Daily Mail Online: How the Japanese plan to turn the moon into a mirrorball: All of Earth's energy 'to be supplied by lunar ring of solar panels'

[GhostofSparta]

How the Japanese plan to turn the moon into a mirrorball: All of Earth's energy 'to be supplied by lunar ring of solar panels'

It sounds like something out of science fiction - a huge swathe of the moon covered with solar panels to beam captured energy back to Earth.

But plans to turn the moon into a gigantic mirrorball manned by robots to provide all the Earth's energy came a step closer to reality today when they were unveiled by Japanese scientists.

The ambitious project would result in 13,000 terawatts of continuous solar energy being transmitted back to receiving stations on Earth, either by laser or microwave.

The plans were unveiled by Japanese construction giant Shimizu Corporation's research division, and would result in a 6,800 mile-long band stretching around the light side of the moon's equator.

It would measure up to 248 miles in width and feature 12 mile-wide antennae to transmit the power.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390682/Plans-gigantic-lunar-ring-solar-panels-beam-energy-Earth-unveiled.html#ixzz1NroDJoSR

[Hubbs]

Paging Larry, paging Larry....

[GhostofSparta]

I can't be the only one picturing this, right?

[mistertim]

Turning the moon into the biggest disco ball in history? Sounds interesting.

[Unforgiven]

I'm a bit confused on how this works.

Obviously they'll need receiving stations all around the earth, so are they planning on trying to sell energy to other countries? or is this a huge multinational project where the cost burden is shared and those countries have access to it? I mean I know it's decades away at the least and I'm not sure if it's just beyond the idea of 'lets put mirrors on the moon!' but curious about it.

[SnyderShrugged]

I love the innovative thoughts. These are the kind of things that I truly consider "progressive".

[Skin'emAlive]

The only problem is that there is no atmosphere to protect the panels from asteroids and such.

[Mufumonk]

Turning the moon into the biggest disco ball in history? Sounds interesting.

Death Star is more like it.

[PokerPacker]

I'm not sure how I feel to adding outside energy to the Earth. If Greenhouse is supposedly a problem preventing us from getting rid of energy, then isn't adding more energy just gonna make it worse?

[Unforgiven]

By the time they get started on that giant mirror on the moon there may be working commercial size Helium-3 fusion reactors. The moon being our closest source (well on a scale to get us started) of Helium-3, it's another option.

There are a lot of energy possibilities simply involving the moon, though most people on these forums will be very old or dead before they ever fully implemented. Unless of course they do some serious work on this pesky aging problem before then.

[Hunter44]

I can see this going bad...

[Unforgiven]

I'm not sure how I feel to adding outside energy to the Earth. If Greenhouse is supposedly a problem preventing us from getting rid of energy, then isn't adding more energy just gonna make it worse?

These are energy solutions that are green, and don't emit greenhouse gases as a byproduct.

[Mad Mike]

Silly freekin idea. I'm a hard core sci-fi fan but this is pure fantasy.

The cost of building such a thing would be staggering. I'm talking about a budget in the trillions. All for a project that is really just a crazy less feasible re-hash of an idea that's been around for years. I mean seriously, why not just put the solar collectors in high orbit? And do we really want to beam 13,000 terawatts of microwave energy at the earth? Really?

And really people... The Daily Mail? What's Next?

[elkabong82]

Never again will they worry about a panty vending machine losing power.

[JMS]

The only problem is that there is no atmosphere to protect the panels from asteroids and such.

Dust

[mjah]

The only problem is that there is no atmosphere to protect the panels from asteroids and such.

That's definitely a major problem with the idea. But I wouldn't call it the only problem.

By the time they get started on that giant mirror on the moon there may be working commercial size Helium-3 fusion reactors. The moon being our closest source (well on a scale to get us started) of Helium-3' date=' it's another option.[/quote']

Maybe we could get basic sustainable, controllable, scalable, productive hydrogen D-T fusion working here on Earth first. We have more hydrogen right here on this planet than we could ever need under any conceivable scenario. Deuterium and tritium can be readily made available in significant amounts.

Helium-3 fusion for power is a theoretical second-generation (or later) fusion concept which would offer some advantages over D-T fusion, at the cost of some significant disadvantages. Not the least of these is the need to scrape roughly 100 million freaking TONS of Moon surface to get just a single ton of He-3. And we'd need dozens and dozens of tons per year of the stuff to convert most of the world's power generation to He-3.

It's a fun proto-Macguffin for people who want to find economic and/or survival imperatives to go back to the Moon, but beyond that, He-3 mining on the Moon is a pretty silly idea.

[USS Redskins]

Not that this would work or anything - but this is a reason Obama basically putting NASA manned missions in mothballs was way shortsighted.

[Wrong Direction]

This is an old idea and not one that I'd totally rule out. I'm probably crazy for saying that, of course. The upshot is enough energy to supply the earth for as long as the sun burns, after which we'd have bigger problems on our hands anyway. The downside is obviously cost. We need multiple space stations on the moon, multiple vehicles able to transport materials safely and a lot of darn time.

Government could be the venture capitalist, but would the government be running a moon energy business for perpetuity or would it partner with several private firms who could build their own farms? A stupid question, but if they can get energy from the moon to the earth, why can't they get energy from the midwest to American cities? Too much atmospheric interference? Too reliant on physical cables? To much politics?

[mjah]

Not that this would work or anything - but this is a reason Obama basically putting NASA manned missions in mothballs was way shortsighted.

Yeah, he never should have canceled the technologically doomed Ares 1 rocket, THE crew launch rocket for the Constellation program. Ending a money-wasting program to develop a rocket that won't work is "way shortsighted!"

Nor should he have canceled our existing governmental means of reaching space, the Space Shuttle, in a decision that was made 5 years before he even won his party's nomination for President.

Talk about some crazy decisions! What was he thinking anyway?

[PokerPacker]

These are energy solutions that are green, and don't emit greenhouse gases as a byproduct.

I'm not talking about these adding greenhouse gases, I'm talking about adding more energy to Earth. In bringing more energy to the planet, well, that's more energy on the planet. What we call energy production is actually just transferring energy into a source usable by us. The energy is already here. Bringing more energy to the Earth, on the other hand, is, well, more energy on the earth and I don't know how it would manifest itself after we "use" it.

right now we're at a balance of so much energy entering and leaving the Earth at certain rates, by increasing the rate we add energy, I just don't know how that will affect things on a global scale. Will more energy manifest itself in the form of higher temperatures?

[Bang]

Potential for the moon to be changed into a death ray generator - 40%

~Bzzzzt

[Mad Mike]

It's a fun proto-Macguffin for people who want to find economic and/or survival imperatives to go back to the Moon, but beyond that, He-3 mining on the Moon is a pretty silly idea.

Silly for importing the power back to earth I agree. But it may be useful for powering a moon base.

[USS Redskins]

Yeah, he never should have canceled the technologically doomed Ares 1 rocket, THE crew launch rocket for the Constellation program. Ending a money-wasting program to develop a rocket that won't work is "way shortsighted!"

Nor should he have canceled our existing governmental means of reaching space, the Space Shuttle, in a decision that was made 5 years before he even won his party's nomination for President.

Talk about some crazy decisions! What was he thinking anyway?

Well - Obama didnt cancel the Shuttle Program... Bush did in 2003. Sorry to ruin your big comeback there.

Also - Obama has guaranteed that the country has to rely on Russia to put men in space for the next few years - and also guaranteed that we have no heavy lift capability by cancelling the constellation program - which was well on its way.... He also is trusting in coporations (those evil entities), which are decades behind NASA, to be the next step in manned spaceflight.

Great moves!

[mjah]

Well - Obama didnt cancel the Shuttle Program... Bush did in 2003. Sorry to ruin your big comeback there.

You just repeated what I was saying. I'm not sure why you did that, but thank you. It's very generous of you to confirm that Bush canceled the Shuttle. (Maybe the sarcasm in my post was lost on you.)

Also - Obama has guaranteed that the country has to rely on Russia to put men in space for the next few years

Wrong.

That guarantee was already built into the Shuttle-to-Constellation transition. There was ALWAYS going to be a gap of several years during which we would rely on Russian transportation into low Earth orbit. The original (ridiculous) target period, per the Bush decision, was for a mere 4-year gap between 2010 and 2014. That assumed that the Ares I concept was going to be ready on time -- which quickly became an obviously incorrect assumption as Griffin rammed his goofy-ass pet concept for Ares I through NASA.

By 2009 it was clear that if Ares ever flew, it wouldn't be until 2017-2019. Given the Shuttle's 1-year reprieve, that meant relying on the Russians for at least 6 years and maybe 8. And that's if Ares ever flew (and no, the Ares 1 mockup that made it a few miles into the air certainly didn't count -- for a number of reasons).

So sorry, but you're wrong. Obama didn't "guarantee" that. It was a decision that predated him.

- and also guaranteed that we have no heavy lift capability by cancelling the constellation program - which was well on its way....

"Well on its way?" LOL! Again, wrong.

Ares I was going to fly as late as 2019, if ever. The Ares V heavy lifter wasn't even funded -- it was literally just a vision, and one which explicitly was not to be touched until after Ares I flew (again, if ever). So after a suitable development period, that would have put Ares V into space sometime in the late 2020s. The late 2020s! That is what you're claiming was "lost" when we stopped pouring money down that bottomless hole called Ares I.

Canceling Constellation and calling for deeper-space missions instead wasn't exactly a way to reduce our heavy-lift capability. We've really lost nothing in terms of timeline for heavy-lift capability. In fact, by jettisoning the unworkable and tragically stupid Ares I project we may have actually accelerated the timeframe for a new heavy-lift rocket. Only time will tell. But your notion of "guaranteeing no heavy lift capability" is just ignorant.

He also is trusting in coporations (those evil entities), which are decades behind NASA, to be the next step in manned spaceflight.

To be one of the next steps in manned spaceflight, yes. And to low Earth orbit only. Not as a comprehensive replacement for all NASA manned space missions.

You don't seem to notice or care that the manned missions NASA would handle under the vision of Obama and the Augustine Commission would be the deeper missions that absolutely require a heavy lifter. So what, exactly, are you complaining about?

It's incredible, how many flips and twists you crammed into one post to convey your partisan dystopian fantasy. Great job!

[PeterMP]

I'm not talking about these adding greenhouse gases, I'm talking about adding more energy to Earth. In bringing more energy to the planet, well, that's more energy on the planet. What we call energy production is actually just transferring energy into a source usable by us. The energy is already here. Bringing more energy to the Earth, on the other hand, is, well, more energy on the earth and I don't know how it would manifest itself after we "use" it.

right now we're at a balance of so much energy entering and leaving the Earth at certain rates, by increasing the rate we add energy, I just don't know how that will affect things on a global scale. Will more energy manifest itself in the form of higher temperatures?

But with respect to fossil fuels the energy isn't really here now.

During the conversion of the fossil fuel matter to other matter, energy is released.

We are "releasing" X amount of energy into the system that wasn't really in the system anyway.

How much of an issue it would be would depend on how well the energy was captured and used.

Just like with fossil fuels. Simply burning fossil fuels so the energy escapes as heat is going to release more energy than if the energy is "captured" to do work (i.e. mechanical energy).