Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)
From: Paul F. Dietz (dietz_at_dls.net)
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: Peroxide catalysts"
- Previous message: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Peroxide catalysts"
- In reply to: Mike Combs: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Next in thread: Cameron Dorrough: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Reply: Cameron Dorrough: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Reply: D Schneider: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:39:48 -0600
Mike Combs wrote:
> A power grid spanning the entire globe of the moon would be a pretty
> formidable industrial accomplishment. I can't see it happening in any
> near-term future.
I suspect a power grid on the moon is considerably more difficult than
one on earth, even ignoring the difference in labor cost. A high voltage
conductor in dense air is insulated by that air, but in vacuum you'll be
constantly generating high energy ions and electrons in the surrounding plasma,
and possibly causing runaway discharge due to their collision with surfaces
and secondary ion production.
Paul
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: Peroxide catalysts"
- Previous message: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Peroxide catalysts"
- In reply to: Mike Combs: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Next in thread: Cameron Dorrough: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Reply: Cameron Dorrough: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Reply: D Schneider: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]