#11
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Ruediger Klaehn wrote:
Think positive. Wouldn't that be a *huge* energy source? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that violent volcanic eruptions are caused by liquid rock with a lot of gases (mostly CO2) dissolved in it. The liquid rock forms a huge subterran bubble and the gas tends to be at the top of that bubble since it is lighter. The magma here tends to be rather viscous, though (high in silica), so the gas doesn't really separate from the magma. I think magmatic gas is mostly water vapor, btw. Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Martha H Adams wrote:
Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? We don't. Paul |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
That Yellowstone might be working up a bang x2500 times larger than Mt
St Helens is interesting. That this could have large national consequences is expectable. But seems to me, the point is not that Yellowstone is going to go bang, but that *something* is, and maybe Yellowstone is more near the top of the list than I thought. And the point leads to my following thesis: Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? Further space exploration is a middling good idea, but wouldn't it be better done from places already out there, than from down here in this gravity well? But I can't expect that to happen: not in my life time and probably not in yours. Because, we've recently passed through a real Asimovian psychohistorical crisis -- and it resolved wrong. The crisis was, forward-looking growth; vs, spending all available money and more into military industrial armaments. That's done, now; and now we have to spend much more money yet, trying to reduce the resulting mess to something our children hopefully can survive with, and maybe even our culture. For what it's worth, considering the major faith-based elements in it. This is not at all a good picture, but seems it me, it's what *is.* Therefore, no space settlement because the military industrial businesses and politicians suck it all up before it can be put to any good use. This is a really, really sad picture. And if any of these things like Yellowstone et al, actually happen, the picture then gets a *lot* worse. Grump! -- Martha Adams |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Martha H Adams wrote: Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? We don't. Yes, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? We don't. Yes, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure. No, we don't. We don't have technology to extract ET resources, to process them in space, to manufacture much of anything in space. All of this is necessary to make settlements in space (as opposed to very small outposts). We have *concepts* for these, some of which have even made it to slides. Almost all of it is vaporware. Paul |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? We don't. Yes, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure. No, we don't. We don't have technology to extract ET resources, to process them in space, to manufacture much of anything in space. All of this is necessary to make settlements in space (as opposed to very small outposts). We have *concepts* for these, some of which have even made it to slides. Almost all of it is vaporware. Uhh... no. Materials processing on asteroidal, lunar and planetary surfaces follows no laws of physics not followed on Earth. And having *built* mechanisms to do thsi sort of thing under NASA contract, I can assure you that the technology is not only on-hand... it is rather archaic. There are no technologies that we know we need to have that we don't already have. In many cases, we could modify existing terrestrial mechanisms, all the way up to factories, to work on, say, the Moon or Mars. They'd weigh too much and would be vastly expensive to transport; but the technologies exist. If you want to do materials processign on Mars, a Caterpillar bulldozer, off the shelf, could be modified to scrape up whatever you want. Internal combustion engines, for example, would work just dandy on Mars. You'd just need to add on liquid air tanks. The same ore processing facilities we have on earth would work on the moon, with modifications. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
Uhh... no. Materials processing on asteroidal, lunar and planetary surfaces follows no laws of physics not followed on Earth. And having *built* mechanisms to do thsi sort of thing under NASA contract, I can assure you that the technology is not only on-hand... it is rather archaic. You have built prototypes. You have not built machinery that would be necessary to process material on the scale needed to construct settlements, and you certainly haven't tested it in space. Call me lacking in faith, but I don't believe in fairy tales of robust technologies that work the first time they're tested. There are no technologies that we know we need to have that we don't already have. In many cases, we could modify existing terrestrial mechanisms, all the way up to factories, to work on, say, the Moon or Mars. They'd weigh too much and would be vastly expensive to transport; but the technologies exist. If you want to do materials processign on Mars, a Caterpillar bulldozer, off the shelf, could be modified to scrape up whatever you want. Internal combustion engines, for example, would work just dandy on Mars. You'd just need to add on liquid air tanks. The same ore processing facilities we have on earth would work on the moon, with modifications. Yes, we have the technology, if we ignore all the parts of the technology that wouldn't work. Paul |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: Uhh... no. Materials processing on asteroidal, lunar and planetary surfaces follows no laws of physics not followed on Earth. And having *built* mechanisms to do thsi sort of thing under NASA contract, I can assure you that the technology is not only on-hand... it is rather archaic. You have built prototypes. ....that worked. Thus demonstrating that the technology is there. Just as the technology is there for a startup company to build a car from scratch. As I said, the only thing missing is the infrastructure. Yes, we have the technology, if we ignore all the parts of the technology that wouldn't work. Such as? Be specific. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
You have built prototypes. ...that worked. Thus demonstrating that the technology is there. Just as the technology is there for a startup company to build a car from scratch. As I said, the only thing missing is the infrastructure. You have built bench-scale prototypes. For building sustainable settlements, you need industrial-scale technology. For that matter, you need a settlement that can build replacements for all its vital equipment. You haven't built that on your benchtop, I am sure. The car analogy is bogus. Plenty of companies have built cars from scratch, and had them work in their intended operating environment. Noone has ever operated industrial processing machinery in space. Do we even have the technology for long-term operation on the moon or mars at outposts? For example, do we have spacesuits and airlock doors that can last on the moon past a few weeks (in the face of damage from lunar regolith fragments)? Yes, we have the technology, if we ignore all the parts of the technology that wouldn't work. Such as? Be specific. You listed a number of them. Let's see about some others. (Remember, this is in reference to moving existing terrestrial machinery into space.) How about heat dissipation? Radiation susceptibility? Compatibility of the fluids and fluid handling systems with the vacuum and temperature extremes of space? Compatibility of the moving components with lunar dust? Simple things, like *cleaning* this equipment, become problematic if there's not an ample supply of liquid water (and an operating environment where the water is liquid.) Controls that do not require someone in shirtsleeves to be sitting in an non-pressure-tight cab. It's likely that we *could* design equipment to get around these problems (ignoring cost). However, we haven't built these bulldozers, etc., so we do not 'have' this technology now. And showing that the new machines work is not something that can be done beforehand. Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
... Martha H Adams wrote: Aren't we being *terribly* dumb not to be doing settlements in space *right now* seeing as we have the technology in hand to do a good start at it? We don't. I think that we have the technology to develop the technology that we need. It's just a matter of hiring engineers with a decent budget. If we started today, I think that within 15 years, we could have a lunar settlement that grows at a rate of 10 people a year. A settlement with 100,000 people could take another 30 years beyond that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No U.S. Hab Module may be good news | Peter Altschuler | Space Station | 5 | July 27th 04 12:59 AM |
Good news for DirecTV subscribers | Patty Winter | Space Shuttle | 7 | June 17th 04 07:35 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 08:33 AM |
Good news for space policy | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 61 | August 4th 03 03:42 AM |