The Ultimatum: Mining the Sun? Yes, I am not Kidding

[Nicholas Kang]

This is not joking. How to mine the sun for hydrogen if we can master the technology from the future? Any opinion?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[John Cuthber]

Did you not understand the bit about how expensive it is to get stuff into space?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83496-renewable-energy-source-quantum-leap-solar-panel-in-space/?p=808576

[ajb]

Will we ever need to?

 

Although pure hydrogen gas is quite rare in our atmosphere, hydrogen atoms are common in various compounds including water. Today most industrial hydrogen is produced from natural gas or other hydrocarbons. So there maybe a call at some point for other methods to be industrialised. Splitting water I believe is being looking into as a future industrial process.

 

I am sure those who know more about chemistry can say a lot more here.

[Nicholas Kang]

Will we ever need to?

 

Although pure hydrogen gas is quite rare in our atmosphere, hydrogen atoms are common in various compounds including water. Today most industrial hydrogen is produced from natural gas or other hydrocarbons. So there maybe a call at some point for other methods to be industrialised. Splitting water I believe is being looking into as a future industrial process.

 

I am sure those who know more about chemistry can say a lot more here.

 

You are wrong in this context. I did ask my chemistry teacher this question. He said it is simply not economical unless it is on a large scale. And one thing, natural gas can be used up one day in about 60-70 years time.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[John Cuthber]

Whatever your teacher may have said, ajb is right.

We don't have any shortage of hydrogen.

Two thirds of the world's surface is covered in stuff that's got plenty of hydrogen in it.

[Nicholas Kang]

I admit that we don`t have any shortage of hydrogen. But, how knows one day we will rely on it. Apart from green renewable energy source, hydrogen is also a alternative too. Hydrogen cars are not rare now. We should prepare for the future, strike the iron when it is still hot, not always assuming don`t cross a bridge until you come to one. We may know who we are today but we don`t know who will we be tomorrow, a quote by William Shakespeare. Moreover, you don`t want to kill marine aquatic life in the vast ocean just to simply obtain hydrogen, do you?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[pwagen]

Moreover, you don`t want to kill marine aquatic life in the vast ocean just to simply obtain hydrogen, do you?

Are you thinking about the part where ajb suggested to split water to produce hydrogen. Well, hydrogen engines produce water, which can be used to refill our oceans. It's all about being green.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle#Low_emissions

[ajb]

You are wrong in this context.

What I am wrong about?

 

I did ask my chemistry teacher this question. He said it is simply not economical unless it is on a large scale.

This is probably the case for most industrial processes. You are unlikely to make much money producing hydrogen in your shed. But I don't see this is relevant to your opening question.

 

And one thing, natural gas can be used up one day in about 60-70 years time.

This is true, and as I said other processes may well dominate the industry in the not so far future.

Moreover, you don`t want to kill marine aquatic life in the vast ocean just to simply obtain hydrogen, do you?

True, we don't want to convert all the water on the Earth into oxygen and hydrogen.

 

I imagine it would take a long time for that to be an issue and then if we are burning the hydrogen we are producing water again...

[Nicholas Kang]

If you burn hydrogen in air, you used up oxygen in air. What about if the number of plants can`t sustain the amount of oxygen used up since forests are continued to be chopped down. Thus, oxygen cycle will become imbalance. You used up oxygen to create water and how can we breathe then? Only photosynthesis can provide oxygen in large scale and minor from chemicals like KMnO₄ can be burnt to provide oxygen but how many KMnO₄ can you have on Earth?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Bignose]

What about burning hydrogen in vacuum?

Perhaps you should review with your chemistry teacher exactly what 'burning' is, and why 'burning in a vacuum' doesn't make much sense.

 

Hint: 'burning' requires the presence of something else...

[Nicholas Kang]

Oops! Thanks for your correction, BigNose. I am too busy replying threads when I am typing that reply.

[Phi for All]

I think this is a case where, if we had the technology to maintain an active energy-gathering process with the sun, why rob it to run a bunch of little furnaces? Why not just use the big furnace better?

 

We will hopefully be more sophisticated by that time. Instead of dashing away with siphoned plunder, I'd rather be the power plant managers.

[Moontanman]

If we want to obtain hydrogen from an off planet source, ignoring all the obvious problems, Jupiter would seem to be a bit more reasonable than the Sun..

[Nicholas Kang]

But this would mean loosing a space garbage collector. Jupiter`s strong gravity attracts asteroid from the main belt and eventually clears them. Of course, the asteroid might sometime be sent wrongly to Earth.

[Moontanman]

But this would mean loosing a space garbage collector. Jupiter`s strong gravity attracts asteroid from the main belt and eventually clears them. Of course, the asteroid might sometime be sent wrongly to Earth.

 

 

I think that possibly you are unaware of the scale of Jupiter..

[Nicholas Kang]

I obtained this knowledge from a documentary by History Channel.

[Moontanman]

I obtained this knowledge from a documentary by History Channel.

 

 

Possibly this is part of your problem, Jupiter is 317 times as massive as the entire Earth. Doubtful we could use up a significant amount of that mass...

[Nicholas Kang]

Maybe not all but some.

It is 12:40 a.m. now in Malaysia. I shall hit the sack now. I will continue tomorrow.

[ydoaPs]

I did ask my chemistry teacher this question. He said it is simply not economical unless it is on a large scale.

And getting something heavy duty enough not to be a glob of liquid when it reaches the sun out of Earth's gravity well and AND THEN out of the Sun's gravity well is economical?

[Sensei]

Surface of Earth is all day bombarded by protons from the Sun.

So actually Sun is by itself sending its components all the time, without us having to fly for it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_proton_event

[Phi for All]

Surface of Earth is all day bombarded by protons from the Sun.

 

So actually Sun is by itself sending its components all the time, without us having to fly for it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_proton_event

 

I'm partial to plans that take advantage of this efficiency. Use the passive process more efficiently, maybe figure out how to put a massive PV array in orbit that can send us power or at least power our initial efforts to explore our system in greater detail.

[imatfaal]

And getting something heavy duty enough not to be a glob of liquid when it reaches the sun out of Earth's gravity well and AND THEN out of the Sun's gravity well is economical?

 

Was just about to type that and realised you had taken the words right out of my mouth

 

How much energy would it take to move a kg of hydrogen from the outer layers of the Sun into stable earth orbit? Surely it has to be up in the area of 10^11 -> 10^12 joules per kilo - which is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than you get from the hydrogen (compressed) if you burn it. Ignoring the heat thing (which is a bit of tall order to ignore) could any of the sort of rockets we currently envision get away from the sun? There's plenty of Hydrogen to burn - but not a huge amount of Oxygen. And I am not sure the same thing wouldn't apply to Jupiter.

[Nicholas Kang]

Now, I realized I am indeed really stupid enough and foolish enough to post my thread because actually I have wasted a lot of all of your time. I felt sorry for that.

 

Taking about economical problems?

My answer: Technology shall bring down the cost down

 

Replying to Phi for All:

I don`t mean to rob the hydrogen from sun only to gather energy. There might be other possible usage awaited to be discovered.

 

Orbital PV arrays? Can and possible. Don`t cry and tell me you can`t see stars and milky way with sophisticated ground-based telescopes then.

 

Space-based telescopes in front of Orbital PV arrays? Can and possible. Don`t be driven up the wall if your PV arrays can`t achieve maximum efficiency or being hit by the space telescope itself if errors occur.

 

Don`t let both space-based telescope and PV arrays meet at the same time. Yes and yes. Don`t fed up with slow progress of astronomy development because space-based telescope cannot operate all the time, they must avoid giant PV arrays.

 

Space-based telescope placed further away from Earth and sun? Maybe Mr. Phi for All can consider that one.

 

Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Nicholas Kang

[imatfaal]

Now, I realized I am indeed really stupid enough and foolish enough to post my thread because actually I have wasted a lot of all of your time. I felt sorry for that.

 

Taking about economical problems?

My answer: Technology shall bring down the cost down

....

 

Not really no. Forget about dollars and cents (or the currency of your choice) and think in terms of joules. To get anything from the sun to somewhere useable you need to "lift" it out of the gravity well of the sun. Improving technology may make this process more efficient but there is still a physical minimum energy that must be put in.

 

The formula for gravitational potential energy is U = -GM1m2/r

 

All in SI units -> G is very small (10^-11) and M1 is enormous (10^30kg). m2 is how much mass you are taking and r is how far you are away from the centre. r at the "surface" of the sun is about 10^8metres and here is about 10^11metres. The difference in U for your cargo of hydrogen at the sun and here needs to be provided by you! My sums - which are terribly rough - show that you would need the energy of about a couple of hundred kilos to a tonne of hydrogen to get one kilo back home; and those do not include the fact that you need to carry your oxygen to burn the hydrogen nor the mass of the rocket. These also neglect the energy required to get the hydrogen into orbit around earth etc.

[ydoaPs]

Not really no. Forget about dollars and cents (or the currency of your choice) and think in terms of joules. To get anything from the sun to somewhere useable you need to "lift" it out of the gravity well of the sun. Improving technology may make this process more efficient but there is still a physical minimum energy that must be put in.

 

The formula for gravitational potential energy is U = -GM1m2/r

 

All in SI units -> G is very small (10^-11) and M1 is enormous (10^30kg). m2 is how much mass you are taking and r is how far you are away from the centre. r at the "surface" of the sun is about 10^8metres and here is about 10^11metres. The difference in U for your cargo of hydrogen at the sun and here needs to be provided by you! My sums - which are terribly rough - show that you would need the energy of about a couple of hundred kilos to a tonne of hydrogen to get one kilo back home; and those do not include the fact that you need to carry your oxygen to burn the hydrogen nor the mass of the rocket. These also neglect the energy required to get the hydrogen into orbit around earth etc.

Indeed, the talk of economics need not mention money. It takes more fuel to mine than you will get from the mining. Mining the sun in this fashion would have a negative yield.