Boiling Water In Space

[sojourner]

IDK, they have already had issues with the ISS panels ripping, and that system is only large enough to maintain 6 people.

Upon deployment they ripped and NASA has gotten around that. But the ISS's solar panel generates more energy than needed. The power generation isn't what limits the ISS to 6 people.

OK, I'll amend that. 6 people and their experiments.

Needless to say, ISS' solar collectors are large and unwieldy. Scaling up to a facility capable of providing power to 1000's could get interesting.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

This is where you fail. It's a space colony. In space. Next to the powerplant.

I'm glad someone knows what I'm talking about or at least doesn't pretend they don't. I said this in one of my previous posts and I also quoted it in another post in reply to Scout further back in the thread......... The space colony would be connected to the actual power plant or at the very least be close by to it.
Since being so close to the Sun as mentioned by Jadzia would be a radiation nightmare for a colony, adding mirrors to the powerplant allows for it to be deployed further away from the Sun where the radiation would not be as intense.

He's basing this on boiling by distance from the sun, or later on by pressure. Different design, for starters.

I never mentioned pressure, I simply mentioned boiling it via distance from the Sun, but obviously the powerplant can be moved further from the Sun if mirrors are added.

For any big sized space colony to function it will need a lot of power, boiling water in space to turn turbines would generate more power than panels.

 

[Scout101]

You keep stating that, but do you have any numbers to back that up? Would like to see some rough calculations....

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You keep stating that, but do you have any numbers to back that up? Would like to see some rough calculations....

You don't need calculations to know that a steam powered turbine will produce more power than solar panels. It kind of goes without saying.

 

[Trekker4747]

You keep stating that, but do you have any numbers to back that up? Would like to see some rough calculations....

You don't need calculations to know that a steam powered turbine will produce more power than solar panels. It kind of goes without saying.

Yeah! Psshaw! Science, numbers, tests, calculations!

Who needs them?! Let's just assume things! Now, to the "really big" magnets!

 

[Chaos Descending]

You keep stating that, but do you have any numbers to back that up? Would like to see some rough calculations....

You don't need calculations to know that a steam powered turbine will produce more power than solar panels.

Yes, yes you really do.

It kind of goes without saying.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

You don't need calculations to know that a steam powered turbine will produce more power than solar panels. It kind of goes without saying.

OK, assume that we're the idiots then. Prove it. Prove it with numbers. (theory) Cite your findings for verification by others. (peer review)

Welcome to something that resembles scientific method.

 

[Scout101]

Don't forget to factor in the extra weight of getting the turbine into position the first time. Extra cost to deploy this is definitely a go/no go factor. Plus extra maintainence...

 

[O'Dib]

The Japanese are looking into an orbital solar panel array. No mention of them considering a steam engine instead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/japanspaceenergysolartechnology

 

[Trekker4747]

The Japanese are looking into an orbital solar panel array. No mention of them considering a steam engine instead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/japanspaceenergysolartechnology

Clearly they don't realize how much more energy turbines generate over solar panels.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's all wrong. You only need to get the materials up to construct the batteries. After that the batteries never leave space and the only other thing you need to send up now and again is fuel.
The Batteries will dock with an orbital transmitter which will beam the energy down to the surface of the Earth via Microwaves and then leave back to the powerplants.

Then skip the "battery" step and plug the output of your powerplant directly into a microwave relay. Otherwise, the cost of sending up fuel "now and again" remains around $5,000/kg, which leaves you with several thousand dollars per kilowatt hour.

Of course, the trouble with this is microwave power stations--the most efficient designs I've seen, anyway, none of which have ever been used in practice--have efficiencies of around 25%. If you combine this with a powerplant with 60% efficiency, this means 15% of the energy produced is being shipped back to Earth. The power station is therefore NOT competitive with less expensive and more efficient Earth-based powerplants.

The only advantage to building in space is the extra radiation from the sun without the atmosphere to filter it. Unless the customers receiving that energy are already IN space, that advantage cannot be tapped, since you still loose most of that extra energy in shipping it through the atmosphere and even then that energy cannot be delivered at competitive costs.

The only thing that will cost anything in regards to the batteries is the fuel to get it to and from Earth orbit.

And how do you propose you get the fuel INTO orbit? By osmosis?

If you want to send fuel into orbit, you need a rocket to carry it there. Even cheap Russian launchers will still cost around $5,000/kg of payload. If the orbital transfer vehicles consume 10kg of fuel every time they move a battery, then that's $50,000 a trip. That would end up being MORE expensive than simply dropping the batteries out of the atmosphere since not only do you have to send a launch vehicle into orbit, you also have to send 10kg of extra fuel you wouldn't otherwise need.

But I keep saying it and I'll continue to say it till I'm blue in the fingers. These powerplants could be used for space based colonies.

And nothing else, although even in this case the need to keep shipping fuel from Earth makes it an extremely dubious proposition.

But even then a photovoltaic powerplant would end up being more efficient anyway, since that system would be scalable and increasing power demands could be met by either 1) installing more of them or 2) replacing old ones with more advanced ones as they become available.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Power use obviously depends on the processes you're running.

If we're talking about a remote space colony, you'll need to direct a lot of energy into oxygen production, and growing food. I believe the OP is intending for a large degree of independence in these space colonies he's hypothesizing.

Simple power production isn't an issue for dependence, since anything you put into space is going to have its own means of producing power anyway. A simple nuclear reactor could accomplish the job just as well; using a solar boiler is pretty much just a gimmick.

Independence for a space colony requires RESOURCE independence. The colonists will need their own supply of food water and building materials. If you provide them with a drive system that can use water as a reactant mass, they won't even need fuel (except occasional shipments of, say, uranium that they can enrich themselves), just a spaceborne water supply they can harvest for their own use.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

...Of course, the trouble with this is microwave power stations--the most efficient designs I've seen, anyway, none of which have ever been used in practice--have efficiencies of around 25%. If you combine this with a powerplant with 60% efficiency, this means 15% of the energy produced is being shipped back to Earth. The power station is therefore NOT competitive with less expensive and more efficient Earth-based powerplants.

Does this even account for all the issues that occur with RF propogation? Oh oh, Taccy, you'll love this!! Did you know that RF signal power diminishes over distance due to the geometrically spreading wavefront? It's an inverse square thing, get some math!

 

[All Seeing Eye]

If you want to send fuel into orbit, you need a rocket to carry it there.

Do you? never heard of a space elevator?

 

[Birdog]

If you want to send fuel into orbit, you need a rocket to carry it there.

Do you? never heard of a space elevator?

We don't have any material to make one. Nothing is strong enough.

Wouldn't it be easier to ship up a pressured water cooled reactor and just use that for power than this Rube Goldberg contraption?

 

[Squiggy]

So in order for this to work, we have to invent, develop, and create several other technologies that don't yet exist.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

So in order for this to work, we have to invent, develop, and create several other technologies that don't yet exist.

Inventing, developing, and creating several other technologies would certainly make things a lot easier and less expensive. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Scout101]

if you have to invent, develop, and create several other new technologies just n order to make the OTHER idea easier and less expensive than currently-existing solutions, it's an indication that more time on the drawing board is required, wouldn't you agree?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

if you have to invent, develop, and create several other new technologies just n order to make the OTHER idea easier and less expensive than currently-existing solutions, it's an indication that more time on the drawing board is required, wouldn't you agree?

Who said that we have to? I'm simply stating a fact that new technological developments will undoubtedly make the idea easier and less expensive.
If we wanted a space elevator we could have one very soon, all it needs is the motivation. If a government or agency is going to be willing to build a space colony and build these powerplants then I'm sure a space elevator will either exist already or be on the drawing board at the same time.

 

[Trekker4747]

if you have to invent, develop, and create several other new technologies just n order to make the OTHER idea easier and less expensive than currently-existing solutions, it's an indication that more time on the drawing board is required, wouldn't you agree?

Who said that we have to? I'm simply stating a fact that new technological developments will undoubtedly make the idea easier and less expensive.
If we wanted a space elevator we could have one very soon, all it needs is the motivation. If a government or agency is going to be willing to build a space colony and build these powerplants then I'm sure a space elevator will either exist already or be on the drawing board at the same time.

Sigh.

It's not about motivation and more about expense. It is very expensive to put things into space. So whatever you're putting up there better end up making you more money than the cost of putting it up there. That silly thing called "profit." It's not profitable to put a powerplant in space you continually have to recharge. Unless whatever that thing is powering, be-it a space-colony or an earth-based application, is doing something really damn profitable.

And right now a space elevator isn't feasable.