4 ms·

Besides the hilarious conflation of "mars base" and "lunar base" in the introduction, is there any reason this author is to be listened to for his authority? I

by elif 2y ago

Besides the hilarious conflation of "mars base" and "lunar base" in the introduction, is there any reason this author is to be listened to for his authority? I have a hard time buying that solar and "energy beaming" are more practical power sources on Mars than nuclear reactors.. Solar because r^2 diminishing returns

surprisetalk 2y ago
Handmer sometimes speaks outside his core competencies, but I find his napkin math to be extremely insightful. You may enjoy his recent interview on Patio11's podcast: [1] https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/solar-economics/ https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/solar-economi...
- poulpy123 2y ago
  what is his core of competence ?
  - skissane 2y ago
    He has a PhD in physics from Caltech (general relativity) and then he worked for NASA JPL as a software engineer
- Torkel 2y ago
  +1 on the podcast, it is excellent. I only wished he would have dug deeper on details on what they are building at Terraform.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  He runs a startup that is working on a methane synthesizer that might find uses on Earth but would be very much in demand on a Mars colony.
ceejayoz 2y ago
It's not conflating, it's comparing, and draws the conclusion that "energy beaming" won't work on Mars. It also correctly discusses the challenges "nukes in space" has from a policy and practical standpoint. > While the Earth-facing side of the Moon can obtain practically infinite quantities of very cheap power if we beam it up from Earth, which is greatly preferable to attempting to engineer some sort of solar or thermal system which can cope with the Moon’s 28-day day-night cycle, this approach won’t work on Mars.
schiffern 2y ago
On Mars the r^2 scaling just means that solar panels produce ~half as much energy as on Earth. For dust there are electrostatic sweeping grids that automatically remove it. Realize that nuclear also gets more expensive on Mars, because there are no convenient lakes or rivers for cooling water. Instead you need to build a large radiator or underground pipe grid.
- verzali 2y ago
  About 43% of the energy. But its also worse than that because Mars has a more eccentric orbit and slightly bigger axial tilt. Seasonal variations in solar energy are thus much larger than on Earth (at perihelion you get around 700W/m2, at aphelion about 500W/m2). Also seasons are longer on Mars and the planet moves more slowly around perihelion, so that it spends more time further from the Sun. You also get global dust storms enveloping the planet every few years for several weeks at a time. These leave a lot of dust on panels, but they also drastically cut the solar radiation received at the surface. Solar panels degrade faster on Mars too. You could replace them by sending new ones, but that will add up to a lot of mass. Or you could design panels that degrade more slowly, but that's not a given yet. Basically solar is not going to scale well on Mars. It might work for a small facility, but not for a city.
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    If you had a city, could you produce them locally then?
    - tirant 2y ago
      Yes, but you then need to have an already developed full supply chain, and for that you need to bootstrap your energy production first hand. My personal hope is that there might be some untapped resources of hydrocarbons or methane in Mars that could be used to generate energy from local sources.
      - philipkglass 2y ago
bryanlarsen 2y ago
It's all about the weight. Solar panels are light, nuclear reactors are not. Handmer correctly focuses on the metric of tonnes per megawatt.
poulpy123 2y ago
This man has 2 small self published books on the topic of mars colonisation. He is obviously a serious expert to listen
- airstrike 2y ago
  I have no opinion on the matter but I feel it is my duty to point out that having written books in and of itself is no indication of the quality of their work so your stated logic does not follow, unless you dropped an /s
  - poulpy123 2y ago
    Sorry if it was not clear but I was ironic. I don't think that small published books are good credentials.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      It's always hard to tell on the internet! But I had a feeling you might have been... ;-)
- lutusp 2y ago
  > This man has 2 small self published books on the topic of mars colonisation. He is obviously a serious expert to listen Well, (a) self-publishing is free, and (b) expertise cannot be established by proclamation, it requires evidence. Just as in science. Earlier, the originator proposed an Earth-to-Moon microwave power supply link, which makes no sense at all for multiple reasons. That proposal suggests a lack of basic engineering knowledge.
  - poulpy123 2y ago
    I actually don't believe at all the feasibility of mars colonisation and was just ironic. Maybe this person has good credentials but it is not visible from his website
Yizahi 2y ago
He is one of the few (only?) person who when talks publicly about this or that space projects or ideas, tries to include ALL potential costs into big picture, even if they are very rough estimates. Usually when corporations or officials speak about space, they cherry pick some single issue, or maybe a few but not all of them. E.g. talk about weight but forget about cost, talk about weight and cost but forget about cooling. Or when companies talk about any complex gadgets in space and forget to account for them being space based, thus more complex and expensive. These incomplete PR statements are useless for regular people outside of the industry because we lack a lot of knowledge to fill the gaps. But reading his posts we can very quickly and reliably get basic understanding why some ideas are dead ends for nearest century despite being hyped, and why others are potentially interesting. Also he references a lot of sources in his posts, which would be hard to find but here they are linked in the relevant articles. And finally his roasting of the Space Disgrace System is worth it on it's own really :)
slibhb 2y ago
I only skimmed it but he clearly says that "energy beaming" won't work with Mars. I also don't think there was any "conflation."
moralestapia 2y ago
It's a good article, well research but feels amateurish in some parts. For example, he seems to be confused about energy vs. power, which units to use and what to they mean.

by elif 2y ago

surprisetalk 2y ago

Handmer sometimes speaks outside his core competencies, but I find his napkin math to be extremely insightful. You may enjoy his recent interview on Patio11's podcast: [1] https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/solar-economics/ https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/solar-economi...

poulpy123 2y ago
what is his core of competence ?
- skissane 2y ago
  He has a PhD in physics from Caltech (general relativity) and then he worked for NASA JPL as a software engineer
Torkel 2y ago
+1 on the podcast, it is excellent. I only wished he would have dug deeper on details on what they are building at Terraform.
PaulHoule 2y ago
He runs a startup that is working on a methane synthesizer that might find uses on Earth but would be very much in demand on a Mars colony.

ceejayoz 2y ago

It's not conflating, it's comparing, and draws the conclusion that "energy beaming" won't work on Mars. It also correctly discusses the challenges "nukes in space" has from a policy and practical standpoint. > While the Earth-facing side of the Moon can obtain practically infinite quantities of very cheap power if we beam it up from Earth, which is greatly preferable to attempting to engineer some sort of solar or thermal system which can cope with the Moon’s 28-day day-night cycle, this approach won’t work on Mars.

schiffern 2y ago

On Mars the r^2 scaling just means that solar panels produce ~half as much energy as on Earth. For dust there are electrostatic sweeping grids that automatically remove it. Realize that nuclear also gets more expensive on Mars, because there are no convenient lakes or rivers for cooling water. Instead you need to build a large radiator or underground pipe grid.

verzali 2y ago
About 43% of the energy. But its also worse than that because Mars has a more eccentric orbit and slightly bigger axial tilt. Seasonal variations in solar energy are thus much larger than on Earth (at perihelion you get around 700W/m2, at aphelion about 500W/m2). Also seasons are longer on Mars and the planet moves more slowly around perihelion, so that it spends more time further from the Sun. You also get global dust storms enveloping the planet every few years for several weeks at a time. These leave a lot of dust on panels, but they also drastically cut the solar radiation received at the surface. Solar panels degrade faster on Mars too. You could replace them by sending new ones, but that will add up to a lot of mass. Or you could design panels that degrade more slowly, but that's not a given yet. Basically solar is not going to scale well on Mars. It might work for a small facility, but not for a city.
- dexwiz 2y ago
  If you had a city, could you produce them locally then?
  - tirant 2y ago
    Yes, but you then need to have an already developed full supply chain, and for that you need to bootstrap your energy production first hand. My personal hope is that there might be some untapped resources of hydrocarbons or methane in Mars that could be used to generate energy from local sources.
    - philipkglass 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

It's all about the weight. Solar panels are light, nuclear reactors are not. Handmer correctly focuses on the metric of tonnes per megawatt.

poulpy123 2y ago

This man has 2 small self published books on the topic of mars colonisation. He is obviously a serious expert to listen

airstrike 2y ago
I have no opinion on the matter but I feel it is my duty to point out that having written books in and of itself is no indication of the quality of their work so your stated logic does not follow, unless you dropped an /s
- poulpy123 2y ago
  Sorry if it was not clear but I was ironic. I don't think that small published books are good credentials.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    It's always hard to tell on the internet! But I had a feeling you might have been... ;-)
lutusp 2y ago
> This man has 2 small self published books on the topic of mars colonisation. He is obviously a serious expert to listen Well, (a) self-publishing is free, and (b) expertise cannot be established by proclamation, it requires evidence. Just as in science. Earlier, the originator proposed an Earth-to-Moon microwave power supply link, which makes no sense at all for multiple reasons. That proposal suggests a lack of basic engineering knowledge.
- poulpy123 2y ago
  I actually don't believe at all the feasibility of mars colonisation and was just ironic. Maybe this person has good credentials but it is not visible from his website

Yizahi 2y ago

He is one of the few (only?) person who when talks publicly about this or that space projects or ideas, tries to include ALL potential costs into big picture, even if they are very rough estimates. Usually when corporations or officials speak about space, they cherry pick some single issue, or maybe a few but not all of them. E.g. talk about weight but forget about cost, talk about weight and cost but forget about cooling. Or when companies talk about any complex gadgets in space and forget to account for them being space based, thus more complex and expensive. These incomplete PR statements are useless for regular people outside of the industry because we lack a lot of knowledge to fill the gaps. But reading his posts we can very quickly and reliably get basic understanding why some ideas are dead ends for nearest century despite being hyped, and why others are potentially interesting. Also he references a lot of sources in his posts, which would be hard to find but here they are linked in the relevant articles. And finally his roasting of the Space Disgrace System is worth it on it's own really :)

slibhb 2y ago

I only skimmed it but he clearly says that "energy beaming" won't work with Mars. I also don't think there was any "conflation."

moralestapia 2y ago

It's a good article, well research but feels amateurish in some parts. For example, he seems to be confused about energy vs. power, which units to use and what to they mean.