Quote from: nacnud on 02/19/2017 03:10 PMConcrete will be tricky on mars, no limestone.It could be marscrete. A material made from local resources, not limestone. It needs less energy to produce, too.The material is even better than normal concrete except it is not very resistant to water. Not a concern on Mars.
Concrete will be tricky on mars, no limestone.
Energy wise this sounds like it would be a much better idea to do focused solar rather than the trouble of PV arrays to electricity to heat.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/12/2017 04:20 PMEnergy wise this sounds like it would be a much better idea to do focused solar rather than the trouble of PV arrays to electricity to heat.Atmospheric dust scatters sunlight amazingly well. Even on a bright clear day on Mars, you can lose 30% of direct light. Concentrator-mirrors can't work with scattered light, but solar panels are barely affected. Additionally, solar panels produce general purpose electricity (obviously), which can be diverted to any use, especially in an emergency. Solar furnaces will be single-purpose dedicated systems, nearly worthless for backing up other systems.So, IMO, even with the loss of efficiency with solar PV, the net benefits vastly outweigh the costs.
Do high-temp solar furnace processing on Phobos?
Hmm, photovoltaics deployed on the surface of Mars will most probably be less complex than a system that involves flying back and forth between Phobos and the Martian surface.
Roll-out thin-film PV sheets (tied down to the Martin surface so they won't lift off when a cleaning dustdevil passes) are basically maintenance-free and highly dependable. I am quite sure they will provide the energy needed on Mars.
Thanks for your reply, John. However, I don't understand what the problem is. If you need more electricity for energy-intensive construction work you would just lay out more PV film, wouldn't you? It is not as if they lack real estate on the surface. Or is there a problem with having a lot of PV sheets generating electricity without "tapping it off"? Sorry, I just don't know.
Why not both? Mirrors to concentrate more sunlight into panels?
In contrast using solar concentrators (imagine or non imaging) may lose 30% due to dust scatter. That leaves 70% as available energy that can be used to process materials.