A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More good news



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 4th 04, 05:42 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:43:33 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.


Because access has been so expensive that no one has been able to
afford to even attempt it.
  #22  
Old January 4th 04, 07:54 PM
Parallax
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

"Mike Rhino" wrote in message . ..
"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.



None of this worries me enough to keep me from moving back to WY and
buying property. There will be warning before much happens I suspect
and if not, at least I die in WY
  #23  
Old January 4th 04, 07:54 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

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.


How many times have I said that we lack the infrastructure? Sheesh.


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.


You're right. We bought it off the shelf. Things like drill presses and
lathes and arc welders are Technology We Already Have.


The car analogy is bogus. Plenty of companies have built cars from
scratch, and had them work in their intended operating environment.


First time out, perfectly, and with no tweaking or redesigns? Seems
unlikely.

Noone has ever operated industrial processing machinery in space.


Non sequitur.

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)?


If "lunar regolith fragments" are a problem... then operate your doors
in such a fashion that this damage does not occur.

How about heat dissipation?


They're called "radiators."

Radiation susceptibility?


It's called "dirt."


Compatibility
of the fluids and fluid handling systems with the vacuum and temperature
extremes of space?


Don't expose your fluids to vacuum. Keep your temperatures fairly
constant.

Compatibility of the moving components with lunar dust?


Design 'em like AK-47s. You don;t need advacned technology, but loose
tolerances.

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.)


So provide ample water.

Controls that do not require
someone in shirtsleeves to be sitting in an non-pressure-tight cab.


What, like RC cars? We have those.

And showing that the new machines work
is not something that can be done beforehand.


So build a test site on the moon.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #24  
Old January 4th 04, 08:04 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Scott Lowther wrote:

You have built bench-scale prototypes. For building sustainable
settlements, you need industrial-scale technology.


How many times have I said that we lack the infrastructure? Sheesh.


Apparently you are using 'infrastructure' to mean 'working technology'.

Prototypes are just that, prototypes. They are not demonstrations
that we have a 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.


You're right. We bought it off the shelf. Things like drill presses and
lathes and arc welders are Technology We Already Have.


And steel mills, and chemical plants, and all the other stuff of
industrial society.

We have basically squat of that in a space-ready form.



The car analogy is bogus. Plenty of companies have built cars from
scratch, and had them work in their intended operating environment.


First time out, perfectly, and with no tweaking or redesigns? Seems
unlikely.


Glad you admit that tweaking and redesign is necessary to reach
the point of a technology being 'available'.

Now, how many runs have you made of your apparatus in space?



Noone has ever operated industrial processing machinery in space.


Non sequitur.


Wrong.



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)?



If "lunar regolith fragments" are a problem... then operate your doors
in such a fashion that this damage does not occur.


Handwaving.


How about heat dissipation?


They're called "radiators."


More handwaving. Remember, I was critiquing your silliness about
simply moving terrestrial equipment into space. 'Radiators' on
terrestrial heat engines (really air heat exchangers) won't work
in vacuum.



Radiation susceptibility?


It's called "dirt."


Ah, our bulldozers and the like will operate buried in dirt.
Gotcha.



of the fluids and fluid handling systems with the vacuum and temperature
extremes of space?



Don't expose your fluids to vacuum. Keep your temperatures fairly
constant.


Ah. Not only will our bulldozers and the like be buried in dirt,
they'll be inside pressure vessels. Gotcha^2.


(more handwaving deleted)

Paul
  #25  
Old January 4th 04, 08:43 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

You have built bench-scale prototypes. For building sustainable
settlements, you need industrial-scale technology.


How many times have I said that we lack the infrastructure? Sheesh.


Apparently you are using 'infrastructure' to mean 'working technology'.


No, I'm using "infrastructure" to mean "infrastructure."

Prototypes are just that, prototypes. They are not demonstrations
that we have a technology.


boggle
pro·to·type ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prt-tp)
n.
An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for
later stages.
An original, full-scale, and usually working model of a new product or
new version of an existing product.
An early, typical example.




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.


You're right. We bought it off the shelf. Things like drill presses and
lathes and arc welders are Technology We Already Have.


And steel mills, and chemical plants, and all the other stuff of
industrial society.


Which, amazingly, are technologies we already have.


The car analogy is bogus. Plenty of companies have built cars from
scratch, and had them work in their intended operating environment.


First time out, perfectly, and with no tweaking or redesigns? Seems
unlikely.


Glad you admit that tweaking and redesign is necessary to reach
the point of a technology being 'available'.


Sigh. No. Tweaking is needed to make a *design* available. A concept car
might be road-ready except that the door hinges are a mess, because they
were designed wrong. But that doesn't mean we don't have the technology
to make good hinges.

Now, how many runs have you made of your apparatus in space?


Non sequitur.


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)?



If "lunar regolith fragments" are a problem... then operate your doors
in such a fashion that this damage does not occur.


Handwaving.

How about heat dissipation?


They're called "radiators."


More handwaving.


Gosh, you'r right! The shuttle dissipates heat by handwaving.


Radiation susceptibility?


It's called "dirt."


Ah, our bulldozers and the like will operate buried in dirt.


Why would a bulldozer be suseptible to radiation?



of the fluids and fluid handling systems with the vacuum and temperature
extremes of space?



Don't expose your fluids to vacuum. Keep your temperatures fairly
constant.


Ah. Not only will our bulldozers and the like be buried in dirt,
they'll be inside pressure vessels. Gotcha^2.


It's becoming increasingly clear that you are either an idiot, or just
willfully arguementative for no good end.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #26  
Old January 4th 04, 09:06 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Scott Lowther wrote:

Prototypes are just that, prototypes. They are not demonstrations
that we have a technology.



boggle
pro·to·type ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prt-tp)
n.
An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for
later stages.
An original, full-scale, and usually working model of a new product or
new version of an existing product.
An early, typical example.



Scott, perhaps I'm not up on this 'faith based engineering' of yours,
but from where I sit we don't assume we can do something at one scale
just because we have a prototype at a much smaller scale, in
the lab.



And steel mills, and chemical plants, and all the other stuff of
industrial society.


Which, amazingly, are technologies we already have.


Technologies that we have for use on Earth, where conditions
apply that are not the same as in space.

Scott, do you assume that because a piece of technology works
here, it will work there?

Let's take steel mills, for example. All terrestrial steel mills
WILL NOT WORK in space. (Open loop evaporative cooling on the
scale required, for example, is not workable in space.) Fundamentally
different technologies are required.


Now, how many runs have you made of your apparatus in space?


Non sequitur.


Wrong again. Do please try to understand the argument. Your
prototype is one step along the road to obtaining a workable
technology. It is not the end of the road.


More handwaving.


Gosh, you'r right! The shuttle dissipates heat by handwaving.


More dishonest weaving on your part, Scott. We weren't talking
about the shuttle. We were talking about all these terrestrial
machines that you argue we can transport out into space and, with
the wave of our hand, make them work.


Ah, our bulldozers and the like will operate buried in dirt.


Why would a bulldozer be suseptible to radiation?


They have electronics these days.


Ah. Not only will our bulldozers and the like be buried in dirt,
they'll be inside pressure vessels. Gotcha^2.


It's becoming increasingly clear that you are either an idiot, or just
willfully arguementative for no good end.


The possibility that I'm arguing with you because you're full of ****
apparently never crossed your mind.

Paul
  #27  
Old January 4th 04, 09:43 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

snip nonsense

Yup. I was right.

Further discussion with you is clearly a waste of time.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #28  
Old January 4th 04, 09:48 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Scott Lowther wrote:

Further discussion with you is clearly a waste of time.


This means you've lost the argument. Don't let the door
hit your sorry ass on the way out, ok?

Paul
  #29  
Old January 4th 04, 11:24 PM
Vincent Cate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Scott Lowther:
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.


For space space settlements to be affordable, I think we need a
vehicle with a reliable and reusable thermal protection system.
The space shuttle tiles don't count in my book. Ablative does
not seem cheap enough for settlements (but maybe). I like tethers
so we can avoid full orbital speeds. But what do you think the
technology is for reusable reentry? Has it been flown several
times? Even once? Any prototypes going to fly any time soon?

Technology is applied scientific theory. If nobody has flown and
tested hardware, then we don't have the technology. You should
be able to point to some hardware that demonstrates any technology
that we really "have". If the theory has not been tested with real
hardware, then we might not even have the correct theory.

In Von Braun's book "The Mars Project" they did not have the theory
right for reentry and thought it was much easier to make a
reusable reentry vehicle than it really is. The space shuttle
people claimed they would have reusable reentry, but rebuildable
seems more like it. So while I fully believe that a reusable
reentry vehicle can and will be built, I don't think it is right
to say the technology is in hand already.

-- Vince
  #30  
Old January 5th 04, 12:12 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More good news

Vincent Cate wrote:

For space space settlements to be affordable, I think we need a
vehicle with a reliable and reusable thermal protection system.


For space settlements, we have very little need for re-entry into
Earth's atmosphere *at* *all*. There's nothing on orbit or on another
celestial body that is more valuable to a space settlement if dropped
down to Earth's surface.

The space shuttle tiles don't count in my book. Ablative does
not seem cheap enough for settlements (but maybe).


Ablative is cheap. It's just silicone rubber, properly applied.

Technology is applied scientific theory. If nobody has flown and
tested hardware, then we don't have the technology.


Except, of course, for the fact that we *do.* The fact that it hasn't
flown doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't fall into the Dietzist
luddite trap of believign that it desn't exist, can't exist, never will
exist. because we already have or have developed all the technologies
we'd need for any sort of reasonable "space" settlement. there are some
technologies we'd be well advised to develop to make the settlements
*better*, but we can make do with what's currently available.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.