That perfectly describes you. LMAO The irony of it all !!You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't understand the numbers, the energy argument or the technology required. You do not understand technological readiness, launch requirements or how roadmaps are defined.You don't know what is hard and what isn't hard and what are solvable problems and what are unsolvable problems.
I am perfectly aware of the stringent design requirements for the thing to fly in the Martian thin atmosphere. That's why I brought it up in the first place, to show that it can be done. And what has the rotation speed of the drone propellers got to do with the rotation speed of the wind turbine? Unlike the drone, the wind turbine need not stay aloft in the air and its blades can afford to spin much slower.helicopter on Mars... Ok... You realize that it has power of 350 watts and can only loft 1.8 kg for a few minutes? And that's spinning at 2800 rpm, 100x faster than the 20 rpm of commercial wind turbines?
no, because unlike you, I don't regurgitate what other people say during speculative statements and instead use sourced statements and actual data from NASA, CNSA and other agencies to evaluate their claims.That perfectly describes you. LMAO The irony of it all !!
I am perfectly aware of the stringent design requirements for the thing to fly in the Martian thin atmosphere. That's why I brought it up in the first place, to show that it can be done. And what has the rotation speed of the drone propellers got to do with the rotation speed of the wind turbine? Unlike the drone, the wind turbine need not stay aloft in the air and its blades can afford to spin much slower.
Also parachutes too have been deployed on Mars. Have these things not already been shown to work on Mars, I can only suppose you will be pooh-poohing away that these things not going to work in the thin atmosphere of Mars.
The way that I see it, a wind turbine for Mars need to incorporate the following design and engineering requirements: made of very light but strong material; blades need to be extra big (width and length); super strong magnet in the generator assembly, etc. And wind farms on Mars need to be established in very big clusters to generate the needed power.
We don't have all the technologies today for living on Mars . We still need to develop many new technologies. But we already have some basic technologies which can be improved on and adapted for use on Mars.
I won't trust anything you say too much. You have already shown that you are prone to confuse the issues by throwing wildly incoherent unrelated facts or statements around. I can smell BS a mile away.no, because unlike you, I don't regurgitate what other people say during speculative statements and instead use sourced statements and actual data from NASA, CNSA and other agencies to evaluate their claims.
You, on the other hand, take wildly optimistic claims at face value and don't think about the thermodynamics, mission requirements, technological readiness, etc. That is why you are wrong, and I am not.
for example, you have just demonstrated that you do not understand how a turbine works by claiming wind turbines can work on Mars, and lack the capability to conduct research to support your claims.
A turbine works by being spun by a moving fluid, which imparts momentum to the turbine. A specific blade design converts the forward momentum of the fluid into angular momentum. The rotational motion turns a generator and produces electricity.
p_mars = 0.006* p_earth so for equal rotor area, power_mars = 0.006 * power_earth.
Or for equal power, you need to increase A by 167x or radius by 13x. So to produce the same power as a
That's launching Burj Khalifa (for the smallest, cheapest commerical turbine at 500 kW) into space. You know how big a typical launch vehicle is? 70 m for the entire rocket, 90% of which is fuel. Even if you make it in situ, Burj Khalifa cost $1.5 billion on Earth (where workers don't need pressure suits) and doesn't need to move. But let's say you have the world's best wind turbine that gets 2 MW from 40 m Earth diameter or 520 m Mars diameter.
Let's say this thing comes at a huge bargain and costs as much as the Burj Khalifa, a mere $1.5 billion USD, even though it is constructed in vastly harsher circumstances and is far more complicated since it needs to actually move, survive dust storms, etc. and everything has to be launched into space to do it including workers, habitats, etc.
How much does the energy cost? Well,
You can launch an open cycle heat engine with liquid oxygen and kerosene and then just keep resupplying them with fossil fuel for cheaper than your proposed wind turbine.
This is to educate neutral audiences, not you. The neutral, rational audience can easily see that I am using peer reviewed, sourced reports and data while you aren't, and providing actual calculations while you can't.I won't trust anything you say too much.
apparently not since you got conned by Elo.n Mu.sk, Mars One and Rob.ert Zub.rin vaporware about how Mars is 'suitable' for life.You have already shown that you are prone to confuse the issues by throwing wildly incoherent unrelated facts or statements around. I can smell BS a mile away.
Which is founded on known engineering principles such as heat engines and solar panels, and doesn't require unobtainium or Star Trek tech like 500 m wind turbines.You are blinded too much by the thought of harvesting unlimited energy from the perpetual heat and solar energy on Venus and Mercury that you did not
I've already proven, with sources, that Venus has an atmospheric altitude where pressure and temperature is Earth-like, and air is bouyant. You also don't seem to understand how thermal insulators and powered heat exchangers work. A powered heat exchanger is also called an 'air conditioner'.think of the difficulty or impossibility of inserting humans safely into the blazing hot furnace that is the surface of Venus and Mercury (the day side. The night side is frigid cold not too far away from absolute zero and you won't be interested anyway because no solar power.) That difficulty/impossibility of making a safe landing alone precludes any further duscussion on the matter .
So is Mars except Mars also has zero potential for even high powered robotic missions i.e local industrial production, while Venus and Mercury actually have the power to sustain such an operation.Frankly, I am shocked that you can make such a proposal. Venus and Mercury are only for robotic landing and exploration.
LMAO.I can only think you must be one of those individuals whose area of competency and expertise lies within the narrow confines of their work . Out of that, they know very little or nothing.
No problem, I've already schooled you. Take this as free education.Period. I am done on this topic.