9 ms·

I was curious, so I looked it up. Circumference of the moon: 10,921km Longest power transmission line: 2,543km (Belo Monte-Rio de Janeiro transmission line, B

I was curious, so I looked it up. Circumference of the moon: 10,921km Longest power transmission line: 2,543km (Belo Monte-Rio de Janeiro transmission line, Brazil) So it sounds quite feasible actually

Reason077 5y ago
> "So it sounds quite feasible actually" But even more so near the poles, where there's no need to build transmission lines around the entire circumference to access constant sunlight. Prime real estate for moonbases!
- simonh 5y ago
  The tradeoff there is that due to the angle of incidence, for a given area of the moon's surface you get a lot less energy. That means angling your panels vertically and spreading them out very widely to capture the same energy as you would at the equator. Or build a huge solar panel wall as high as you can that rotates.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    There is no wind and weak gravity, so you can build high.
    - kreeben 5y ago
      Stop tickling my imagination like that. It's not fair to a person who's almost 50.
    - rootsudo 5y ago
      I enjoy this conversation - all the limitations we're used to on earth - no longer apply. It's pretty amusing. What if the moon was just a mining and energy "moon" how amusing would that be.
      - dustintrex 5y ago
        Unfortunately there are a whole host of new limitations, some obvious (no atmosphere) and some less so (moon dust is super abrasive because there's no wind or water to file it down).
        dylan604 5y ago
        Think of the extra-global supply chain disruptions that are possible though. We're talking easier to disrupt than a ship going sideways through a canal.
        BiteCode_dev 5y ago
        Also radiations, temperature variations, and space dinosaurs. But it's still fun to think about it.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > for a given area of the moon's surface you get a lot less energy Without atmosphere, you just point the panel to the sun and you'll get 100% power again regardless of how low the Sun is over the horizon.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      But when you have to move your panels, it suddenly involves lots of moving parts, that break down and require maintainance, etc. Because ... microasteroids and co. The missing atmosphere that gives you more light also do not protect you against countless small projectiles. But when space is not a problem: I would just use solar foil. Not as efficient per square meter, but can cover much more area with a given volume and weight freight restraint.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > do not protect you against countless small projectiles. They'll hit you all the same regardless of your movements. A very simple mechanical system that does a full rotation every 28 days would suffice. If you don't need to import the solar foil from Earth, it becomes a much better alternative. Low maintenance means nobody needs to visit the surface to fix stuff.
    - PaulHoule 5y ago
      At some point the solar panels start obscuring each other or you have to go vertical.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        Only if they are very close to one another. At that point, you would rely on a different solar plant on the ring.
        PaulHoule 5y ago
        Then you have to run more wires. Contrast that the asteroid materials/free space situation where the solar collector is made from a polymer film coated with thin films of metals and/or semiconductors to either reflect and concentrate or convert energy. The title of that article suggests that oxygen is limiting but really you need 4 parts N2, Helium, SF6, or some other inert for one part of O2 if you don’t want everything to burn up. Those large airspaces in the O’Neill colonies are unrealistic for that reason. H2O is limiting in terrestrial ecosystems and that is true in the rest of the universe. Part of the resolution of the Fermi ‘paradox’ is that most of the life in the universe is outside the frost line where a significant part of most bodies is water. Liquid water is generic in outer solar system bodies and probably some interstellar bodies where it takes tremendous luck for dry inner solar system bodies to have a thin sheen on the surface like we do. I can picture a ‘Galileo’ on a slightly less cooked Io or more cooked Europa getting hassled by the church about the significance of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. ‘Don’t you know life would be impossible without high levels of radiation?’
hoseja 5y ago
I imagine installing superconducting grid might be feasible, too.
- chii 5y ago
  like a mathematician, anything that is theoretically proven is considered trivial.
- mkl 5y ago
  If you're transmitting around the night side you could use the extreme cold to help with that. Transmitting when the sun is shining on your grid is another story.
  - politician 5y ago
    You could build some pretty impressive Stirling engines with the heat difference between the light and dark sides.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      make them mobile rovers that maintain their position on the terminator to keep a night/day split.
      - cvak 5y ago
        Just like Cathedrals in Absolution Gap.

Reason077 5y ago

> "So it sounds quite feasible actually" But even more so near the poles, where there's no need to build transmission lines around the entire circumference to access constant sunlight. Prime real estate for moonbases!

simonh 5y ago
The tradeoff there is that due to the angle of incidence, for a given area of the moon's surface you get a lot less energy. That means angling your panels vertically and spreading them out very widely to capture the same energy as you would at the equator. Or build a huge solar panel wall as high as you can that rotates.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  There is no wind and weak gravity, so you can build high.
  - kreeben 5y ago
    Stop tickling my imagination like that. It's not fair to a person who's almost 50.
  - rootsudo 5y ago
    I enjoy this conversation - all the limitations we're used to on earth - no longer apply. It's pretty amusing. What if the moon was just a mining and energy "moon" how amusing would that be.
    - dustintrex 5y ago
      Unfortunately there are a whole host of new limitations, some obvious (no atmosphere) and some less so (moon dust is super abrasive because there's no wind or water to file it down).
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Think of the extra-global supply chain disruptions that are possible though. We're talking easier to disrupt than a ship going sideways through a canal.
      - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
        Also radiations, temperature variations, and space dinosaurs. But it's still fun to think about it.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > for a given area of the moon's surface you get a lot less energy Without atmosphere, you just point the panel to the sun and you'll get 100% power again regardless of how low the Sun is over the horizon.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    But when you have to move your panels, it suddenly involves lots of moving parts, that break down and require maintainance, etc. Because ... microasteroids and co. The missing atmosphere that gives you more light also do not protect you against countless small projectiles. But when space is not a problem: I would just use solar foil. Not as efficient per square meter, but can cover much more area with a given volume and weight freight restraint.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > do not protect you against countless small projectiles. They'll hit you all the same regardless of your movements. A very simple mechanical system that does a full rotation every 28 days would suffice. If you don't need to import the solar foil from Earth, it becomes a much better alternative. Low maintenance means nobody needs to visit the surface to fix stuff.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    At some point the solar panels start obscuring each other or you have to go vertical.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      Only if they are very close to one another. At that point, you would rely on a different solar plant on the ring.
      - PaulHoule 5y ago
        Then you have to run more wires. Contrast that the asteroid materials/free space situation where the solar collector is made from a polymer film coated with thin films of metals and/or semiconductors to either reflect and concentrate or convert energy. The title of that article suggests that oxygen is limiting but really you need 4 parts N2, Helium, SF6, or some other inert for one part of O2 if you don’t want everything to burn up. Those large airspaces in the O’Neill colonies are unrealistic for that reason. H2O is limiting in terrestrial ecosystems and that is true in the rest of the universe. Part of the resolution of the Fermi ‘paradox’ is that most of the life in the universe is outside the frost line where a significant part of most bodies is water. Liquid water is generic in outer solar system bodies and probably some interstellar bodies where it takes tremendous luck for dry inner solar system bodies to have a thin sheen on the surface like we do. I can picture a ‘Galileo’ on a slightly less cooked Io or more cooked Europa getting hassled by the church about the significance of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. ‘Don’t you know life would be impossible without high levels of radiation?’

hoseja 5y ago

I imagine installing superconducting grid might be feasible, too.

chii 5y ago
like a mathematician, anything that is theoretically proven is considered trivial.
mkl 5y ago
If you're transmitting around the night side you could use the extreme cold to help with that. Transmitting when the sun is shining on your grid is another story.
- politician 5y ago
  You could build some pretty impressive Stirling engines with the heat difference between the light and dark sides.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    make them mobile rovers that maintain their position on the terminator to keep a night/day split.
    - cvak 5y ago
      Just like Cathedrals in Absolution Gap.