Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 21:51 UTC

Re: Heat transfer and dissipation in space: let us build a team with interested volunteers  

Graphene can easily and cheaply be produced - though more research is required to increase the quality of output. Making a few kilograms of graphene wouldn't be overly difficult, with current techniques and equpiments, the only question would really be the timeframe required. If this was produced in multiple locations at the same time, this would be a few hours. None of the techniques suggested so far, aside from the stirling engines and conversion to electromagnetic waves, actually adress the dissipation of energy. Which is where the problem is, increasing dissipation without increasing the surface area able to emit IR into space.

There's plenty of real systems that could be built. Ofc, lifting any of them from the floor and into space is rediculously costly, in terms of energy so when trying to design a new system try to ensure it as light as possible. Smaller things like satellites can likely cope with existing liquid-cooled systems where such is required, wo it's only really hundreds of kilowatts and megawatts of heat - possibly even gigawatts - would require accounting for.

Rather than "recycle" the post destroying sequence, edit it's contents to indicate you'd like it deleted, and wait until a mod sees it and deletes it for you.

Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 23:12 UTC

Hi Everyone, Dear Artem, I guess the phononic crystals are the most promising structures. Still I am not sure whether we must use a 2D or 3D crystal though. I would like to propose the following plan and any comments to improve it is highly welcome and appreciated.

1- First and most important: we need a place to regularly share documents. We may consult with IT Team and ask from our IT team a place for our future written proposal . In addition, we may use google email addresses so that we can upload files on google drive and everyone can access that for editing. We can also chat with gtalk. I kind of do not like it because it goes out of Asgardia. Any other idea? Or we can make a closed group officially recognized by Asgardia on facebook.

2- After establishing a communication system, literature survey is necessary. So we all search at the beginning for a certain amount of time and we exchange papers.We can start writing a proposal and share it so that we compromise on a final plan. I can start with the first draft. Normally when things become written documents, they evolve very fast. I would like to know the scientific background of our team members. It helps us to divide the task fairly. I am a material scientists, with the focus on physics.

3- I suggest that we start with the phononic structures which are more cost effective and then we try to improve them. At the same time we can study the others too.

4- Networking with experts of the fields is important too. We can get to know them little by little. We are international group so we may be able to cover the whole world.

5- I totally agree with the idea of publication. It will take a lot of time and we must all benefit from it. We can discuss it in 6-7 months when we have performed a part of the project.

I am looking forward to your comments.

  Last edited by:  Marjan Zakerin (Translator, Asgardian, Candidate)  on Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 23:22 UTC, Total number of edits: 4 times

Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 23:26 UTC

Dear EyeR, thanks for your explanation. I agree with you about graphene production. You mentioned the exact problem too.

  Last edited by:  Marjan Zakerin (Translator, Asgardian, Candidate)  on Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 23:28 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 02:48 UTC

With regards to "a place to regularly share documents" I've put up a feature request for collaborational tools in the feedback section - these would allow multiple individuals to work on the same document, at the same time - a step better than sharing. Maybe add a "me too" post to help dig it up out of the pile of threads it's likely buried under? I typically disdain the use of "me too" posts, feeling the same space is commonly better served empty, but as this seems a recurring theme in multiple places it might help them fall into one thread rather thirty across several ministries.

Google docs really isn't a good idea, it's a privacy invasive service, and further absorbs all rights to data input. Gtalk is also a privacy invasive service, that also absorbs all rights to all data input.

Gtalk was(I assume still is) based on XMPP. XMPP is a free, open source, protocol that has already proven itself incredibly reliable, resilient to assault and able to provide secure transport for comms. It supports text, video, voice, via SIP/VOIP it can work as a telephone, can transfer files, deal with 1:1 1:many and many:many comms. It's easy to layer in GPG/PGP and or OTR should you not trust it's native SSL/TLS or require for additional privacy/end user authentication(assuring who you are talking to is who you expect cannot be underated) and basically can cope with anything we can cram into an XML stanza. Alphabet(google) intentionally neutered it's ability to access other XMPP servers, but a real deployment will be able to - this can be whitelisted so it will only connect to authorised servers - meaning you are not isolated to the service with it, you can connect to a random XMPP service and a message to my account on my XMPP server will reach me. This means it would be easy to geographically distribute(several nodes spread across the globe, or even individual citizens could run their own server on their own local machines, connect to that(or another users)and then connect to everyone else) I suggested we adopt this too.

Facebook is even worse. Not only is that a privacy invasive service, but they have long previous history for immoral and unethical uses of the data they collect. From "adjusting" opinions by way of selecting presented data to influence elections through to seeing if they can manipulate data input to users in order to cause long term depression(87% sucess rate). At least google are not stupid enough to let evidence get out regarding their more nefarious projects.

As for publication, I'm all for it. Freedom of knowledge is what will ultimately give rise to greater things. However, I don't think we should openly publish(outside of Asgardia) until complete, or otherwise hit into a dead end.

  Updated  on Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 02:51 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 09:58 UTC

Dear EyeR, thank you so much for all the IT explanation. Your comment in feedback about having email address in Asgardia domain is also very good.

1. So the problem definition is "Let us work on keeping the surface area of the heat sink constant but let it radiate IR to space. So As far as I understood, the dissipation itself is the major problem. Even if we can collect more heat from the electronic chips with an additional layer of phononic crystalls, if we cannot dissipate it efficiently, it is not that much beneficial. Am I right? We need a good chemist in this respect too.

2. It must be light as well since it is the true cost-effective consideration for lift-up.

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 11:34 UTC

Yes, the point raised in 1.) is loosely accurate, the most efficient method we currently have to bleed heat is via IR into space - which is at best minimally effective, heat loss through radiation being significantly lower than convection or conduction(both of which are unsuited to vacuum). Hence the surface area of the ISS radiator panels being so large. Such a system uses ammonia as a transfer mechanism.

2.) can be addressed simply by not building it on the surface. Building from materials harvested in space being the most sensible method - but it's likley to require lifting certain parts in order to create facilities capable of such production.

Another consideration is MMOD(Micro Meteorite and Orbital Debris) damages, to which such systems are remarkably vulnerable.

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 19:03 UTC

Hi to all.

Now about graphene production it is steel "Graphene is easy to acquire, at least in small amounts." (http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/04/Solution-Graphene-Production.html ) and to produce that amount of graphene needed equipment and chemicals that cost a lot.

EyeR, I agree with you about "a place to regularly share documents" and I know about "request for collaborational tools", but there are no information about any dates when we can expect such tools. Therefore I propose to use "Tor Messenger" or "qTox", or other messenger that gives good privacy protection. Even sharing ideas here is not 100% safe, because in modern world many corporations have money and equipment but don't have fresh ideas, so they can easily look for new ideas anywhere and complete it much faster then any beginners research group.

Now about extra heat in system. It is not necessary to radiate all of it, it's just one way. We can also "recycle" it using specific chemicals or something like Peltier Elements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectriceffect#Peltiereffect). So here I may propose to create a list of possible ways to convert extra heat in something useful (electrical energy, or some chemical reaction that will purify water or air) or dissipate it. After we can work thru all of them and choose most useful.

About building objects in space. Here we can use technology like 3D printing in the vacuum (for example https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-in-the-vacuum-of-space-now-possible-from-made-in-space-55309/). So we will need only lift up key instruments and some raw material. Further we can build Moon base (why not imagine such situation) and organize there more complex factory.

  Last edited by:  Artem Kochenov (Translator, Asgardian)  on Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 19:30 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 21:35 UTC

With best wishes in new year I have some ideas about this problem. 1: spraying a gas continusly on electronic board at short life boards. 2: using some liquids that making light when heated.with this method we can radiate part of heat by the visual wave langth. 3: using solid state components to convert heat to electricity. 4: same as a catodic lamp we can give heat energy to a metal for release electrons and collect electrons a little far from circuit board by magnetic field and anode probe. 5: using main body of space craft or sattelite as a heat sink.because more bigger area can radiate IR easier.

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 22:33 UTC

The best privacy I've seen afforded to communications is XMPP layering it's native SSL/TLS with GPG and OTR. It's statistically improbable to unpick such things via brute force methodologies, even if the SSL/TLS and your GPG was compromised, the OTR will still cover it nicely.

ToR on the other hand, being a naval project to provide plausible deniability behind nefarious activities that to be sure it never gets used against them has large firms, like Akamai Technologies gobble up almost all the acessible interwebs by deploying sniffer nodes at all global backbone junctions - commonly posing as CDN - is possibly not the most private thing available. At best, "legitimate" use(is there any?) of such a service provides cover for more illigitimate uses.

qTox, and other systems that catalogue and index by geographical relevence your peers are certainly not secure, as building a geographically relevant map of the users holds serious potential for abuse. Techniques like DHT poisioning also give rise to trivially crippling the entire network, or individually isolating specific users.

It's possible to make graphene without expensive chemicals, and possibly the most expensive piece of equipment I've seen so far is a CD burner. Such techniques are commonly available on the interewebs. These are not large scale production techniques, but the basic concepts could possibly be scaled. Incredibly easily. Where smaller pieces are suitable, this can be made by the more common techniques. I'd not seen 3D printing in graphene, but have seen some other materials, like ceramics.

Building objects in space would require a lot more than a 3D printer, but a sufficient collection of tools could build anything. Part of the reason somewhere else I'd suggest construction of a seed factory to clip to ISS. This can build tugs to fetch LEO debris, expand itself, then throw a copy out to more distant resources...

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 09:31 UTC

EyeR, thanks for interesting information about ToR and qTox. qTox can be launched via proxy servers, so it may be a little more secure. And I don't think that we can attract so much attention that some organizations will spy on us (we don't build nuclear/biological/chemical weapon, yet =) ). In other way it is not very big problem to write specific program that will encrypt some information to a certain key (but this is not the best idea).

3D printing in space may give an opportunity to produce relatively small and specific elements, that can be further gathered in a more complex structure. By the way, 3D printing now possible even using specific liquid polymers (but their use without gravitation is very difficult).

Looking through all discussion I see that work without any document repository is hard, a lot of interesting thoughts are spread widely in different messages and can be easily lost.

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 12:08 UTC

Hi Everyone, I would like to thank you all for all the contributions. This afternoonI I will summerize the comments and make a short list out of the most important points. Marjan

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 12:22 UTC

Yousefh@ Happy new year to you too. I have some comments. I hope they help you to get better understanding of the system we try to improve.

1: spraying a gas continusly on electronic board at short life boards. * Not practical: first we are dealing with micro-gravity. Plus such gas must be filtered if implemented on board. The lift up cost is also very high. 2: using some liquids that making light when heated.with this method we can radiate part of heat by the visual wave langth. They radiate IR and it is already implemented on ISS. 3: using solid state components to convert heat to electricity. It is not beneficial and as we already discussed the outcome is negligible. same as a catodic lamp we can give heat energy to a metal for release electrons and collect electrons a little far from circuit board by magnetic field and anode probe. There is no problem for production of power on spaceship. Plus we do not like any source of electron production on board. The implementation is also massive. using main body of space craft or sattelite as a heat sink.because more bigger area can radiate IR easier.* It is already discussed.

  Last edited by:  Marjan Zakerin (Translator, Asgardian, Candidate)  on Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 12:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 16:47 UTC

Artem, Anything can be run through a proxy server. However, to get there, you'll first need to tread over an Akamai sniffer node. A VPN makes more sense in as much as only the initial hop is visible, and done correctly only that hop is visible the actual contents are uniquely encrypted. You don't have to be doing anything to "attract attention" - the data is being collected anyway, for any future use they define. There's a lot of funding applied from .gov to ensure this.

I'm aware of liquid polymers, I'm personally more interested in the likes of ceramic polymers. It's also possible to print in metals, via techniques like selective laser sintering(probably difficult in microgravity, but we could centrafuge the area), I've seen an open source design that uses common household microwave to melt aluminium, robot welding arms that arc-fuse in droplets etc - could print moulds in polymers, place a seed crystal inside, fill with a hyperconcentrate then grow the metal as a single crystal to the desired shape.... But a 3D printer is only one tool, and can only produce to a limited ability. For realistic orbital production capacity we would need much much more, least of all ability to process materials obtained into a usable form. Ofc, a 3D printer could help with a lot of that. This however is another subject entirely.

To get back on the topic of thermal dissipation, fluids that have increased IR emission would certianly be sensible to maximise efficencies of the currently low efficiency process. The external body of craft/vessel would allow for largest possible surface area with which to dissipate heat, and could be designed with this in mind to optimise further, but for anything significant this is still likely to require external radiator panelling. Logic suggests the larger surface area to these panels, in the smallest physical space would provide for most effective dissipation. Due to importance, these panels require resilience to abuse(MMOD, wide operating range etc). If the body of the craft/vessel is large enough to allow for, then radiator panneling that is provided shade from Sol by the mass of craft/vessel itself should possibly be favoured as this should have the maximum dissipation possible. It might be prominent to build a "parasol" to shade them.

  Updated  on Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 16:58 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typo

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 19:15 UTC

Hey all! Just sticking my two cents in here: Heat transfer in space is not similar to the dissipation of heat on earth. Some of the technologies you're talking about, (for example, cooling using liquid to absorb heat) assume that the heat accumulated in that liquid will eventually disperse. On earth, heat from liquids can dissipate (without our assistance) into our atmosphere via convection. Space lacks atmosphere, or any real medium to transfer heat, and so all of the heat accumulated in a liquid would stay within the space station, unless mindful use of tech like Magnetic Refrigeration (magnetocaloric effect) is utilized. Honestly the real logistical issue there is powering the incredible amount of refrigeration that would be required to manage body heat alone. Add to that technologies that are commonplace on earth, but known to create heat as a byproduct (such as distillation during water treatment) and you could have an engineering disaster. I recommend looking at designs for the ISS and existing aerospace technology. I thought I would design a possible space station and didn't even realize how irrelevant earth-typical engineering could be until I had already made a massive fool of myself. Space agency websites are a great jumping off point for info you need on some of the unique challenges of space, and how we currently work around those challenges. Hope that is at least marginally helpful :)

Aqu 04, 01 / Jan 4, 17 19:16 UTC

Hey all! Just sticking my two cents in here: Heat transfer in space is not similar to the dissipation of heat on earth. Some of the technologies you're talking about, (for example, cooling using liquid to absorb heat) assume that the heat accumulated in that liquid will eventually disperse. On earth, heat from liquids can dissipate (without our assistance) into our atmosphere via convection. Space lacks atmosphere, or any real medium to transfer heat, and so all of the heat accumulated in a liquid would stay within the space station, unless mindful use of tech like Magnetic Refrigeration (magnetocaloric effect) is utilized. Honestly the real logistical issue there is powering the incredible amount of refrigeration that would be required to manage body heat alone. Add to that technologies that are commonplace on earth, but known to create heat as a byproduct (such as distillation during water treatment) and you could have an engineering disaster. I recommend looking at designs for the ISS and existing aerospace technology. I thought I would design a possible space station and didn't even realize how irrelevant earth-typical engineering could be until I had already made a massive fool of myself. Space agency websites are a great jumping off point for info you need on some of the unique challenges of space, and how we currently work around those challenges. Hope that is at least marginally helpful :)