Sunlight to electricity – direct!

Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible

(PhysOrg.com) — A dramatic and surprising magnetic effect of light discovered by University of Michigan researchers could lead to solar power without traditional semiconductor-based solar cells.

…of course the efficiency is currently below 10%, but improvements are likely. The problem with solar isn’t turning it into useful energy, but storing it! If you could do that easily and cheaply, then you can change the world.

Falcon Heavy to the Moon! – Part 2

In my last post I discussed the Falcon Heavy (FH), which SpaceX is planning to use to launch payloads into LEO of up to 53 tonnes. I suggested modifying the design slightly, so it can carry that same mass, or a bit more, to LEO as propellant in its tanks. Such a FH Tanker can then be mated to various payloads and send them to the Moon, via the Earth-Moon Lagrange-1 (EML-1) point.

But how much payload? Assuming the vacuum version of the Merlin rocket engine being used in the Falcon 9 and FH, and its vacuum Isp of 342 seconds, that allows reasonable delta-vees for decent payloads.

If we assume the total fuelled mass of the FH Tanker is 56 tonnes, and 53 tonnes of that is fuel, then 22.5 tonnes of payload can be delivered to EML-1. However the FH Tanker arrives empty. While it might be cannibalised for its large pressure volume, cluttering up the EML-1 is probably short-sighted. Also SpaceX is committed to making mostly reusable rockets, so we might have to return the FH Tanker to LEO. That requires it to arrive at EML-1 with 6.232 tonnes of propellant still in its tank, reducing the payload to just 13.25 tonnes. Tweaking the mass of the FH Tanker means we might manage it for ~2.5 tonnes dry mass and ~15 tonnes can then be delivered.

Interesting the Project Apollo’s Lunar Excursion Module, which successfully landed 12 men on the Moon over 6 missions, massed just 15 tonnes. It used a lower performing fuel combination and thus a modified version using the LOX/RP-1 of the Merlin might deliver an LEM to the Moon and back with more payload allowing weeks of stay-time. Alternatively a larger lander could touch down using 22.5 tonnes of propellant delivered by an FH Tanker. The first option requires two launches, one an FH Tanker and the other to deliver the Lunar Lander to LEO. Alternatively two FH Tankers might combine in LEO to push a larger load to the EML-1, requiring 3 launches in total.

Assuming a linear scaling, a bigger LEM with 6 passengers might mass ~45 tonnes, requiring two full payload deliveries to EML-1 and four launches to LEO. All this could cost ~$1 billion ($1 Gigadollars or $1G) – four FHs at $0.125G each and $0.5G for the Heavy LEM. That’s half the “Apollo” programme’s achievement delivered to the Moon for a tiny fraction of its $30G budget (in 1969$.) What’s more with modern inflatable space-habitat technology we’re talking about a relatively large Base being landed, not a mere two-man “sky-car”. With touch-down near one of the Lunar Cold-traps and access to the ice there, plus solar-power, then the 6-person crew could conceivably stay for months, setting up a semi-permanent Base. For a full $30G budget – worth roughly ~1/5 of what it was in 1969 – some 180 people can visit the Moon, stay six-months each and thus spend ~90 person-years exploring and expanding the Base. If anything is worth doing on the Moon, then such an effort will go a long way towards determining what it might be and if it can turn a profit. Platinum-group metals recovered from meteorites? Exotic minerals? Fusion fuels? Unimaginable breakthroughs?

We won’t know unless we go and stay for bit longer than the ~fortnight spent on the Moon by all the “Apollo” missions.

NB: I haven’t discussed how the astronauts get to EML-1 and back to LEO/Earth. The Lunar Landers are assumed to launch their Ascent Stages back to EML-1, which isn’t much different to going into Low Lunar Orbit like the “Apollo” LEM AS did. But a refuelable LEM system is preferable once an actual Base is operating and extracting propellant from the Moon. This should be factored into Base planning and begun as soon as possible so more payload can actually be delivered to the Moon. Launching 7 astronauts to EML-1 in a fully loaded Dragon Capsule, using the FH Tanker system described is incredibly easy. And Dragon is designed with a heat shield sufficient for Earth-Moon return. A six-person ferry, with minimal life-support, for delivering crew to the Base will probably mass a lot less than the 45 tonne Lunar Lander outlined above.

Falcon Heavy to the Moon!

Interesting design. With a slight modification a Falcon Heavy can orbit ~55 tons of propellant. Then a fully loaded Dragon Capsule can dock with it and use it to launch into a Lunar, or Halo, Orbit. A landing vehicle, preplaced in Low Lunar Orbit, or the Earth-Moon L-1 Point, can then finish the journey. All without using a gargantuan booster. At ~$100 million per launcher, plus another $100 million for the lander, and a Moon mission can be done for ~$500 million. A steal compared to the multi-billions of the Ares V program that the USA had committed to under GWB. A properly designed lander can then be kept at the ready for repeat missions, tanked up as required.

Read more: Daily Mail News Item

Strange Habitats

Some recent news pieces have expanded possible locales for Life. We’ve looked at…

Supernova made Earths warmed via Dark Matter

…and we’ll look at…

White Dwarf Habitable Zones

…but a new(ish) idea is “failed stars” – brown dwarfs, but smaller than the 13 Jupiter-mass deuterium-burning limit – might be suitable for life based on other solvents like ammonia and ethane, not just water…Failed Stars for Life

Another idea, which Frederick Pohl imagined in his last Heechee novel, is Life existing inside super-massive Black Holes…

Is There Life inside Black Holes?

…a Kerr-Newmann Black Hole (i.e. A spinning one) has a region between its inner and outer event horizons which permits stable orbits, thus providing a locale for adventurous Lifeforms to exist. Just how they would get power for living and avoid in-falling matter from beyond the outer horizon is speculative, at best, but truly advanced entities might want direct access to the singularity that might exist within.

But does General Relativity give us a sure guide to the interior of Black Holes? Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen has applied some alternative gravity theories to black holes, with the interesting result that instead of infinite blue-shift at the event horizon, and even more bizarre phantasmagoric phenomena within, instead the mass of the collapsed star might form a giant Bose-Einstein Condensate, without any of the singularities and weird horizons of regular GR. Of course whether the particular gravity theory is correct requires experimental confirmation, but it does suggest that plain-old GR, as Einstein gave it to us, might be incomplete.

Fermions & the Fermi Paradox II

Since my first brief note on R.J.Spivey’s essay two newer versions have appeared…

Version 1: From fermions to the Fermi paradox: a fertile cosmos fit for life?

Version 2: Fermi’s pardox and the interpretation of the stelliferous era

Version 3: A biotic cosmos demystified?

…while other researchers have asked whether Dark Matter has a role in making habitable planets in the present day…

Dark Matter and the Habitability of Planets

…the latter arguing that self-annihilating Dark Matter (whatever it might be) may be a significant energy source for starless planets near the Galactic Core. If Spivey’s thesis is correct, then such planets are prime targets for would-be Galactic Colonists to begin their multi-gigayear “conquest”.

Earth as a Gas-Giant II

Jeans Mass Clumps in Outer Disk

Last time we explored the new theory of Sergei Nayakshin & Aaron Boley – the origin of terrestrial planets in the cores of diffuse proto-planets. How do such objects form and are their core conditions sufficient for Marvin Herndon‘s provocative theory of Whole-Earth Decompression?

According to the new planet formation theory, large gaseous proto-planets form far away from the proto-Sun, about 50-100 AU. The initial disk of gas and dust forms large spiral structures of over-density, which in the cooler outer-reaches can form Jeans Mass blobs. A Jeans Mass is a mass which is collapsing, under its own gravity, just a bit faster than sound can travel across its span. Sound waves act to even out density changes, so they act to maintain a diffuse cloud in a diffuse state. Gravity acts to clump gas/dust together, creating over-dense regions. Once a significant over-density sets in, the collapse is inexorable so long as excess energy and momentum can be radiated or spun away.

A Jeans Mass equal to Jupiter (1.899E+27 kg), assuming a ~50 K starting temperature and a mean molecular mass of ~3.9E-27 kg, is 1.59 AU in radius (!) At this point its free-fall time is ~21 years, but before too long the internal temperature rises, from infalling gas/dust, to the point where the gas/dust mix is no longer transparent and the object starts convecting internally as it contracts. That’s typically at about ~1000-2000 K, when hydrogen starts becoming opaque to the IR being emitted. Roughly the proto-planet has to contract to about 1/40th its initial size before the temperature rises to ~2,000 K. Then it radiates at about that temperature and contraction slows down as internal pressure climbs and the blob doesn’t lose heat quick enough.

I’m being a bit vague on all the tricky physics as it gets rather complicated – modellers compute the evolution of such blobs as “proto-stars” and have computers crunch the numbers for a few hundred layers within the proto-star, slowly evolving the system through time. A proto-Jupiter would settle down within a few thousand years to something like a red-hot equilibrium, cooling off over a few million years to become the planet we know today.

However, to make a terrestrial planet from a proto-planet, it can’t stay put in the outer nebula disk, out past 50 AU, while collapsing. Instead a whole bunch of other Jeans Mass blobs have formed from those big spiral shocks in the nebula. All sorts of tidal effects are tugging at the proto-planet and being so diffuse its Roche Limit is much, much bigger than what it is for a planet. Migration has set in and the proto-planet is losing orbital angular momentum to the nebula’s loose gas/dust. By the time it hits the region of the asteroids much of its envelope can be stripped away by the tidal effects of the spiral shocks, other proto-planets and the central proto-Sun.

But is that enough for Herndon’s Compressed Earth concept? Here’s the thing. Central pressure of an object varies with the square of the density and the radius – BUT for a constant mass and changing density, that density is also proportional to the inverse cube of the radius. Thus squared density means the inverse sixth power of the radius, which after cancelling means the inverse fourth power of the radius. In hard numbers it means a proto-Jupiter 10 times as big as final Jupiter, will have 1/10,000th of the central pressure. Roughly ~2500 bars. Interestingly Herndon quotes an old cosmochemical theory from A. Eucken which had the terrestrials form in proto-planet cores at that pressure. But between 10 times Jupiter’s radius and its current radius is 10 times more binding energy for the proto-Sun to make off with proto-Earth’s excess gas-giant mass. Whether the conditions near the proto-Sun are enough to strip away the gaseous envelope of a near fully developed gas giant is thus an open question. Eucken’s ideas require a hot, extended proto-planet and might be correct, but Herndon’s Whole-Earth Decompression theory seems to require a nearly fully condensed Gas-Giant with a central pressure of ~multi-millions of atmospheres. That might not be achieveable and still result in a Sun-stripped planetary core.

But what if the proto-Sun was vigorous enough? Herndon assumes Earth was compressed to ~64% of its present size. That means a former density about 3.8 times higher and a former surface gravity ~2.44 times higher. Interestingly the Faint Young Sun paradox, the unexpectedly clement climate of Earth around a once fainter Sun, could be solved by a higher surface pressure causing pressure broadening of the greenhouse-effect-causing infra-red absorption of the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. The original suggestion is that Earth once had much more nitrogen, which is possible. But an Earth 64% of its current size would have roughly 6 times higher atmospheric pressure from the same amount of gas – as both the surface area and gravity vary inversely with the square of the radius, thus combined it means the surface pressure varies with inverse fourth power of the radius.

Over time the Earth’s internal structure “relaxes”, releasing the energy stored in its constituent molecular structures from all that compression, with some extra energy from radioactive decay and Herndon’s theorized georeactor – a natural nuclear breeder reactor in the Earth’s core. Imagine a spring slowly returning to a less compressed state after a part of a very heavy load is removed. Most of the energy is stored up as gravitational potential energy as the Whole Earth rises against its own gravity, but some will go into heating the mantle and maybe the core. Eventually some final equilibrium will be achieved, though just when is yet to be determined by Herndon.

White Dwarfs and the Long Dark

White Dwarfs are already relatively common in the Galaxy, but as the Universe ages they will proliferate. About 200 billion will form before the gas runs out for star formation in the Milky Way. But by then the Milky Way and Andromeda’s M31 will merge as ‘Milkomeda’ – a largish Elliptical Galaxy – roughly doubling the numbers. Stars will age and brighten as Milkomeda ages at ever smaller stellar masses, until all the fusible gases are depleted and stars are too small to fuse.

In the Long Dark that follows, every 100 billion years, star corpses and wannabe stars, the brown dwarfs, will collide with sometimes spectacular results. A brown dwarf and white dwarf collision will probably result in either a renewal of fusion burning for the white dwarf or a nova explosion. Two brown dwarfs colliding could produce an low mass star or a renewed hot brown dwarf glowing from the collision’s kinetic energy. Two white dwarfs colliding could have a number of outcomes – with enough energy the helium or carbon fusion Main sequences can be triggered. Alternatively a mass above the Chandrasekhar Limit, or close to it, can produce a thermonuclear detonation, with the stars totally disrupted in a Type Ia Supernova.

According to the Fertile Cosmos proposal of R.J.Spivey each Type Ia conflagration produces sufficient heavy elements to make roughly 450 thousand Earth mass ocean planets. These, in turn, are warmed via neutrino pair-annihilation in their iron cores, sufficient to keep their sub-glacial oceans warm for a 100 billion trillion years.

Was Earth a Gas-giant? Part I

Forming Gias-giant planets isn’t easy. The current dominant paradigm is Core Accretion, which requires 10 Earth mass planets to form, then capture gas from the protoplanetary nebula to grow to gas giant size. Making such large objects isn’t overly difficult given a steady supply of planetary embryos – objects roughly Ceres in size. Just how do such objects form in the first place?

That’s not too hard either, requiring a supply of km size clumps of dust and ice. But then there’s a difficulty. In between sand grain and kilometer size, objects interact strongly with the protoplanetary gas nebula – they spiral into the Sun because of a ‘headwind’ effect. How can the leap from sand grain to comet be scaled?

One option is to make planets from ‘the top down’ via gravitational instability – dense patches of gas and dust directly becoming gravitationally bound objects. Surprisingly this is easier to do for Jupiter-sized objects and larger and is basically how stars form. Smaller planets aren’t so easily made, but nothing is stopping a gaseous protoplanet from losing most of its mass to become a “down-sized” Neptune or even Earth-sized planet.

Work by Aaron Boley and Sergei Nayakshin led them both to propose this option separately in 2010…

Clumps in the Outer Disk by Disk Instability: Why They are Initially Gas Giants and the Legacy of Disruption (Aaron C. Boley et.al.)

A New View on Planet Formation (Sergei Nayakshin)

…both emphasizing the role of tidal forces in the down-sizing of the gaseous protoplanets. A wide variety of planets can result then from Gas-giants, depending on the amount of gas loss, and the pace of the migration process which draws them in from out past the orbit of Pluto to their Phoenix-like rebirth as a terrestrial planet or Hot-Jovian.

So, I wonder, what are the implications for Earth, as a planet, if it was born from the heavy element core of a Gas-giant? Just how much pressure did the proto-Earth experience and what effect might that have had on geological history? A speculative theory, proposed by J. Marvin Herndon is that the whole Earth has expanded over geo-time from a compressed state, thus producing the great fault-lines we call the mid-ocean ridges, and the plunging of oceanic crust into the mantle in what we call subduction zones. Plate-tectonics or Whole-Earth decompression? I’ll save my discussion for Part II.

World Without End

In 1979 Freeman Dyson peered into his Physics Crystal Ball and discerned the long-term fate of matter, energy and Life in a Universe with an infinite future….

Time Without End

Time Without End – text

Time Without End – Two Parter I

Time Without End – Two Parter II

A take-away line is that all masses above minute speck size will ultimately collapse into black-holes and vanish in puffs of Hawking radiation, after 10^10^76 years. That’s a double exponential, which is a mind-bogglingly vast number – to represent all the zeroes it needs in decimal format would involve all the atoms in the visible Universe.

Dyson’s maths is clear and lucid, thus this essay’s lasting appeal. The conclusions are challenged if our Universe is eventually dominated by the Cosmological Constant, but no one is too sure if even it will be around in that utterly remote Futurity. One recent caveat is the decay of protons via black-hole states amongst their constituent quarks. Such instability will become manifest after 10^40 to 10^100 years or so. Not as remote, but still vast when measured on a human scale.

Fermions & the Fermi Paradox

R.J.Spivey writes a provocative essay for the arXiv…

From Fermions to the Fermi Paradox: A Fertile Cosmos Fit for Life?

…basically Spivey suggests we’re jumping to conclusions too soon about Life in the Cosmos, that the real party is after our current Stelliferous Era, when Life exists in a multitude of planets formed from supernova remnants, powered by neutrino annihilation in pressurized iron. Spivey is also disinclined to include us as that “Life” – we might yet attain that level of advancement, but for now our Future fate is for us to create. We might fail to advance to the level of Galactic Colonists, able to adapt to Ocean planets under ice, living off the thin trickle of energy from neutrinos (via the reverse photo-neutrino effect) for 100 billion trillion years. He suggests that the efforts to make artificial life will fail and that we’ll need to hone our bioengineering skills to remodel an ecosystem fit for the Ocean planets of the distant future.