Forbidden Technologies and The Silencing of Their Inventors

 

Universe Inside You YouTube Channel

A name from the past resurfaces

 

Aptera? Well, they're baaaaaack. These two guys seem to be a bit skeptical of Aptera's claims. These claims may be inflated, as there's no penalty yet, for lying. Just as long as you don't do it when it is against the law, such as marketing a product through the use of false claims.

Anyway, all of that aside, the design is highly efficient in terms of aerodynamics. It may also be highly efficient in terms of its friction against the surface. In other words, in order to roll down the highway, it may not take all that much power to keep it going. This has many advantages, and it is the reason why I think electric cars are too darned heavy.

It DOES appear that better ultra-capacitors are in the works, so if these could be employed in this kind of car, they could get something special out of it. The video also mentions that people in the Aptera community are quite devoted to it. That explains why they are back, I suppose.

Graphene capacitors here and now

This tech is better than the tech described in the AI dialogues. I don't know if these are available for installation in autos, but they are indeed being used in other applications. However, not as I envisioned it. To put together a package that could work the way I envision could take awhile to figure out and write it up. This short ditty will have to do for now.

 

One ammonia source that may turn up some noses

 

At the risk of provoking a "yuck" response, here's another LEO AI dialogue about your pee.

Does the decomposition of urea from human urine result in the production of ammonia, and if so, how much?

According to the provided text from Wikipedia, urea is synthesized in the body as part of the urea cycle, where amino groups donated by ammonia and L-aspartate are converted to urea. The decomposition of urea from human urine can indeed result in the production of ammonia. *The process is as follows:* Urea (CO(NH2)2) is broken down by enzymes in the kidneys and liver to form carbon dioxide and ammonia (NH3).

Sidebar from a source given from LEO AI:

Decomposition of urea from human urine:

Urea Decomposition in Human Urine

Urea from human urine decomposes primarily through microbial activity in soil, where it is converted into ammonia and ammonium ions. This process can take between 5 and 20 days, depending on the initial microbial content of the soil and the dilution of the urine

Another method of urea decomposition involves the use of microbial fuel cells (MFCs), which utilize microbial digestion to degrade organic waste, including urea, and generate power. In an extensive study, raw human urine was treated over a 45-day period using MFCs

Urea can also decompose through enzymatic processes, specifically by the enzyme urease, which catalyzes the hydrolytic decomposition of urea into ammonia and carbamic acid, which further decomposes into ammonia and carbonic acid

To inhibit the decomposition of urea during storage, acids such as sulfuric or acetic acid can be added. A one-time dosage of 60 meq of sulfuric or acetic acid per liter of undiluted urine can inhibit urea decomposition for more than 100 days

The decomposition of urea is also influenced by pH levels. There is a strong relationship between pH and the fraction of urea decomposed in urine, with higher pH levels facilitating decomposition

End sidebar, return to dialogue:

Please discuss microbial fuel cells.

**Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs)**

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are a type of bio-electrochemical system that utilizes microorganisms to break down organic matter, such as urea, and generate electricity. MFCs consist of an anode and a cathode separated by an electrolyte, where microorganisms thrive and produce electrons as a byproduct of their metabolic processes.

**Key Components and Processes:**

1. **Anode:** Microorganisms, such as bacteria or archaea, break down organic matter, releasing electrons and protons.

2. **Electrolyte:** The electrons and protons are transferred through the electrolyte, creating an electric potential.

3. **Cathode:** Oxygen or other electron acceptors react with the electrons, completing the circuit and generating electricity.

**Advantages and Applications:**

1. **Renewable Energy:** MFCs can harness energy from organic waste, reducing the need for fossil fuels.

2. **Wastewater Treatment:** MFCs can treat wastewater while generating electricity, making them an attractive solution for wastewater management.

3. **Remote Power:** MFCs can provide power for remote communities or in areas where traditional energy sources are not available.

**Limitations and Challenges:**

1. **Efficiency:** MFCs have relatively low energy conversion efficiency compared to traditional power generation methods.

2. **Scalability:** MFCs are still in the early stages of development, and scaling up their production and implementation is a significant challenge.

3. **Cost:** MFCs are currently more expensive than traditional power generation methods, making them less competitive.

**Future Directions:**

1. **Improving Efficiency:** Researchers are working to optimize MFC design, materials, and microbial communities to increase efficiency.

2. **Scaling Up:** Larger-scale MFC deployments are being explored, including integrated systems for wastewater treatment and power generation.

3. **Cost Reduction:** Economies of scale and advancements in materials and manufacturing could reduce the cost of MFCs, making them more competitive.





Conclusion:

Seems to be a dead end. However, it may be useful to know if one is thinking about how to handle human waste on Mars.

Leo Dialogue: About this blog

I find this amusing. Why not blog it?

Please describe this blog at the following url: https://kardashevianaspirations.blogspot.com/

 

The blog at the URL https://kardashevianaspirations.blogspot.com/ is a personal blog titled "Kardashevian Aspirations" that has been renamed to "Space City Speculations." The blog appears to be a series of posts discussing various topics, including off-grid projects, hypothetical electric vehicles (EVs), and fuel cell technology.

 

The blog is written in a conversational style, with the author, Greg, engaging in a dialogue with an AI assistant named Leo. The posts are dated, with the most recent post being from March 28, 2025.

 

The blog covers a range of topics, including chemistry, materials science, and engineering. The author provides detailed information on various chemical compounds, such as ammonium bicarbonate and ammonium carbonate, and their production methods.

 

The blog also discusses fuel cell technology, specifically PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) hydrogen fuel cells. The author mentions several companies involved in the production of PEM fuel cells, including Bosch, PowerCell Sweden, and Horizon.

 

The blog's tone is informal and conversational, suggesting that it is intended for a general audience interested in science and technology. However, the level of detail and technical information provided suggests that the blog may also be of interest to professionals and enthusiasts in the field.

 

Leo Dialogues --- smelling salts?

This is a series of posts about a hypothetical EV car that I'm imagining with the aid of AI called Leo. This is the third post, Post two is here, and Post One is there.





Please tell me that there is such a thing as ammonium bicarbonate, and if there is, how to make it.

**Ammonium Bicarbonate**

Yes, ammonium bicarbonate is a real chemical compound with the formula NH4HCO3. It is a colorless crystalline solid and is also known as ammonium acid bicarbonate.

To make ammonium bicarbonate, you can react ammonia (NH3) with carbon dioxide (CO2) in water. The reaction is as follows:

NH3 + CO2 + H2O → NH4HCO3

However, this reaction is not straightforward and requires careful control of the conditions. A more common method to produce ammonium bicarbonate is by reacting ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) with carbon dioxide in water:

NH4OH + CO2 + H2O → NH4HCO3 + H2O

This reaction is often used in industrial settings to produce ammonium bicarbonate for various applications, including food and pharmaceutical industries.



With respect to the previous question about ammonium bicarbonate, how would ammonium hydroxide be obtained?



**Obtaining Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH)**

Ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) can be obtained by reacting ammonia (NH3) with water. The reaction is as follows:

NH3 + H2O → NH4OH

This reaction is highly exothermic and should be carried out slowly under controlled conditions to prevent the solution from becoming too hot.

A more common method to obtain ammonium hydroxide is by dissolving ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) in water:

NH4Cl + H2O → NH4OH + HCl

This method is often used in laboratory settings to prepare solutions of ammonium hydroxide. However, please note that handling strong bases like ammonium hydroxide requires proper safety precautions and equipment.

If you need more information or clarification on handling these chemicals, I'd be happy to help.



How is so-called smelling salts produced?

**Smelling Salts**

Smelling salts, also known as ammonia salts or ammoniated salts, are typically composed of ammonium carbonate (NH4)2CO3 or ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3). However, the most common and effective smelling salt is ammonium carbonate.

Smelling salts are produced by reacting ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) with sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in water:

NH4Cl + Na2CO3 → (NH4)2CO3 + NaCl

This reaction produces ammonium carbonate, which is the active ingredient in smelling salts. The resulting solution is then concentrated and dried to produce a crystalline powder or a solid cake. When the powder is applied to the nostrils, the ammonia gas released from the ammonium carbonate causes a sudden and intense sensation, often referred to as a "whiff" or "snort".



With respect to ammonium carbonate, how is it produced?

**Producing Ammonium Carbonate**

Ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2CO3) can be produced by several methods:

1. **Reaction of Ammonia with Carbon Dioxide**: Ammonia (NH3) can be reacted with carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of water to produce ammonium carbonate:

2NH3 + CO2 + H2O → (NH4)2CO3

2. **Reaction of Ammonium Chloride with Sodium Carbonate**: Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) can be reacted with sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) to produce ammonium carbonate:

NH4Cl + Na2CO3 → (NH4)2CO3 + NaCl

3. **Reaction of Ammonium Hydroxide with Carbon Dioxide**: Ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) can be reacted with carbon dioxide (CO2) to produce ammonium carbonate:

NH4OH + CO2 → (NH4)2CO3

These reactions are commonly used in industrial settings to produce ammonium carbonate for various applications.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell discussion

More LEO AI discussion with regard to PEM hydrogen cells.

Who makes PEM hydrogen fuel cells?

Several companies are involved in the production of PEM hydrogen fuel cells. Some of the notable companies mentioned in the search results include:

* Bosch: They are collaborating with PowerCell Sweden to mass-produce fuel-cell stacks, which are a key component of PEM hydrogen fuel cells.

* PowerCell Sweden: They are a startup that is working with Bosch to bring PEM fuel cell technology to mass production.

* Plug Power: They are a company that specializes in PEM fuel cell technology and provides fuel cell systems for various applications.

* Daimler Chrysler: They have developed a PEM fuel cell system, known as the Necar 5, which uses reformed methanol as fuel.

* Horizon: They are a company that offers PEM fuel cell products, including the H-5000 PEM Fuel Cell, which is a 5kW fuel cell system.

These are just a few examples of companies that are involved in the production of PEM hydrogen fuel cells. There are many other companies and research institutions working on this technology as well.

Describe for me please, the Horizon PEM fuel cell in terms of its dimensions and weight.

**Horizon PEM Fuel Cell Dimensions and Weight**

The Horizon H-1000 PEM Fuel Cell has the following dimensions and weight:

* **Stack Size:** 268 x 219 x 123 mm (10.5" x 8.6" x 4.8")

* **Stack Weight (with Fan & Casing):** 4kg ± 100g (8.8 lbs ± 0.22 lbs)

* **Controller Weight:** 400g ± 30g (0.88 lbs ± 0.066 lbs)

Note that the dimensions and weight may vary slightly depending on the specific model and configuration of the fuel cell.

The Horizon PEM Fuel Cell just mentioned has what kind of performance with regard to power and durabillity?

**Horizon H-1000 PEM Fuel Cell Performance**

The Horizon H-1000 PEM Fuel Cell has the following performance characteristics:

* **Maximum Power:** 1 kW

* **Nominal Power:** 750 W

* **Efficiency:** Up to 40%

* **Lifetime:** 40,000 hours (approximately 5 years of operation)

* **Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF):** 20,000 hours

Note that the actual performance of the fuel cell may vary depending on the operating conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and fuel quality.

Does Horizon have other models that are more powerful than the one just mentioned?

**Horizon Fuel Cell Models**

Horizon offers a range of fuel cell models with varying power outputs. Some of their more powerful models include:

* **H-5000:** 5 kW PEM fuel cell stack, designed for stationary power generation and backup power applications.

* **H-10kW:** 10 kW PEM fuel cell stack, designed for medium-power applications such as data centers and telecommunications.

* **H-20kW:** 20 kW PEM fuel cell stack, designed for high-power applications such as industrial power generation and grid-scale energy storage.

These models are designed to be more powerful and efficient than the H-1000, and are intended for use in a variety of applications where high power density is required.

As for the Horizon H-20kw PEM fuel cell just mentioned, what is its dimensions in terms of volume and weight?

**Horizon H-20kW PEM Fuel Cell Dimensions and Weight**

The Horizon H-20kW PEM Fuel Cell has the following dimensions and weight:

* **Stack Size:** 560 x 295 x 350 mm (22" x 11.6" x 13.8")

* **Volume:** Approximately 0.06 cubic meters (2.1 cubic feet)

* **Weight (with Fan & Casing):** 15kg ± 1kg (33 lbs ± 2.2 lbs)

* **Controller Weight:** 1.5kg ± 0.1kg (3.3 lbs ± 0.22 lbs)

Please note that these dimensions and weight may vary slightly depending on the specific configuration and packaging of the fuel cell.

Summary:

The discussion concludes with a fuel cell dimensions and its performance characteristics. It could be a starting point for building out a conceptual model for an electric powered vehicle. The goal for this EV would be for it to be comparable to the size and weight of a Toyota Corolla, and have roughly the performance you'd expect from such a conventional ICE vehicle.

Lost post

3/26/25:

 

 

Removed and replaced word by word to the other blog, meaning this blog from the other blog. I hope that's clear.

 

8:00 AM:

 

It has been something of a disappointment to read that electric vehicles are so heavy. Surely, there is a way to make them more light weight. So I tried asking AI a few questions on the matter...

3/25/25:

Question to the LEO AI: How many joules can an Ultra-capacitor hold?

Answer:

The text doesn't provide a direct answer to the amount of joules of energy that an ultracapacitor can hold. However, it mentions that ultracapacitors store 10 to 100 times more energy per unit volume or mass than electrolytic capacitors.

To give you a better estimate, let's assume the energy stored in an electrolytic capacitor is around 1 Wh/kg (watt-hour per kilogram). Then, an ultracapacitor with the same mass could store between 10 Wh/kg and 100 Wh/kg.

To convert watt-hours to joules, we multiply by 3600 (since 1 Wh = 3600 J). So, an ultracapacitor with a mass of 1 kg could store between 36,000 J and 360,000 J.

Question to the LEO AI: Why can't Ultracapacitors be used instead of batteries?

Answer:

Ultracapacitors cannot serve as the propulsion battery in electric vehicles (EVs) because they lack the storage capacity. They can store a significant amount of energy, but it is not enough to power an EV for an extended period. Ultracapacitors are better suited for applications that require quick bursts of energy, such as:

* Regenerative braking in EVs (where they can help recover kinetic energy)

* Powering low-voltage systems, such as:

+ Instrumentation panels

+ Entertainment systems

+ LED lighting

+ Sensors





In these applications, ultracapacitors can provide a reliable and efficient source of power for short periods, but they are not a replacement for batteries in terms of long-term energy storage.



Comment:

Still not satisfied with this... I think that ultracapacitors MIGHT be more useful than is commonly thought. But I don't know enough to know why it is commonly thought and why it may be wrong ( in my opinion). Maybe I'm just talking out my ass, or maybe I'm on to something.

9:50 AM:

A few more questions, then!

Question: What is the measurement of capacity for capacitors?

Answer:

The measurement of capacity for capacitors is typically expressed in units of **Farads (F)**. However, capacitors are often available in smaller values, such as microfarads (μF), nanofarads (nF), or even picofarads (pF).

If you need more information on capacitor values or how they're used in circuits, let me know and I'd be happy to elaborate.

Question: How is a farad calculated or determined?

Answer: A **Farad (F)** is a unit of capacitance, calculated using the formula:

C = Q / V

Where: - C is the capacitance in Farads (F)

- Q is the charge in Coulombs (C)

- V is the voltage across the capacitor in Volts (V)



To determine the capacitance of a capacitor, you can use the following formula:[see note (1) below ]



Question: Is there a relationship between colulombs and amps?

Answer:



**Yes**, there is a relationship between Coulombs (C) and Amps (A).

The relationship is based on the definition of electric current:

I = Q / t

Where: - I is the current in Amps (A)

- Q is the charge in Coulombs (C)

- t is the time in seconds (s)



This means that 1 Ampere (A) is equal to 1 Coulomb (C) per second.

In other words, if you know the charge (in Coulombs) and the time (in seconds), you can calculate the current (in Amps).



It's getting there...

2:45 PM: It may be that the number of ultra-capacitors can be optimized as well as the other components to yield the lightest weight configuration. But that is a bridge too far for yours truly, but I can always speculate a bit. With that, the last question:



How much would a 500 F ultracapacitor weigh?



The weight of a 500F ultracapacitor can vary depending on the specific type, size, and manufacturer. However, a common type of ultracapacitor, called an Electric Double Layer Capacitor (EDLC), typically weighs between 1-3 kg (2.2-6.6 lbs) for a 500F rating.

Here's a rough breakdown of the weight of different types of ultracapacitors:

* EDLC (500F): 1-3 kg (2.2-6.6 lbs)

* Hybrid Ultracapacitor (500F): 0.5-2 kg (1.1-4.4 lbs)

* Lithium-Ion Ultracapacitor (500F): 0.2-1 kg (0.44-2.2 lbs)



Please note that these are rough estimates and actual weights may vary depending on the specific product and manufacturer.

Comment:



You may need about 20 units to give you enough acceleration for most cases. That's about as good as I can think it up based upon what I can figure. The actual number may be more or less, and by a significant margin. I'm no expert at this.

This is still a considerable amount of weight. The battery isn't figured in, nor the fuel cell. Then there's the machinery needed to handle to fuel. That won't be light weight. It may well be that battery powered vehicles will always be too heavy unless they come up with a miracle solution.

Note (1): C = (C1 \* C2) / (C1 + C2)

Where:

- C1 and C2 are the capacitances of two capacitors in series or in parallel.

However, this formula requires knowledge of the individual capacitances. If you have a capacitor and need to measure its capacitance, you can use a multimeter or a capacitance meter.

If you need more information on how to measure or calculate capacitance, I'd be happy to provide more details or point you in the right direction.

Would power beaming work on Mars?

How would you get all of your power on Mars? One thing that you could do would be to use power beaming.

 

tdavl commented on Popular Mechanics: "This is real. I’ve seen Reach wireless power a drone. Stayed up for 6 hours." https://t.co/w5hNhrnHYG --- It would seem that power beaming could work on Mars. It would be a way to power a base on Mars.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 26, 2025

How could Tesla innovate their way out of their current mess?

 

Copy the Chinese! Didn't the Chinese invent a way to swap out batteries real fast? Why not steal their ideas for a change.

Do them one better than that. Perhaps you could add a range extender in the form of a hydrogen fuel cell that you could rent. Most people drive short distances. If you install a short range battery and reduce the price, it could be a sweetner for sales. Add the convenience of battery swapping, and a hydrogen range extender, and you could make the cars more affordable to own and operate.

How big does a fuel cell have to be? Not that big, in my opinion. It could be just big enough to supply the vehicle with power and a little extra for charging the battery. On the highway, a vehicle needs only about 20 horsepower.

Stations that swap batteries could also supply range extenders. To move hydrogen into place, use ammonia, and crack the ammonia at the distribution site.

Quick Update:

Does anybody remember this? Why hasn't it been developed? Seems to me that you could make ammonia out of the bicarbonates in the sea, and then ship it all over the world. These would power their autos through the fuel cell.

6:00PM:

There's a car made by Honda that fits the description of what I was referring to, but is pretty heavy. That puzzles me. ( It doesn't have a power unit swap out capability).

Would this work in high humidity, without a fog?

Then you'd have a universal water production device. Having to wait for a fog may cause it to have limited usefulness.

Nuke rocket concepts

Alpha-Tech YouTube

You can breed Thorium in space, and then use it for your nuclear thermal energy. Seeding it into some molten salts will keep it under control, as per demonstrations done at Oak Ridge decades ago. But those in Oak Ridge were not for rockets, but possibly for airplanes.

The use of ammonia seems interesting. I would wonder about how to get the most out of it.

The concepts below aren't the only ones. There are many ways to do the same thing. The need is for a definite plan, and then to execute it.

Part II: The initial unmanned landings

Given what the previous post says, the first Starships will be unmanned, and will be equipped with semi-autonomous robots.

These bots must build out a habitat that the first humans can actually live in. That would opposed to dying in the ships, because the ships are not a place where they'd like to live for the rest of their lives.

Preferably, it would employ the strategy of in-situ resourcing. So, how does this get accomplished? Let's start with the Starships themselves. They each have a lot of interior room, but what if you want much more? You'd have to build something on the surface of Mars, and that means you don't have a lot of materials or machines to work with.

We could still use the Starships. How? Let's keep in mind that Musk wants to bring 1000 ships into service. Therefore, he can spare a bunch for this idea. That idea would be to use the Starships to build out a large space for humans to live in. How many? Let's say less than hundred of them could be used in-situ to make an enclosed area as tall as a Starship, and as thick as its diameter. The Starships would be placed around a circle that would be almost 600 feet in diameter. This would enclose an area of 50k square feet and about 150 feet tall. You can make a super large enclosed structure out of these things. But it would need a roof.

It would also need to have the gaps filled in so that it could be pressurized. It may be a challenge to get a roof on top of it. A blimp like structure that could be inflated could go over the top of the structure, and be attached to it. All gaps would be filled in, and the structure could then be pressurized.

A procedure could be employed that would allow this to be accomplished with as much speed as could be brought to bear. A number of Starships would have to be scrapped and used as metal to fill in the gaps. No more than 40 Starships could be scrapped to fill in the gaps on the outside and inside.

For good measure, an inner liner could go on the inside so that there would definitely not be any leaks.

Over time, the structure could be modified so as to improve its durability and longetivity. Once the interior is built out, then interior could be built out next. You could scavenge the remains of the Starships used for a substantial amount of metal that could used in order to complete the task.

In summary, a hundred Starships could be employed to do the job of adding millions of square feet of potential floorspace for a megabuilding the size of a sports stadium on Earth, but with many floors. It could be built out inside with materials obtained from the Martian environment. Bots could do the work before any people arrived.

A single Starship on Mars.  I forgot about the control surfaces.  They won't fit together tightly, so they'll have to be removed first.  That would complicate things a bit.

Musk's first manned missions to Mars

This post is made without the benefit of any inside knowledge about Elon Musk's plans.

In fact, it is being made without studying over his talks all that much. It is mostly speculation about his approach that isn't being talked about. Also that, it is one that some folks that haven't grasped one important point. That is this: the first settlers won't be coming back home at the earliest launch window to Earth. There is a strong possibility that they won't come back at all.

This wouldn't necessarily be a failure. It is an intention. The problem that Musk is trying to solve will be such that there cannot be a return trip, because this will impose a requirement that will complicate the process of creating a permanent presence there.

As it is being pointed out in some quarters, the need to return back will be a huge effort in itself. The removal of that as a goal will simplify their task. It will be enough for these settlers to survive for at least two launch windows on Mars. By that time, the will be so acclimated to space that the return back to Earth may be impossible physically.

For five years away from Earth will change their bodies permanently. That is, if they survive that long.

A return trip to Earth would entail a much faster ship. If it could be done with enough speed, it could be done within one launch window. This will necessitate completely different launch parameters.

So a return trip home is not going to be feasible. But a trip there in order to stay will be feasible. Or at least, more feasible.

If there's not going to be a return trip, and there will be unmanned trips, what will those first trips be like?

He will be sending his robots there to look for resources. A water source will be needed. Besides that, shelter will be needed. Living in a rocket for months at a time is enough. They need some shelter outside their spacecraft.

The first shelters may be included on the unmanned ships. The robots will set up the shelters. Those shelters will need plenty of radiation shielding.

The settlers will need to able to breathe. Some machinery will be needed to produce oxygen for breathing.

There will be a need to detoxify their immediate environment. Mars has a lot of perchlorates in its regolith. These could find their way into their living space. These will have to be removed.

Mars is very cold. There will be a need for a heat source.

The list is long. A lot of ground work will be done in this first mission. The work may not be finished before the first humans arrive. It will be a race to finish the work before the newcomers die off.

It won't be easy. In fact, it may take several attempts to get people to survive long enough to keep the enterprise going. Something to think about, eh?

With respect to solving the world's biggest problems ( by using AI)

Quote:

"An amazing future, as long as it doesn't destroy us first"

Veritasium YouTube

 

 

February 10, 2025 Quick space links

Behind the Black blog

Of these, one stands out for a post on this here speculative blog, maties.

 

There's one about high energy particles trapped in the Earth's orbit.  My speculation is in the form of a question:  Can these be mined in any significant way, such that it can be a source of water?

 

Re-purposing old aircraft carriers for launching and recovering Starships.

 

This is an interesting speculation, but not by ME. So, I'll embed it here on me speculative blog, maties.

 

Aircraft carriers are frickin' HUGE. They also stand tall above the water. Perhaps he could fasten a catch mechanism at the end of the deck, and off the side. It's tall enough to clear the water. The flames from the rocket would hit the ocean water, and just steam back up. No need to use water, cuz it's all around.

 

The retired one they are talking about is diesel powered. The nuclear powered Nimitz class carriers are getting old, so that may be a possibility in the future. Imagine using the nuclear power units to make methane out of sea water. Then, they could be self-sufficient in terms of fueling their ships.

 

 

 

 

 

The first few landings on Mars could be different

If the first few landings of Mars involves machines and not people, then that will mean that those Starships are expendable. More cargo capacity could mean that a different landing approach could be employed. Why would you need the mostly empty Starship with all those engines and fuel tanks?

The Starship's lower sections could be jettisoned, which means less mass to soft land. That means less fuel, and less powerful engines. If the idea is to land 150 tons, with a gravity well of less than 40% of Earth's, then you'd need somewhere above 60 tons thrust to set the rump Starship down gently on Mars.

A battery of SuperDracos could the job.

The fact is, I don't really like the idea of landing the Starship in the manner in which the current plan envisages. Neither do some other folks who comment upon Musk's plans. There is a suggestion for a smaller lander, but to enclose a smaller lander would make the concept less efficient. Therefore, the idea for ditching the main engines and tanks before the final approach to landing.

The current plan has already been tested on Earth. The final flip maneuver preceeds the restart of the Raptors, with the final burn down to the landing. I say that the flip could be kept, but the Raptors could be ditched, with a brief burn to get the jettisoned part out of harm's way. The SuperDracos could take over to set the ship down on the surface.

Perhaps more than 150 tons could be landed. Future manned ships could keep the flip maneuver with an entire ship setting down. The first few manned ships would be not be prepared for returning either, so a different landing technique could be prepared for that too. Perhaps the same maneuver!

If there's some infrastructure already built up, then it wouldn't be necessary to keep the lower portion of the ship anyway.

The biggest icebergs in the world

 

Are as big as some small countries. They may exist for a few years before they break apart. In the spirit of what I mentioned just recently, if you were to melt these things for water, and then send the water to areas such as Southern California, you just might be able to do it profitably. Maybe. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

If you cannot do this, then what sense does it make to go to Mars?

 

 

Elon Musk's 66 Trillion Dollar Plan for Mars

He doesn't even need to mine Terbinium in order to pay for it.