We Can Land an SUV on MARS, but can't Build an Electric Car or Solar Cell on Earth

Kinda funny isn't it? We give tax money to NASA and they can do something like:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/06/nasa-rover-curiosity-lands-on-mars-after-plummet/

Which if you haven't you need to look up how they landed this big SOB - it was truly a marvel of space engineering.

Yet Obama gives $$$$$$$$$$$ to GM and Solyndra, and many others, and what do we get? Overpriced crap that cannot compete and no one wants.

or those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million – now bankrupt)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America ($2.1 billion federal loan guarantee – now bankrupt)
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.

Makes you wonder how much of that money actually goes where we are told it does???????

 

The moral we take from this is that NASA really knows what it's doing.

So, how did all that supposedly forged NASA science get the Mars mission to work?

 

It is not science, it is engineering. You do not understand the difference.

NASA does what they are told by the people that control the money. Right now that is liberals. They were told to make Curiosity work and they did (most liberals were hoping it would crash ...need that $$$ on earth to by votes).

They were told to manufacture global warming and they did......

NASA engineers have to eat......

 

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? What sickness has driven you (not conservatives, but you specifically) to hold such idiot deranged hatred for most of your countrymen?

Oh, we couldn't build a solar cell for Mars either. That's why the lander runs on a nuclear battery, and has no solar cells. I mean, we can build solar cells, but there's only half as much sunlight on Mars, and no way to wipe dust and frost off the solar cells, so they work poorly there.

 

Of course someone WANTS the EVs we have available, otherwise one wouldn't sit in my garage. To some extent, it sits there because of the other 2 Mars rovers, solar powered and EV marvels. If electric transport is good enough for Mars, it is good enough for me! And it competes very nicely with the occasional ICE powered machine I toast at stoplights trying to steal their lane.

 

Of course someone WANTS the EVs we have available, otherwise one wouldn't sit in my garage. To some extent, it sits there because of the other 2 Mars rovers, solar powered and EV marvels. If electric transport is good enough for Mars, it is good enough for me! And it competes very nicely with the occasional ICE powered machine I toast at stoplights trying to steal their lane.

 

aaaaaahhhh a good ol' Mammouth rant - and - rave, as usual completely off topic.....I would have felt the week was incomplete without it......

Oh, we couldn't build a solar cell for Mars either. That's why the lander runs on a nuclear battery, and has no solar cells. I mean, we can build solar cells, but there's only half as much sunlight on Mars, and no way to wipe dust and frost off the solar cells, so they work poorly there.

wrong again BTW.....Spirit and Opportunity ran (run) on solar cells, with a tiny radioactive isotope for emergency heat. They did really well I hear........

 

Technically correct PP....I should have said "far fewer than planned" wanted them.

 

We is the branch that is labeled government (by ideological reasons the gov is doing the opposite of what is needed for the people, and what people want to see), the people can build an electric car or solar cell, but are not allowed by the 'government' (there is more than government in the complete power structure)
In this world the people only get the uncivil stuff; oil, coal, nuclear, imperialism, wars, politics, taxes, high prices, and so on.

 

No, the solar cells were the weak links in the previous Mars landers. They couldn't run at night, or during the winter, and eventually they foul up and stop functioning. Which would be why they were abandoned.

You seem confused. You just told us about how Curiousity had the most awesome amazing engineering. Part of that engineering was abandoning solar cells, yet now you spin about and tell us how great the solar cells were, the ones that the awesome engineering abandoned.

Anyways, congratulate yourself on being the only person here who saw the good news about Curiousity, and immediately thought to himself "HOW CAN I USE THIS GOOD NEWS FOR A HATE-RANT AGAINST MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN?".

 

That would depend on what you mean by "planned". Certainly they aren't languishing on dealer lots like some other cars I could name. Certainly some hoped they would sell like hotcakes, and others don't think they even exist yet (based on the way they talk about them ), but they are past the million miles, or is it tens of millions? now, and like the last two Mars rovers, still going strong and showing no signs of slowing down.

 

Well, one thing about the Mars rover: it's not a commercial product. It doesn't have to "compete", and surely no individual is going to buy one. It may even be overpriced, but it's hard to know, lacking something to compare it to. You are comparing apples and oranges. One is a part of what is probably the pinnacle of human achievement; the other, a mass marketed product meant to compete with other mass marketed products.

 

No, the lessons are:

1 - if NASA gives several billion $ to a company (Lockheed) they can have a successful program

2 - NASA has figured out the difference between metric and english units (remember that Mars orbiter?)

3 - NASA like all govt bureaucracies is pleased to take the credit and quick to deflect blame

 

Spin it however you want bud, but this is what you said:Oh, we couldn't build a solar cell for Mars either.

We (NASA) DID build solar cells for mars rovers and they worked famously.....far far beyond expectation. You were wrong.......

Curiosity is too BIG to rely on solar power. It does not scale up. That is why we can have solar powered ultra light aircraft, but not solar powered airliners (more of that "engineering" stuff)

"HOW CAN I USE THIS GOOD NEWS FOR A HATE-RANT AGAINST MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN?".

I am going to assume you mean "liberals".

There are very, VERY few people in this country that I hate. 97% of liberals are not evil nor deserving of "hate", they are simply ignorant. They believe their rainbow and unicorn dreams are possible in the real world. I do not hate them....I merely dismiss them (or try to educate one or two on this forum and others). The ones I hate are politicians that exploit this ignorance and gullibility and promise rainbows and unicorns in exchange for votes. Those few DO understand the destruction these polices cause to the economy and the nation but do it anyway to stay in power and enrich themselves. Those are the ones I hate.......

......understand now?

 

duplicate

 

California utilities have all hit the 20% target for using renewable energy in electricity generation.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23933

This is most peculiar, given that Elmer says we can't make solar cells work, and that the technologies don't scale up, and green energy is impossible, and so on. Perhaps Elmer will care to explain why reality so strongly disagrees with his claims.

 

I certainly will:

We were talking about mar rovers, the first two vs. Curiosity. I made the statement that the smaller ones were powered by solar cells, while Curiosity needed something else because you cannot scale up solar power to bigger and bigger vehicles, and I even used the very simple (I thought) example of the ultralight solar planes vs. airliners.

For the vast majority of you here that can understand high school geometry, here are the details: Solar collectors on a mars rover or an aircraft are dependent on the surface area. The weight or mass of the craft depends on the volume. Double the "size" of a craft (length, width and height) you increase the available surface area by a factor of 4 (the square). However the weight is increased by a factor of 8 (the cube). A double sized Mars rover or car on earth needs 8 times the energy, but only gets 4 times the surface area for solar collection. It won't run.

Mamooth, if you can't follow that I can't help you.

Also, what your post re. stationary solar power stations has to do with the issue of solar power scale-up on mobile craft, is absolutely zero and just proves my point re. your lack of understanding of engineering issues (i.e. the real world).

Good day sir....

 

Congratulations on showing that 100% solar cars are still impractical. No one ever said they were practical, but still, go ahead and congratulate yourself on that great victory of refuting something that no one ever claimed.

I was speaking to your second point, your strongly implied claim that green energy programs a failure. Your political rant about how awful all those green energy programs were (complete with that big cherrypicking fallacy list, of course) demonstrated how you were trying to make that point. And the number of states now getting a significant portion of their energy from renewable sources, all with government subsidies, shows how incorrect your claims of the failure of such things are.

Now, if you never meant to say or imply green energy programs were a failure, and you think that in general green energy programs have done well, then I would be very happy to retract my statement about how you were wrong. Are you indeed confirming the notable success of green energy programs?

 

I was speaking to your second point, your strongly implied claim that green energy programs a failure. Your political rant about how awful all those green energy programs were (complete with that big cherrypicking fallacy list, of course) demonstrated how you were trying to make that point. And the number of states now getting a significant portion of their energy from renewable sources, all with government subsidies, shows how incorrect your claims of the failure of such things are.

Cherrypicking?? LOL....several BILLION dollars of Obama green $$$ that went bankrupt and you dismiss it as "cherrypicking"......

And here is a newsflash for you and your liberal fantasy land....if a business (energy or whatever) has to have gov't subsidies to compete it IS A FAILURE.......

you are such a riot Monmouth..........

 

course if a SUV cost what that "SUV" cost... who would by it..... Romney?


.

 

"Wind power hits 57% mark in Colorado - Aug. 6, 2012"

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/06/news/economy/wind-power-Colorado/index.htm


someone on here was saying Colorado actually had to ask her friend to shut down his windmill for awhile as they had more electricity then they needed

.

 

That can happen if you are not connected to a diverse reactive grid - however when you are peaks and troughs are smoothed

 

Wind is currently the big player in the renewables market, but solar will be moving up soon. Panel prices have dropped by half in the last 5 years, and they'll drop in half again in the next 5 years. Efficiencies for this level of technology -- single junction silicon -- are essentially maxxed now at 18%-20% for finished panels. But you get a 25-year warranty with those panels, and they're actually good for 35-40 years before they drop to 80% of original efficiency. Prices and performance are hitting the point of practicality for large scale power generation, at least in sunny areas (going to take a lot longer for cloudy areas, like where I live.)

Panels using the next generation of solar technologies will get here eventually, with 40%-50% efficiencies. Just not in the next few years. More like 10 years to start hitting the market. As part of the long-term energy strategy, count on it.

All this cutting edge stuff is researched in the USA, or europe, or Japan or Taiwan, but none of it in China. The Chinese are darn good at mass producing existing technology, but not very good at creating new technology.

 

I love solar and wind (and we actually use submersible turbines in the river) because they generate energy at the point of use. No central power generating plant, no distribution network to maintain, no mining-refining-transporting fuels, and best of all NO GOVT CONTROL or taxation or "smart meters". If I need more power, *I* add panels or batteries or a turbine.

And all this was available long before obama and solyndra.

I blame Bush for missing the solar/wind conversion. After 9/11, if Bush had asked everyone to install solar on their roof as their way of fighting terrorism by cutting the oil money to terrorists link, we would have converted a decade ago. Now we have obama screwing up everything.

 

Blame Bush for actions of *I* or we or everyone? Please, clarify.

Solar is not cost effective on my roof in my area. Make me.

P.S. If you don't know - solar panels trap solar heat and then release it into athmosphere more effective than CO2. Do you want me to contribute to AWG more than I can by burning free wood in my fireplace with a blower insert which allows me to heat my 3600 sq.f house in winter? Make me.

Bush did not think of making me. Obama thinks and keeps on trying.