Author Topic: Lake Matthew - 2036  (Read 39817 times)

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #200 on: 11/19/2017 03:38 AM »
Quote



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...

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #201 on: 11/21/2017 04:04 PM »
Omaha Field And Other Challenges

The final component of our Omaha Shield proposal, the "Omaha Field", came from challenge collaboration at Mars Home Planet.  Someone suggested EM planetary shielding, someone dropped a link, we crunched numbers.  The results look useful.

Some open questions, re cable mass reduction:

- What critical current density is presently feasible in HTS tape? 

- What are some low-mass vacuum-insulation methods, to thermally insulate a cable in 1 kPa atmosphere? 

- What are some high-specific-strength materials that might substitute for aluminum within the cable core?

Improvements could lighten Omaha Crater mag-field equipment significantly; likewise, equipment at other low sites.  Moreover, if and when cable unit mass (filled) is < 60 kg/m, we can consider a self-deploying variant, useful anywhere on the martian surface.

If NSF posters find magnetostatics interesting, we might treat open questions as NSF "challenges", in the spirit of MHP example.  Or if not here, then at MHP, where we're brainstorming the next phase. 

And MHP gives prizes.  :-)

Anyway, about those cables...

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #202 on: 11/24/2017 09:08 PM »
you 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.

"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: LMT
you have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secrets

No.
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.

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?
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.   

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #203 on: 11/24/2017 11:15 PM »
you 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.

How do you know that the largest heat loss is through the domes? This seems like an unproven assumption.

And, yes you said extra ice would be coming in, trucking it in is how I interpret "external ice deposits," but either way it will absorb a lot of energy:
Evaporation + sublimation < 1 mm/hr
Even 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.

"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.
I told you what you should say if you wanted to demonstrate that you have done a basic analysis, yet you have not done this, not even a claim that the high level information I suggested is "NDA."

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.

Quote from: meberbs
Quote from: LMT
you have a pattern of hiding behind false claims of trade secrets

No.
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.
Your response sounds like you are talking about something different than the original statement.

Neither of us have asked you to disclose information that you would harm you.

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.

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?
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.
I don't see any point in him answering, and I doubt he does either. I also clearly stated a question: Why are you asking him this? Which you did not answer. Like him you are free to answer or not, but if you are going to respond to this part of the post at all I'd appreciate an answer.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #204 on: 11/27/2017 03:59 AM »
you said extra ice would be coming in, trucking it in is how I interpret "external ice deposits":

Delivery method is stated plainly on the homepage and elsewhere on the site.

Quote from: LakeMatthew.com
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.

On the homepage.  You didn't notice, even after I reminded you.  For someone taking a critical stance, that gaffe is inexcusable.

either way [ice] will absorb a lot of energy

Sunlight is not bedrock heat.  Ignoring the energy source is just confusion; it precludes meaningful statements on the crater's "energy balance".

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.

I see you haven't demonstrated familiarity.  Not even with homepage material.

As for freezing point or other correction, the guy who calculates is the guy who corrects.  Anybody can toss out questions.

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.

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:

Quote
How 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 Omaha Field proposal is our forum interest at the moment.  We're looking for practical improvements, here and elsewhere.  Got anything on that?




Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9141
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5813
  • Likes Given: 3899
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #205 on: 11/27/2017 09:26 AM »
This is a forum. A place to exchange ideas. Not snark. Don't be snarky.
It's also a conversation among all participants. Directing questions to one participant is more suited to direct messaging. Don't do that.

"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #206 on: 11/27/2017 03:41 PM »
Sunlight is not bedrock heat.  Ignoring the energy source is just confusion; it precludes meaningful statements on the crater's "energy balance".
Your site is not at all clear that the energy source is solar for this part.

There are several issues with this idea anyway (note that these aren't individually necessarily showstoppers, but points you don't seem to have considered):
-Unless you are near the poles (not apparently true based on your statements thus far) the ice won't just be sitting on the surface in convenient patches to melt, you would have to excavate down to permafrost.
-You should calculate the height needed on Mars for the gravitational potential energy to match the energy it takes to melt the ice, assuming 100% efficiency and only including the heat of fusion, ignoring any temperature increase.
-Same with the velocity needed to match this energy in kinetic energy.
-This ignores so many sources of loss, such as heating of non-ice parts of the regolith, actual temperature increases, boil off, etc. I fail to see how this would be worth the effort, when there are other methods to generate/store terajoules of energy.

Besides this, you still are avoiding the main point: that you have not provided basic evidence that you have done a thorough analysis of the energy balance for your proposal.

As for freezing point or other correction, the guy who calculates is the guy who corrects.  Anybody can toss out questions.
And I calculated it, are you trying to claim otherwise?


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".
When you started this thread, you claimed that your methods for delivering energy to Mars (hitting it with an asteroid) were proprietary. This clearly counts as obvious, because it was literally the first guess in the thread.

So which fact are you denying?

- That you claimed your idea of hitting Mars with an asteroid was proprietary?
- That it was obvious that your plan was to hit Mars with an asteroid?

Ask yourself:

Quote
How 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.
As a reminder, the recent set of obvious facts that you have claimed as NDA:

-using additional impactors (Probably broken off from the main impactor) to create mini craters within the main one
-using an elongated shaped impactor to make the crater extra deep, which barring extreme luck with your chosen asteroid involves reshaping the asteroid. (The technology to do this reshaping would be proprietary if you have developed it yourself.)

Interestingly, it seems your website even mentions the fact hat you will be reshaping the asteroid, yet you still have claimed that the method for making the crater deeper is proprietary:

Quote from: Lake Matthew Team
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.
You are pointing to an external study on laser ablation asteroid deflection (which mentions that rad-hardening of the lasers is low TRL as of 2 years ago), which makes me question if you actually have the technology yourself. 

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.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #207 on: 12/03/2017 03:32 AM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2017 03:33 AM by LMT »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #208 on: 12/03/2017 09:00 AM »
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.

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. 
There is exactly one issue with the energy balance: you haven't calculated it. There is no other explanation available for why you have not answered the high level questions that were asked about the energy balance.

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.
Contrary to your assumption, I have looked through your website multiple times before, and found that you had nothing that even resembled analysis or justifications for your statements. Honestly many of the statements on your website seem more "casual" than your forum posts. You have made enough inaccurate statements and baseless claims on here that are not supported by any analysis, so I have seen no reason to go through everything on your website point by point as well and state the major challenges with each one that you don't seem to have accounted for.

Your response to serious technical criticisms has been to call them "odd" rather than address the technical issues that were brought up. When you try to deflect concerns about the terrible energy efficiency of one of your concepts without even addressing what the concerns were about, you are the one who seems "unserious"

You have also made outright false claims about your previous statements, and you still refuse to acknowledge them.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #209 on: 12/11/2017 03:12 AM »
Instead 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.

You accidentally set yourself a little challenge:  to demonstrate, contrary to given definition, that a subaqueous dome's F(bot) >> 0 N. 

You didn't demonstrate because that's not the physics of the buoyant force. 

Demonstration is calculation.  Draw a dome and calculate dome F(bot) >> 0 N.  Use actual physical definitions, from the textbook.  That's your challenge; no one else's.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9141
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5813
  • Likes Given: 3899
Re: Lake Matthew - 2036
« Reply #210 on: 12/11/2017 03:34 AM »
Again. this is a discussion site. This back and forth is sterile, uninteresting, and uncollegial.

Locked til such time as I am convinced that collegiality can be returned.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags: