/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5523141
So you want to make a self-replicating robot factory? Excellent, the memetic seeds I've plant seem to have sprouted.


>> Step 1 consists in making the robot create it's own power source.
done, Magma electrolysis--> silicon and iron melt--> vacuum refining --> vapor deposition onto molten regolitih along with dopants and wires---> solar cells

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/annual/jun00/433Ignatiev.pdf
Pic very related.

Of course, you need to get magma electrolysis working first and you need a way to reliably mine lunar regolith.

Mining regolith is a surprisingly hard problem, as we don't really understand the mechanics of powders all that well.

Factories that process rocks and powders on earth don't work very well and need continual maintenance to stay working, something that's going to be hard to accomplish on the moon.

>>How large and how heavy do you believe the first robot would be if it had the capability to swallow soil and reject inter-connected solar panels behind it.
probably fairly large, though you'll have to do the math on it

I'd also tend to stay away from mapping the immediate surroundings and doing things autonomously in the early stages, there isn't much time lag between the earth and the moon, so teleoperation is possible.

>>5440967
Powering the electromagnet is not an issue, cooling it, so it stays superconducting is the issue.

And why would you use LFTR, the Moon's practically made of silicon we could use to make solar cells and has a nice high vacuum environment that makes making solar cells easy.

TL;DR we could easily build a machine that paves solar cells onto the moon.

Probably much more easily than we could build LFTRs on the moon

>>5363406
Did you know that there is a 1 in 500 chance humans could go extinct in the next century?

>>Do you know how far away the closest star is?
very, let's focus on dyson sphering our sun first.
>>So we establish a colony on another planet, what then?
Then we've made it even harder for humanity to be extinguished. Though space colonies make more sense than planetary colonies.

>>You've been watching too many sci-fi movies.
And you aren't aware of the economic benefits of moving up the kardashev scale. Now I'd imagine it'd make it easier to get simple shit done. Even here on earth

>>5183114
>>The moon is.
and what are your poor moon colonists going to do when their life support fails?

>>Satellite nuclear reactors suck because they have to be very light, very rugged for the launch
And how are you going to get said nuclear reactor to the Moon in the first place?

And why use nuclear power when:
1. you have peaks of eternal light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light

2. You can make solar cells in situ completely from lunar regolith:

http://www.highfrontier.org/Archive/Jt/s5.05b.Ignatiev%20Moon%20Base%20Conf%2010-05.pdf

pic related, it's a solar paver

>>4416767
Now, the ultimate reason to mine the moon is energy.

Using mined lunar materials, one could construct a solar power satellite to continuously beam clean energy to Earth.

It would be very expensive to build a solar power satellite with materials launched from Earth, not so much if you're using materials shot up from the Moon.

Another possibility is to 'mine' the Moon for energy by putting solar cells on the lunar surface. This might be easier than constructing a full-blown solar power satellite in the early stages.

In fact, a process for making solar cells from lunar regolith and paving them on to the moon has been for the most part worked out. pic related