#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 04:29 PM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |
Good news for space policy | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 61 | August 4th 03 03:42 AM |