|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: How to make Pluto warmer (Read 2810 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
I think we could also have used a system like this in the Procyon solar system, instead of the Mycon sun device.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 05:58:44 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Wouldn't mirrors be better than lenses?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Wow, the mindboggling costs of such a lens.
Why not just build greenhouses on the Moon?
Much closer, and the sun intensity is already about right...
And you don't want to cook Earth accidentally if Earth fly through your lensed sunlight.
Also, once you can pay and technically build that lens, it'll be cheaper to just build some energy generators and create artifical light and warmth on Pluto directly.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 08:33:33 am by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Avoiding Earth is easy. You can just put a mirror in the same orbit as Earth, but on the opposite side, and focus the radiation there first. Then it will never be in any danger of hitting Earth.
As for the size of the lens, well that really depends on how close it is to the sun. The closer it is to the sun, the smaller it can be, but that also requires stronger materials.
And btw, generating electricity from solar panels on Pluto would be extremely inefficient, because the solar radiation per square meter there is negligible. You might have more success with nuclear fusion or fission reactions there.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 12:14:38 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Orbital mechanics?
If the lens is that much closer to the sun, you'll have sincere problems coordinating the revolving time of mirror and lens.
Besides the precision needed during manufacturing and placing, and during the whole life-time of the devices.
The disctances are HUGE, and it'll be problematic aiming all of it perfectly toactually hit Pluto with the focused light.
And feedback that you're missing Pluto will take a few minutes to reach you, recalculate parameters, reaim, wait for the light to reach Pluto again... oh dang, everything on Pluto is frozen again. We have to replant everything.
I'll stay with my main issue, that it'll be MUCH cheaper to build artificial heat and light generators on Pluto instead of refocusing sunlight on such a scale.
And likely even more fail safe.
I'd still take the Precursor Sun Device currently owned by the Mycon.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 12:19:25 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Orbital mechanics will result in the lens being on one side of the sun, just as the planet Pluto, but the mirror on the other side...
Actually, in this case the lens would suddenly have to be a mirror, and the mirror would become a lens.
From an idialistic point of view, sunlight is nice.
From a pure mechanical point of view, NO. Just no.
The planets don't line up like that, so the light would criss-cross the system.
This animation (youtube link) shows the problems you'll be facing. And Pluto isn't even in that animation.
Neither are your lenses on their respective orbital paths.
Every now and then the most effective path through the system will change, and you'd have to re-align all mirrors, lenses,... accordingly, which would result in a massive interruption of power for your colonies. Worse, you'd have to convert lenses to mirrors and vice versa when the orbital mechanics changed your layout.
One image (to scale, a real distribution of the planets during their travel through the solar system):
(taken from https://youtu.be/1Eh5BpSnBBw?t=2m55s )
Better to collect the sublight with massive solar collectors, and send a laser-beam powered by that energy across space, then re-convert that laser energy into artificial light beams by satellites in the orbit of the planet you want to brighten.
One laser per planet you want to brighten up. No complex re-calculation of the light pathways,....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 02:31:29 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Better to collect the sublight with massive solar collectors, and send a laser-beam powered by that energy across space, then re-convert that laser energy into artificial light beams by satellites in the orbit of the planet you want to brighten.
What do you mean by solar collectors? If you mean solar panels, I think it would be much cheaper and more efficient to put lenses close to the sun. Also, what is the difference between sending focused solar light and a laser beam? The laser beam doesn't move any faster than focused solar light.
I watched the movie you sent, and I don't think the movement of the planets would be a problem at all. Remember that the planets and the sun are much smaller in reality than in that movie, so the likelihood of things "getting in the way" is not overly large. And if the relay points are integrated in a computer system, and can realign themselves to each other, I don't think it would be overly challenging. And it takes a while for the planets to move around the sun, and they move in very predictable patterns, so the relay points would probably even be able to predict where to send the beam as time passes.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 02:34:56 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
It is incredibly difficult to actually focus non-harmonic light over such vast distances.
And yes, I meant solar panels (thanks, terminology slipped me again). But there are other ways to convert solar ligth into electrical energy,
Yes, you could focus the light outside of our planetary plane, and distribute it there, but those systems are less stable.
Also, with solar panels and lenses of the size necessary, solar wind will become a problem.
As an engineer I stand to saying that it won't work.
Not until we have the technology and do something like this as a project of art.
Technologically there are much mroe feasible solutions than redirecting solar light. And these solutions would be much cheaper.
You could also build a dyson sphere and reflect the outgoing light back inwards. Slight adjustments on the inner surface of the sphere will direct the light where you want it.
Just as unpayable...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 02:47:56 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
It is incredibly difficult to actually focus non-harmonic light over such vast distances.
And yes, I meant solar panels (thanks, terminology slipped me again). But there are other ways to convert solar ligth into electrical energy,
Ok, but why create laser light from electricity? Isn't it feasible to convert the solar radiation to a laser beam without converting it to electricity first and then back to light again.
Also, with solar panels and lenses of the size necessary, solar wind will become a problem.
Sure, but that is one of the reasons why I think lenses are a much better idea than solar panels. They are a somewhat simpler construction, and can be made from extremely resilient materials (like diamonds I assume). Also, you don't necessarily need to have one huge lens. You can have many small or medium seized lenses focusing solar radiation to the same point, where there is a device converting it into a laser beam.
To make a system like this, would probably be super easy for the Chenjesu. Humans are so backwards, and voting for idiots like Trump.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 11:47:14 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I'm not entirely sure why harmony would be a problem so long as you're working with mirrors, Krulle. No chromatic aberration there.
Anyway, the big problem is just gathering enough area of mirror to be relevant. Putting solar panels close to the sun and shining lasers at Pluto would probably be ludicrously more efficient than trying to focus actual sunlight. You get a much higher angular power concentration.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
And note in that experiment the size ratio between the penny and the lens.
If you do not want to have to build something hundreds of times the size of Pluto, you are going to have to increase the power per solid angle*area. Passive optics *cannot do this*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance
You will need to build very large structures in order to achieve your goal if you do it with simple mirrors. Hundreds of times the size of Pluto, say.
OR, you can build a much more modestly-sized power station near the sun (smaller than Pluto should suffice), and transmit that energy, in a much more concentrated, higher-radiance form, to a diffuse reflector near Pluto, which will effectively be its 'sun'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
