Omaha Shield: a triad of radiation protection systems, to enable the Unlimited Mars Career (UMC)November 16, 2017 – A jury has selected the Lake Matthew Team's artificial geomagnetic field proposal as the winner of the Innovation in Science award under the rubric of Hewlett-Packard's Mars Home Planet initiative. The jury's selection recognizes cosmic ray protection on open ground as a vital innovation. The proposed design protects a crater 9 km in diameter. This scale matches the ambition of HP Mars Home Planet to protect "1 million people... living, working and moving around on Mars".The proposed "Omaha Field" is the third of three components of the Lake Matthew Team's "Omaha Shield" design; the last component to be specified and quantified. The Omaha Field aims to fill a final gap in end-to-end mission radiation protection, thereby enabling the "Unlimited Mars Career (UMC)". The team's UMC goal is to ensure that no crewmember suffers a career-limiting radiation dose, over any career duration on Mars. McGirl et al. 2016 gives one statement of the envisioned challenge...
you again mention bringing in more ice to melt with no apparent consideration of how that would reduce the available energy.
Quote from: LMTQuote from: Paul451 on 10/02/2017 09:32 amyou have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secretsNo. I literally quoted you doing so.
Quote from: Paul451 on 10/02/2017 09:32 amyou have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secretsNo.
you have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secrets
Quote from: LMT on 10/04/2017 03:16 amNow I'll ask one last time, because you still haven't finished your statement: did you also get a 1 M delta on that CaCl2 brine?I did and posted it before you did (post was part of a group that got removed.)We have established that your original statements were wrong. Why are you asking for further confirmation?
Now I'll ask one last time, because you still haven't finished your statement: did you also get a 1 M delta on that CaCl2 brine?
Quote from: meberbs on 10/04/2017 07:14 amyou again mention bringing in more ice to melt with no apparent consideration of how that would reduce the available energy.? As for energy loss, the largest facility delta is heat loss through the domes; not an issue, clearly. And of course we've never proposed "bringing in more ice to melt". The proposed melt of upland ice would occur outside the crater, with summer greenhousing of sealed ground (readily feasible at the selected site). That energy comes from the sun, obviously.
Quote from: Hanelyp on 02/04/2017 03:23 pmQuote from: LMT on 02/04/2017 02:14 amEvaporation + sublimation < 1 mm/hrEven that little is going to be a SERIOUS problem over a period of years, unless you have an ample source of replacement water.Century+, but that's one reason why the target site has ample sources of water.Mars is not the moon. Mid-latitudes are especially rich in ground ice. Exact distribution to be confirmed onsite of course, but a warm-bedrock lake like Lake Matthew can be replenished indefinitely from the crater's interior groundwater and also from external local ice deposits.
Quote from: LMT on 02/04/2017 02:14 amEvaporation + sublimation < 1 mm/hrEven that little is going to be a SERIOUS problem over a period of years, unless you have an ample source of replacement water.
Evaporation + sublimation < 1 mm/hr
"you haven't even done a basic analysis", is your common, repetitive assertion, but baseless -- and that "bringing in more ice to melt" business shows real confusion. Moreover your posts haven't demonstrated familiarity with the given references; you should start applying them, to keep your posts grounded in fact.
Quote from: meberbsQuote from: LMTQuote from: Paul451 on 10/02/2017 09:32 amyou have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secretsNo. I literally quoted you doing so.Not at all. Neither you nor Paul451 have reason to complain about our NDA trade secrets, which of course we control. All that talk is inappropriate in forum, even foolish.
Quote from: meberbs on 10/04/2017 07:14 amQuote from: LMT on 10/04/2017 03:16 amNow I'll ask one last time, because you still haven't finished your statement: did you also get a 1 M delta on that CaCl2 brine?I did and posted it before you did (post was part of a group that got removed.)We have established that your original statements were wrong. Why are you asking for further confirmation?He can answer, or not. The question was clearly stated, addressed to him and not to you, and fair.
you said extra ice would be coming in, trucking it in is how I interpret "external ice deposits":
in summer ice-rich upland terrain can be sealed and overheated to force high-volume melt. Meltwater accelerates down a channel cut into the crater wall, delivering many terajoules of kinetic energy at lakeside.
either way [ice] will absorb a lot of energy
You claim I don't have familiarity with the subject matter, but I had to correct you on simple calculations related to freezing point depression.
We have pointed out that you are inhibiting discussion and therefore harming yourself by treating obvious facts as proprietary information. You have done this before, and we clearly pointed this out to you, your denial is simply disingenuous at this point. This is also disrespectful of the people you are communicating with, since it wastes time pointlessly as demonstrated by the first half of this thread.
How is MATT impact done in 2036, specifically?
Sunlight is not bedrock heat. Ignoring the energy source is just confusion; it precludes meaningful statements on the crater's "energy balance".
As for freezing point or other correction, the guy who calculates is the guy who corrects. Anybody can toss out questions.
We have a different view of just what sort of posts "inhibit discussion".Also of course we're not "treating obvious facts as proprietary information".
Ask yourself:QuoteHow is MATT impact done in 2036, specifically? 2036... That's the first of many questions for which obvious facts are not found. Hence, NDA, perhaps obviously.
The Shepherd uses a DE-STARLITE-class laser and a suite of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) instruments for body deflection, tracking, physical characterization and restructuring.
The Omaha Field proposal is our forum interest at the moment. We're looking for practical improvements, here and elsewhere. Got anything on that?
Honestly I don't care to look into it at this point given your reaction to what I have said so far. If you want improvements, you can start by doing some analysis of your system your self and posting the high level results like I suggested so that there is a basis to suggest improvements from.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/27/2017 03:41 pmHonestly I don't care to look into it at this point given your reaction to what I have said so far. If you want improvements, you can start by doing some analysis of your system your self and posting the high level results like I suggested so that there is a basis to suggest improvements from.Just to give a clear statement before moving on: Your posts didn't actually isolate any significant issues with crater heat loss or more generally, "energy balance". And our high-level results, already provided, are not controversial or obviously lacking, contrary to your various assertions and insinuations.
Your criticisms were often odd because they were based only on casual forum posts, and had no foundation in the site material or in the primary literature. Remarkably, it appears you've processed the site homepage only just now, after many months, and only after rough prompt. That's unserious; the odd criticisms must be discounted.
Quote from: LMT on 10/04/2017 03:16 amInstead of re-arguing buoyancy, and re-ignoring the physical meaning of F(bot)I'm not ignoring it. I'm waving it around like a frickin' banner. It's the whole frickin' point of what I'm saying.You are pretending there is no F(bot) component because your dome is on the ground.
Instead of re-arguing buoyancy, and re-ignoring the physical meaning of F(bot)