to be worth it.
Yeah. Its difficult to comprehend the amount of energy it would take to actually do that, and furthermore, its even more difficult to comprehend a scenario where we, as a species, not only use that amount of energy in total, but produce so much energy that we could afford to waste that kind of energy on remelting and spinning the core of a planet.
by Galloism » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:18 pm
Neanderthaland wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Yeah. Its difficult to comprehend the amount of energy it would take to actually do that, and furthermore, its even more difficult to comprehend a scenario where we, as a species, not only use that amount of energy in total, but produce so much energy that we could afford to waste that kind of energy on remelting and spinning the core of a planet.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that remelting and spinning the core of a planet might inadvertently render the surface - you know - molten.
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:19 pm
Neanderthaland wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Yeah. Its difficult to comprehend the amount of energy it would take to actually do that, and furthermore, its even more difficult to comprehend a scenario where we, as a species, not only use that amount of energy in total, but produce so much energy that we could afford to waste that kind of energy on remelting and spinning the core of a planet.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that remelting and spinning the core of a planet might inadvertently render the surface - you know - molten.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:24 pm
by Neanderthaland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:35 pm
Grenartia wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:I also have a sneaking suspicion that remelting and spinning the core of a planet might inadvertently render the surface - you know - molten.
I mean, if you go about it wrong, it absolutely can, but the fact that Earth has a molten and spinning core and a solid surface (ignoring the oceans, ofc) would seem to indicate its possible. Maybe a MegaChernobyl could remelt the core without sterilizing the surface.
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:15 pm
Neanderthaland wrote:Grenartia wrote:
I mean, if you go about it wrong, it absolutely can, but the fact that Earth has a molten and spinning core and a solid surface (ignoring the oceans, ofc) would seem to indicate its possible. Maybe a MegaChernobyl could remelt the core without sterilizing the surface.
The problem is that the amount of energy required is many orders of magnitude larger than humanity can currently produce. Even if we used up all of the fissile material on Earth, it wouldn't even come close to being enough.
But say, for instance, that you have this much energy. Your problem now is that you need to get all that energy 2,100 miles under ground. And the second law of thermodynamics prevents us from concentrating energy without spending more energy. There are some ways to get around this, but the short of it is: your waste energy is probably going to be... what's a good word? "Catastrophic?" Something like that.
by Novus America » Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:39 pm
Neanderthaland wrote:Grenartia wrote:
I mean, if you go about it wrong, it absolutely can, but the fact that Earth has a molten and spinning core and a solid surface (ignoring the oceans, ofc) would seem to indicate its possible. Maybe a MegaChernobyl could remelt the core without sterilizing the surface.
The problem is that the amount of energy required is many orders of magnitude larger than humanity can currently produce. Even if we used up all of the fissile material on Earth, it wouldn't even come close to being enough.
But say, for instance, that you have this much energy. Your problem now is that you need to get all that energy 2,100 miles under ground. And the second law of thermodynamics prevents us from concentrating energy without spending more energy. There are some ways to get around this, but the short of it is: your waste energy is probably going to be... what's a good word? "Catastrophic?" Something like that.
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:48 pm
Novus America wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:The problem is that the amount of energy required is many orders of magnitude larger than humanity can currently produce. Even if we used up all of the fissile material on Earth, it wouldn't even come close to being enough.
But say, for instance, that you have this much energy. Your problem now is that you need to get all that energy 2,100 miles under ground. And the second law of thermodynamics prevents us from concentrating energy without spending more energy. There are some ways to get around this, but the short of it is: your waste energy is probably going to be... what's a good word? "Catastrophic?" Something like that.
Maybe take a few thousand years of nuclear waste, pack it on city seized asteroids and smash them into Mars but that probably would be umm a tad disruptive...
by Novus America » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:12 pm
Grenartia wrote:Novus America wrote:
Maybe take a few thousand years of nuclear waste, pack it on city seized asteroids and smash them into Mars but that probably would be umm a tad disruptive...
1. The waste would have to be reprocessed into enriched fuel.
2. Simply dropping it on Mars would not be sufficient to get the fissionables to the core.
3. Thousands of years is pretty long, even by terraforming standards.
4. It would certainly be disruptive towards any life we've sent there to create a biosphere.
5. The radiation dose any organism receives from the fallout would likely dwarf the radiation dose received from the Sun and cosmic rays, thus defeating the entire point of the endeavor in the first place.
by Laurel » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:17 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:We could build a massive magnetic field in front of Mars (i.e. closer to the Sun) and leave Mars in the magnetotail, allowing Mars to have less radiation and solar wind stripping than even Earth.
by Grenartia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:24 pm
Novus America wrote:Grenartia wrote:
1. The waste would have to be reprocessed into enriched fuel.
2. Simply dropping it on Mars would not be sufficient to get the fissionables to the core.
3. Thousands of years is pretty long, even by terraforming standards.
4. It would certainly be disruptive towards any life we've sent there to create a biosphere.
5. The radiation dose any organism receives from the fallout would likely dwarf the radiation dose received from the Sun and cosmic rays, thus defeating the entire point of the endeavor in the first place.
Well if you got a big enough asteroid going fast enough it could smash through the crust and probably liquify part of the planet but... yeah it is a grossly impractical idea.
by Novus America » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:34 pm
Grenartia wrote:Novus America wrote:
Well if you got a big enough asteroid going fast enough it could smash through the crust and probably liquify part of the planet but... yeah it is a grossly impractical idea.
The goal isn't just re-melting the core. The goal is doing so without re-melting the surface.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:46 pm
Laurel wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:We could build a massive magnetic field in front of Mars (i.e. closer to the Sun) and leave Mars in the magnetotail, allowing Mars to have less radiation and solar wind stripping than even Earth.
How could this be accomplished, and how expensive might it be?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andoros, East Leaf Republic, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement