New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#301 Re: Human missions » Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry » 2004-06-16 09:51:20
Computers? look at the old solid core memory stuff etc, you can build (although big and rather primitive) computers with macrostuff pretty easily...
It is possible. It would be slow nd inefficient, compared to earth standards, but you can build useful stuff that way.
The macro level machines are not the problem as microchips are made by using chemicals, lasers and other methods. I have seen images of a piece of silicon (semiconductor) in which a laser etches a micro/nano transistor. See this page http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folde … ks.htm]How EUV chipmaking works. A quote from that page:
The current process used to pack more and more transistors onto a chip is called deep-ultraviolet lithography, which is a photography-like technique that focuses light through lenses to carve circuit patterns on silicon wafers.
Lithography is akin to photography in that it uses light to transfer images onto a substrate. In the case of a camera, the substrate is film. Silicon is the traditional substrate used in chipmaking. To create the integrated circuit design that's on a microprocessor, light is directed onto a mask. A mask is like a stencil of the circuit pattern. The light shines through the mask and then through a series of optical lenses that shrink the image down. This small image is then projected onto a silicon, or semiconductor, wafer.
The wafer is covered with a light-sensitive, liquid plastic called photoresist. The mask is placed over the wafer, and when light shines through the mask and hits the silicon wafer, it hardens the photoresist that isn't covered by the mask. The photoresist that is not exposed to light remains somewhat gooey and is chemically washed away, leaving only the hardened photoresist and exposed silicon wafer.
The key to creating more powerful microprocessors is the size of the light's wavelength. The smaller the wavelength, the more transistors can be etched onto the silicon wafer. More transistors equals a more powerful, faster microprocessor. That's the big reason why an Intel Pentium 4 processor, which has 42-million transistors, is faster than the Pentium 3, which has 28-million transistors.
But as the report said the problem would be gathering the materials needed that make up a microchip. Not the process building one. At least now it wouldn't be anymore.
And don't think because the machines are macro technology they can only do bulky work. They can be like bulldozers or as fine as a dentists tools or even finer. And when using lasers and chemicals (and many other techniques) there is no limit in how small you can build. As tomorrows nano-machines will be build by todays macro-machines. Well you can't build nano-machines by hand can you!?
To add, basically you will build a machines that builds a smaller and finer machine that will build a smaller and finer machine until you hit the molecule level and then, well we will see.
Having an Earth supplies, resources and energy indepenent factory will allow you to experiment which such ideas without worrying about how much it will cost you.
#302 Re: Life support systems » Pizza's!! - How are you going to deal with it? » 2004-06-16 09:14:19
(Note: The HAB should include a rover, enabling traverse, pickup, and delivery.)
Pizza Hut will not deliver?
#303 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-16 05:01:39
Hi,
I'm sorry about my poor choosing of words in the post you are responding to. I did not intend to offend you or prove that I know more of anything, which I don’t, just a hobbyist.
What I mend with the IT and electronics remark is that robots that only do a certain number of steps don't need modern (fast) processing. Basically you could also use a punch card to do it. Only normally they use PLC's (I think it means something like Programmable Logic Control) which are just electronic punch cards that can be reprogrammed at anytime, be it locally, by network or wireless. I think you would find similar devices in programmable microwave ovens. So they are pretty common and cheap.
However yes you would need a fancy computer and AI to oversee that everything is working according to plan. But in my idea you would use humans in a control center to do this. Like you have now in power plants and refineries. So you have cameras and sensors installed and humans will interpret the data.
About von Neumann I was mistaken I thought he was only about nanomachines (which I think are still to far away) but after reading this http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advan … nts]report from nasa which is about automated factories in space. I see he is more about the theory behind robots building other robots and automated processes then only nanotech.
And no I'm not IT educated or work (now) in that sector. However I did study energy technology (but I didn't finish it). Energy technology is about electrical machines, electricity, automation and some electronics. No fancy education but perhaps I could have been one of those overseeing engineers.
I don't know much about IT but can program simple stuff and I am working to improve my skills.
---
Reading that NASA report it introduced me to http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advan … _5.6]three ways of realization. You have:
1. Top-Down Approach
2. Bottom-Up Approach
3. Middle-out Approach
You are basically going for the top-down approach when you say that we must wait for a breakthrough in science. (The report actually states it that way)
The bottom-up approach is like evolution, which is you start now and improve as needed.
The middle-out approach that is the best, states that you use what you have now but make sure everything works well.
If you want to translate it to the IT world of project development methodologies:
1. Top-Down Approach - Waterfall model
2. Bottom-Up Approach - Hacking
3. Middle-out Approach - Extreme programming / Agile programming
#304 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-16 04:24:46
I agree that in theory it would be possible to create a near fully-automated facility on Mars, the real question is how much it would weigh.
How many launches would it take to achieve such a complex facility? Over a hundred would be my guess
Theoretically possible but simply not practical given politics and economics
Aah what a coincidence I just posted to another thread about this.
See my post http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1804]here
Well anyway in the post I mention a 1980 report from NASA that I found on the web called: Advanced Automation for Space Missions and it talks exactly about my ideas and they say its possible with 1980 technology. However they talk about sending a Space Manufacturing Facility (SMF) to the Moon.
They estimated that such a SMF would weigh about 100 tons or four Apollo missions. It should be about for 99% independent of Earth resources and supplies. Only problem building would be microchips. Not electronic components such as diodes, resistors or other but microchips. However you are able to do a lot with simple electronic components the only problem would be that your devices will be big and slow.
But all of the aspects are discussed in the report from processing lunar soil and extract the elements to building other automated machines.
#305 Re: Human missions » Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry » 2004-06-16 04:15:40
It looks like that NASA already considered this plan in 1980 
Here a link to http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRepNASA.html]an article about the NASA report and this link http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRepNASA.html]contains portions of the final report.
The introduction of the final report:
What follows is a portion of the final report of
a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-
elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars.
The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating
automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially
increasing productive capacity and, in the long run,
exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable
timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined
with barely a ripple in the press.What was once concievable with 1980's technology
is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming
through this document, the potential of this proposed system
is undeniable. Please enjoy.
Some quotes from the report:
If the construction of a replicating growing lunar factory was purely a matter of machine parts assembly, then the length of the replication program could be determined by the necessity to locate various required parts in the environment and then to specify and execute the proper placement of each part to construct the desired system (Heiserman, 1976). However, it is likely the reproductive process will be vastly more complicated than this, since it is not likely that all parts can be supplied "free" from Earth. If the lunar factory must begin, not with completed machines or parts, but rather with a raw lunar soil substrate, the task quickly becomes many orders more difficult - though not impossible.
An engineering demonstration project can be initiated immediately, to begin with simple replication of robot assembler by robot assembler from supplied parts, and proceeding in phased steps to full reproduction of a complete machine processing or factory system by another machine processing system, supplied, ultimately, only with raw materials.
The raw materials of the lunar surface, and the materials processing techniques available in a lunar environment, are probably sufficient to support an automated lunar manufacturing facility capable of self-replication and growth.
The virtually cost-free expansion of mining, processing, and manufacturing capacity, once an initial investment is made in an autonomous SRS, makes possible the commercial utilization of the abundant energy and mineral resources of the Moon for the benefit of all mankind.
The industry of the U.S. is also at a critical juncture in its evolution. If it is to compete adequately in the world marketplace, significant increases in productivity are required. Present production methods have reached a level of maturity such that sufficiently large gains in productivity through further refinement of present-day technologies are unlikely to be realized. The only known solution is massive automation such as is now being applied in other industrialized countries, notably Japan and Germany.
The building of the automated factories would greatly enhance the US's economic strenght by applying the lessons to US based factories.
In contrast to the terrestrial case, autonomous or symbiotic SRS are ideally suited to space applications. In space there is room for such systems to multiply and grow. In fact the exponentially expanding, self-replicating factory is the most promising option for economically viable exploration and utilization of space beyond the near-Earth environment. The bootstrapping effect of self-replication permits the utilization of vast quantities of extraterrestrial materials with only a modest initial investment of terrestrial materials.
It is possible to achieve qualitative materials closure (see sec. 5.3.6) - complete material self-sufficiency within the Lunar Manufacturing Facility (LMF) - by making certain that chemical processing machines are able to produce all of the 84 elements commonly used in industry in the United States and the global economy (Freitas, 1980). However, such a complete processing capability implies unacceptably long replication times T (on the order of 100-1000 years), because many of the elements are so rare in the lunar or asteroidal substrate that a vast quantity of raw soil must be processed to obtain even small amounts of them. By eliminating the need for many of these exotic elements in the SRS design, replication times can be cut by as much as three orders of magnitude with current or foreseeable materials processing technologies.
There are three ways to realize this idea/project:
Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach consists first of carefully defining the overall problem, then decomposing that problem into simpler subproblems. These subproblems are, in turn, decomposed into sub-subproblems, and so on. The process continues, forming a lattice structure whose lowest tier nodes are low-level problems which are readily soluble.
This is for people that are waiting for more advanced technolgies before any major project should start.
Bottom-Up Approach
The bottom-up approach consists of supporting basic and applied fields related to the desired goal. Science and technology normally advance in a bottom-up fashion. Researchers build on the work of their predecessors. At any given time the problems which are soluble and present research prospects are defined by previous research which has been done and by the supporting technology which is currently available. Inventions and breakthroughs are notoriously hard to schedule in advance.
This is more the way I like it.
Middle-out Approach
The recommended middle-out approach consists of three stages. Briefly, in stage 1 a technology feasibility demonstration of a rudimentary self-replicating system is performed. In stage 2, stage 1 is further refined in a top-down manner to produce a less rudimentary system which operates in a less structured environment. Stage 3 consists of starting at stage 1 and doing a bottom-up synthesis of a more complex SRS.
And this the best way and also what other posters were thinking of when saying lets test it in Antartica then ship it to space.
There are two distinct classes of fabrication production machines in any general-product self-replicating system parts or "bulk" fabrication and electronics or microcircuit fabrication. Appendix 5F is concerned exclusively with LMF subsystems required for bulk manufacturing. Microelectronics production in space manufacturing facilities is considered in section 4.4.3 and is the subject of Zachary (1981); estimated mass of this component of the original LMF seed is 7000 kg, with a power draw of perhaps 20 kW to operate the necessary machinery
Ooh that sucks, the part (electronics plant) I'm interested in most is not included. I think it also interested you.
But wait doing a thorough google brought me to the same but complete at wikipedia. You can find it http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advan … tents]here
Key components in computer systems include integrated circuits (ICs), capacitors, resistors, printed circuit (PC) boards, and wire. Fabrication capability in these five critical areas will permit most other necessary components to be produced as well. For instance, an IC fabrication facility could manufacture at least some varieties of transistors, diodes (rectifiers, small-signal, and zener), varactors, thyristors, silicon-controlled rectifiers (SCRs), and others. It would, however, have difficulty producing light-emitting diodes (LEDs) due to the scarcity of gallium and arsenic on the Moon.
Integrated circuits. Conventional wafer fabrication techniques (Oldham, 1977) are, for the most part, not feasible in a lunar-supplied Space Manufacturing Facility (SMF). On the other hand, the vacuum of space greatly enhances the applicability of several techniques which are at or beyond the current terrestrial state-of-the-art.
A picture to help you imagine what it a plant would look like:
Basically the NASA 1980 report is saying it its possible with about 99% independence of Earth supplies. However they were planning for the moon. If you would build three of these space manufacturing facilities, that is one on the moon, the other in the asteroid belt and the last on Mars. I think you could have 100% Earth supplies independence. And you need not to build three SMF's on Earth just use the original NASA plan for the moon and have it build the two others using Moon resources.
When the two others are at place and working you can upgrade the systems that needed to be simple due to lack of certain elements. And of course now ship elements that are lacking at one SMF to help it.
Well the report is very interesting I will skim some more throug it.
#306 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 12:28:45
Well if you think of a mega factory as just one building then no but if you think of a mega factory as a site containing several buildings then yes. As now industries related to each other tend to be in the same area.
#307 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 11:02:28
from already-refined materials (sheet and plate Mg alloy, granulated thermoplastic polymers, Cu wire, packaged ICs from Earth)
You do realize that on Earth that modern refineries are fully automated? So whats stopping it from happening in Space?
An example when I was still at school we went on a field trip to a sugar plant. You know what there were no humans there except for the tourguide.
I also went to a conventional powerplant and it was the same thing. The only humans were the tourguide and the guys in the control room. The only other humans were the ones delivering coal (or what ever it was) by boat but that was handled by machines also. The captain just had to park his ship at the right place and everything was handled.
But as I said in a previous post:
So if this works you will only have to pay for the first manufacturing plant all the others will be build locally using almost zero Earth resources.
With that I mean stuff like ultra high tech devices like what you see in the hubble telescope. And also food for the limited number engineers.
However I expect sooner or later that a plant would rise that could build them locally as soon as there is energy and resources to spare. But more importantly by uploading a design of machine (plant, factory) thats able to build it by robots.
Thats the way it works on Earth, first you get a product then you think of ways to make it cheap and mass produced.
#308 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 10:28:30
Quote
No I meant with robots building robots: Robots building machines. For instance if you agree that robots now do almost all the car building. Now if you would put in a remote radio control and a computer and make it do stuff like the mars rovers are doing, then you have robots building robots....which sounds remarkably like you plan on making the whole process automatic, which no humans actually present, but just at the end of a radio link.
Yes and...?
Now you say you don't want von Neuman machines. But that's pretty much what you said you wanted without actually using the name, as quoted above!
I'm sorry but I'm not to familair with von Neumann, I thought his ideas were about nano technology. Which I think is not needed to get things rolling.
(You see, the only "affordable and workable solution" is, in the end, a von Neuman machine. So I suggest you get interested.)
Today's commercial robots are profitable else they wouldn't exist. No need to wait and pray for a breakthrough in science.
Without enormously more intelligent machines than today, none of what you say is or will happen with robots. The car factory robots you use as an example, for instance are nothing but highly, highly specialist idiots.
What wrong with them being stupid as long as they get the job done? I don't need to impress my investors with how smart my machines are but how effective they are.
Absolutely. and of course we can do it that way. But that's not what you started out proposing. And if you do do the job with humans that's fine, but the cost will be out of sight.
I never said humans aren't needed if you read point two of my disclaimer:
2. Yes I know that you will need humans on the spot to do repairs. But mostly telecontrolled robots to do repairs. So one human can oversee a huge area. I think its not pratical to do this from Earth if you are not talking about the Moon. Due to the time lack in communications.
And yes it will cost you money like doing anything costs you money. If you want to save money then just do nothing at all and pray for your nanomachines while I will do something real today.
Your arguments sound like lets not build sailing ships and windmills as one day we will (or may) have steam engines.
BTW: The research for those nanomachines also cost money.
#309 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 08:47:22
Robots building machines, even other robots, are not the same thing as von Neuman machines.
I'm not interested in von Neumann; I just want affordable and working solutions. If I were thinking like you I could say: “Well just wait until we have faster then light travel.”
The sort of robots that we have in car plants today are really pretty primitive. Indeed, they only just qualify as robots. They can’t ‘see’ or otherwise know anything about their environment. They can repeat the same sequence of actions over and over, but as soon as something unplanned happens they can either ignore the change and cause chaos, or switch themselves off. IOW, they are completely and utterly dumb.
Who ever said that robots must be smart to be a robot? They just need to be able to do the job. About seeing and sensing if you read the link to the article about robots in mining you would know they exist. However it’s not needed in certain tasks. It seems you are waiting for the ultra robot.
Those primitive robots in factories don’t need to see at all. You know the principle KISS? It means Keep It Simple and Stupid. Why do you think that the Space Shuttle program failed? Its because they wanted to the shuttle to able to do everything while that’s not needed. The KISS principle keeps things affordable and working with out all the bloat.
But really why build robots that can do everything? Or that are smart? What the use for that? I just need something that does the job!
The current crop of Martian Rovers are certainly a step forwards, but still they need constant help from us humans. They can’t decide for themselves where to dig a hole and then take or not a sample because they don’t know what’s interesting and what’s not, they can’t decide what route to take, they can’t go beyond the point we can see because they have no automatic way of adjusting their travel to take account of unexpected obstacles like rocks. And they sure as anything can’t replicate themselves, let alone turn themselves into machines that do other things. And of course, they can’t repair themselves. They’re good, don’t get me wrong. But they’re not that good.
There you go again thinking that the only true robot is able to discuss Shakespeare and that has several degrees from a uni.
You are wrong about this and it makes no sense. With six billion humans on Earth, why would you need a smart robot? Humans can do robots smart tasks cheaper.
A robot is an automated machine and it just needs to do the task not impress science fiction writers.
A machine that replicates itself is not so straightforward as you make it sound. For a start, it has to go prospecting and find the right suitable raw materials.
Yep you would need a scout for this like what the rovers and satellites are doing now. And humans. Both humans and scout robots will mark the areas that have certain minerals with beacons and the digger robots will follow.
Then it has to turn them into the right sort of refined materials needed to make every one of the components that goes into its make up. Then it has to manufacture all—every one—of these components. Then it has to assemble them all together into a twin of itself.
You are making it sound like I'm talking about one machine, which I'm not. You will have a lot of specialized machines with each its own task. What I was saying is a manufacturing plant that houses these specialized robots and processes.
Can you do everything? Do you have a farm and raise livestock and vegetables while having an office job? Why should a machine be able to do this? It’s just not efficient to do so.
Then it has to program its twin. And unless you want it to stop and wait for new instructions from earth (or even from somewhere else on Mars) every time it hits a snag in all these millions of millions of steps it has to be able to do all this on its own initiative or the whole business will take for ever.
Well that’s why you will have humans in proximity they will solve these snags by using telecontrolled robots. And those same snags will occur on Earth or even when using von Neuman machines. Errors will be always there. But you make it sound like an error will occur every 10 minutes. If that’s so then you should think about the general design of the factory on Earth or Space.
Question why would a snag happen more in Space then in an Earth car plant? The robots from car plants also do millions of steps. So does you operation system. Do you know how many lines of code Windows 2000 / Linux / OSX has? It has millions but in general it works just fine.
And programming its twin is nothing more then uploading software to the twin’s memory.
And its computer will have to vastly more powerful than any made so far—and that’s just one of the things that will have to be replicated to make a true copy.
Ok it looks like you are not familiar with electronics and IT. But really a robot that just follows simple steps and orders would not need more processing power then a 20 year old CPU has. You know that those rovers on Mars have a CPU similar to a Pentium 1? And that’s already overkill as they are under clocked. The space shuttle is using i386 processors.
You can run Windows 2000 one a Pentium 1 CPU, which is now, what, ten years old? And its far more complicated then what a robots software would be.
And as computers work digitally there is nothing lost in making copies.
An example would be that they would be working like ants. Each doing its own little thing but with higher goal that they are individually unaware of.
(B) or a machine that can also manufacture other machines that are specialist prospectors, miners, refiners, component makes, etc., etc…. but of course it can do none of that until the first of all these are made so it can make them (it’s getting a little circular here, isn’t it?)
Its not. You need to invest before you can profit. Or are you saying that you will swing your magic wand and von Neumann machines will appear on Mars?
On discovery channel I often watch programs on WWII tanks. And you know what most of them were the same. For example the Germans had one basic design, which included the frame and engine. For different tasks they would fit them with different weapons. The Americans did the same. On one tank they would fit a heavy gun on another they would fit a lighter gun but with a flamethrower and there was also a tank with no gun at all but with equipment to clear mines.
What I'm saying the basic models can be the same but with other specialized tools attached.
It also looks like you are waiting for besides von Neumann machines for some human like artificial intelligence. I think you can wait a long time for this. And really its not needed. KISS, and if it works then its good enough. But you want all the bells and whistles.
How far do you suppose we are away from having this sort of machine? 10 years? 25? 50? 100? 200? Never?
I’m sorry but everything I said is already happening here on Earth except for human intelligence like robots. Which is not needed. We got six billion humans.
#310 Re: Life support systems » Pizza's!! - How are you going to deal with it? » 2004-06-15 06:40:51
Food may be a problem as Mars astronauts will probably burn more energy then those on a space station as Mars astronauts will have to explore and move a lot.
So you may want some high energy food.
#311 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 02:22:24
Anyway I'm curious to learn how a large low density cargo that must be kept below -249.6 C is going to be induced to reenter earth's atmosphere without exploding, imploding, blowing every pressure relief valve in sight, or otherwise failing to deliver itself intact to the ground?
From what I gather the inside of the space shuttle is pretty cool. Else we would have fried astronauts So I don't think thats the problem.
#312 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-15 02:14:17
No I meant with robots building robots: Robots building machines. For instance if you agree that robots now do almost all the car building. Now if you would put in a remote radio control and a computer and make it do stuff like the mars rovers are doing, then you have robots building robots.
Why is this impossible if its already happening? Only thing missing for the machines being build to be called robots is a telecontrol. You just need to feed in another design in to the manfacturing plant and there are your machines (robots).
From the http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Robot]wordiq site the definition of a robot:
In practical usage, a robot is a mechanical device which performs automated tasks, either according to direct human supervision, a pre-defined program or, a set of general guidelines, using artificial intelligence techniques.
So why can't such a mechanical device build a similair mechanical device? Considering you have enough energy and resources.
Here is an example http://www.spacedaily.com/news/robot-00g.html]of robots being used in mining.
Yes the initial cost will be high but the initial cost of doing anything more then sending rovers into space will be high. Having automated factory plants and resource gathers in space would be the smartest thing to do (if you going to do anything at all). As as soon as its there it basically costs you nothing. As in space you don't have to pay energy bills, taxes, pay for the resources. It will only cost you if you don't use it.
In the initial fase you would make the plants build other plants (meaning the parts and machines that make up the factory and have robots assemble them). So if this works you will only have to pay for the first manufacturing plant all the others will be build locally using almost zero Earth resources.
Disclaimer:
1. When I say space I mean anything but not Earth, so it can be the moon, space, asteroids, mars or other.
2. Yes I know that you will need humans on the spot to do repairs. But mostly telecontrolled robots to do repairs. So one human can oversee a huge area. I think its not pratical to do this from Earth if you are not talking about the Moon. Due to the time lack in communications.
#313 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-14 23:12:37
I don't understand why robots building machines is ST technology? Don't they build cars now?
And I'm not talking about Mr. Data like robots but robots that you see now in any modern manufacturing plant.
As if you would walk now into a modern car factory you would see basically this is already happening. If you ever saw footage of a modern car factory you will know what I'm talking about. For example steel plates come in, they are put into a machine that presses them to door shapes or parts of the car frame. Then a robotic arm takes the part to a welding robot who then welds the parts together this is followed by a robot that screws on smaller parts. etc etc. Almost no humans needed.
Look at this picture to see what I mean:
I have also worked in a food factory where they made instant food and there the assembly workers were basically just to turn on the machine and turn it of. The pusher of the button job 
Steel and chemical plants are also very automated. Basically humans are only needed to stop the machine when it goes wrong and then start it again. Same goes for microchip plants, a design is fed in and the computer know what to do.
However now in then you still see humans getting in the picture as sometimes its cheaper to have a human doing a task then build a robot for it. But in Space you have no choice.
But just as someone else said getting those robot plants to space or Mars is expensive but if money wasn't an issue you could have them now. Nanotech is to far away. And this would of course be only an option is you want to start to colonize space. As it will be cheaper then building everything on Earth or sending tons of people. Like any investment in automation it takes a big initial investment but in the long rung you are better off.
#314 Re: Human missions » The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target! » 2004-06-14 08:26:47
I don't understand why you guys are talking about star trek technologies as it's not needed at this point.
If it were needed why are there profitable companies on Earth now? You just need a factory, energy and resources. The getting and designing the factory for Mars or Space, getting energy and resources that is the problem not ST nano tech.
Just robots building other robots thats what needed. Other robots can be anything from resource collectors to maintenance drones.
Basically you need something like this to start anything serious non Earth:
1. No Humans needed on the spot. Telecontrol
2. Enough energy be it nuke or solar.
3. Resources, all the elements needed are there. Or are cheap to ship like microchips.
#315 Re: Human missions » Send inmates to mars - like in australia » 2004-06-14 04:50:23
Out of the 6 billion people on Earth do u really think our best candidates for Space exploration and colonisation are criminals?
I'm not talking about sending them there to do exploration and colonisation. Just hard physical labor in human unfriendly enverioments. Do you think you can find enough "regular" people in the USA, Europe, Russia or any other space faring country to that job? Well think again look at how hard it is to get people to work in Alaska, Oil drill platforms (islands excuse forgot the name for it), siberia or even Iraq. But then those are on Earth and you can alway quit on Mars you can't you are there for life.
Please tell me this was all meant as a joke
Well I'm not serious but I do like to defend the point but I think there are better options such as robots with a small force of engineers. The idea just popped up when thinking of some science fictions movies.
#316 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brits invent tank "Forcefield" - 'electrical armour' » 2004-06-12 08:42:21
You are right, thinking about it the projectile must be made of a conductive material.
#317 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Cool gear - for use in space » 2004-06-12 08:37:51
I think its overkill and shows nasa doesn't know what to do with its money.
Its cool but so would a quad CPU workstation be to me. But I don't need it.
#318 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brits invent tank "Forcefield" - 'electrical armour' » 2004-06-12 07:52:38
From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/19 … tric/]this source. However I already so something like this one TV some years ago but it was still in development.
Boffins invent grenade vaporising ‘electric force field’
By John Leyden
Published Monday 19th August 2002 10:29 GMTBoffins at Britain's Ministry of Defence have invented an electric 'force field' designed to protect armoured vehicles against anti-tank grenades.
The 'electrical armour' is designed to vaporise copper projectiles released from grenades on impact before they are able to penetrate a tank's inner hull, the Daily Telegraph reports. The idea is to make tanks less vulnerable to anti-tank launchers, such the RPG-7, which is commonly and cheaply available in the world's trouble spots, such as Afghanistan.
When armaments like RPG-7 grenades hit a tank, a "shaped-charge" warhead blasts a jet of hot copper into a target at around 1,000mph - capable of slicing through a foot of conventional solid steel armour.
The new electric armour is based on a highly charged capacitor connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer (armour-plated) plate is earthed while the insulated inner plate is live.
When the crew of a tank feel they are under danger, they switch on current to the inner plate, using the tank's internal power supply.
If the tank is unfortunate enough to be hit by a grenade, the jet of copper produced will penetrate both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate completing a circuit, which results in the discharge of the capacitor and the vaporisation of most of the copper.
The Telegraph reports that despite the high charge generated by the system, the "electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning".
It sounds bizarre, but the paper reports that in a recent demonstration an armoured personnel carrier protected by the system withstood repeated attacks by rocket grenades that would normally have destroyed it many times over.
Boffins hope to develop the armour further and fit it in Britain's next generation of tanks and armoured personnel carrier. The Pentagon is also reportedly showing a keen interest in work on the technology.
You may ask what this has to do with this forum, well I thought rocket propelled grenade (RPG) = space junk + small meteors
#319 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations » 2004-06-12 07:44:54
Which means you'll have to create a lot of lunar or asteroidal infrastructure/communication to start with. A moon base with extensive industrial installations, the logistics of supporting it, processing etc, just for the reason of building a Bernal Sphere probably won't save you a lot of cash.
It will also cost quite a few bucks. But its will only be so for the initial investment. As the factories will be fully automated with only some technicians. As soon as the factory robots start working and the moon or asteroid resources start poring in you can build the Bernel Spheres by the dozens at no cost. As you will be using solar energy, build spare parts with the resources that you gather. You wouldn't launch the whole facotry into space but the only whats really needed and when the basic factory is running the first things that you build are its expansions and more robots. The only costs would the salary for the technicians.
You could also do this on Earth however you have deal with launching such big parts into space from Earth. And on Earth you have problems with pollution, taxes, energy, resources which will all cost you dearly. The moon and asteroids are from nobody so you don't have any of these "burdens".
Also it takes less effort to move and assemble big parts in space.
If you don't believe me, then just look at modern car factories. You pore steel and plastic at one end and at the other end a car comes out.
#320 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations » 2004-06-11 23:46:18
I guess that you don't see any manfucturing at the ISS and before it the MIR because they were not designed to do so. You could consider them prototypes of possible bigger and better space stations. You need to test you theories on space station building before you start building one of those massive (Babylon 5) ones. And that is common sence.
Also the ISS was not build with making money out of it. It has a pure sciencetifcally and engineering value.
Personally when I see pictures of the Earth taken from space I would love to see it myself and feel it. And also the experience of weightlessness. I think if you don't admire the beaty of the Earth you will not admire anything from the universe. Like all those hubble pictures they are just gorgeous and I want to see them in real life.
Its possible that launching a smaller and updated sattelite is cheaper then fixing the old one. However if a certain company doesn't want to fix his sattelite and its just drifting in space. Then you could also just recycle it and spare the new sattelites of some possible collisions with space junk and at the same time get some valueable materials. (Actual plan from the space island group)
I agree building those O'Neill, Bernal or Stanfort spacestations are massivly expensive especially if build on Earth. However if using non earth materials you can save a lot of money.
You still asking me why. Then look at http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Mars.html]this article.
#321 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations » 2004-06-11 21:34:05
As you can see from http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/program … .html]this website (Space Island Group) there are several reasons for space stations. Also read the post "The case not for Mars" where the first post contains a link to an article where the author states the needs of spacestations.
Any way here is the list of uses for earth orbiting spacestations from the space island group:
Space Tourism
Research
Manufacturing
Orbit Services
Training
Entertainment
Education
Product Development
Mars
Lunar
Media Services
See space island site for their details.
I know living in a spacestation is not like living on Earth however its easier to go from a spacestation to Earth for a holiday then from Mars. And a lot of urban people have never seen any other animal then a cat or a dog anyway. Thats the reason why they send city kids to a petting zoo. So technically a lot of people will not loose a lot but gain much if the space stations looks anything like http://www.l5news.org/stanfordtorus.htm]The Stanford Torus or http://www.l5news.org/bernalsphere.htm]The Bernal Sphere and ONeill]http://www.l5news.org/oneillcylinder.htm]O'Neill Cylinder
#322 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Moral Communities to Mars - Send "Civil Body Politics" to Mars » 2004-06-11 00:15:29
Why would anyone give up green forests and wild rivers, the ocean, the wind, a mid-winter storm.
A lot of urban people have never seen such things in real life, except for maybe on TV.
However what you loose in Earth natural views you gain in seeing a pink sky, dessert like planet, biggest mountains of the solar system, deepest canyons and more.
Living in a dome doesn't mean you can't suit up, take a rover and do some sight seeing. Or use a pressurized rover if you will.
#323 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Feeding everyone - ...future of other worlds (and this one) » 2004-06-10 05:32:44
It depends on your personal tastes and the person making it. You got a lot of alcoholic drinks that are use different stuff then beer and they taste good.
For instance sake is made from whine. My mother used to make a drink as strong as whiskey from potatoe peelings. And people loved it and paid much for it. Or there was this story of a french prisoner that made alcoholic drinks in his cell by keeping fruits in his drawer. Prison officials who caught him and tasted it said it was not bad at all.
#324 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Feeding everyone - ...future of other worlds (and this one) » 2004-06-10 03:36:10
I'm just not sure if you can brew 'corn beer' but if so, that would be good, too;
You can make alcohol from pretty much anything that rots. Just add some sugar and yeast.
#325 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Magnetospheric Propulsion - novel use for plasma under development » 2004-06-09 22:33:19
Let me get this straight these things are able to absorb photons or refeclect them right?
If so why no reflect those photons and aim them to heat up something and that will then drive a turbine?