Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

smurf975 · 2004-06-16 13:14:58

this just in..... robotic insects take over space. :;):

Your making fun of us. Thats ok, but please skim through the reports mentioned and you will see that all your arguments have been thought off.

If it is so simple I am going to build a CNC machine shop in the middle of the Sihara Desert and use beam bots as my work force.

No one ever said to use BEAM bots but to use the same logic that beam bots use. Thats different.

BTW. I mean putting the right tool bit on the CNC machine. One machine could use a hundred different tool bits. I guess the CNC machine could select the bits from a compartment of the machine and perhaps tighten them independently.

So you think that there would be a whole plant on the moon with just one machine thats able to do everything?

Why would a machine need to use 100's of different tools? You have specialized machines. One that screws bolts, the other welds and yet another that glues. One robots one task. Like in an assembly line be it human or robot.

smurf975 · 2004-06-16 13:26:21

But you make it sound that the robots will work in the wilderness and I'm trying to build a robot nation. Which is not true.
If they can't work outside how are they going to build new factories? For growth the new factories obviously have to be outside.

You have specialized robots. Those that build, resource gatherers, miners, scouts and many more.

The scouts would be like the Mars rovers.

Well anyway using sattelite and scout information a new site will be selected for a new plant by humans (remember not a robot nation).

The bulldozers are given a path of least resistance (by sattelite information) to the new site and on the way they build a road. They equalize the terrain of the new site and then move on or go back to their HQ.

Now the terrain that other robots will work on is not a wilderness anymore. There are roads (with beacons) going from and to the new site and the site is cleared of any obstacles.

I assume you want more details but they are explained in the reports.

Rxke · 2004-06-16 14:05:31

. If it is so simple I am going to build a CNC machine shop in the middle of the Sihara Desert and use beam bots as my work force.
BTW. I guess the CNC machine could select the bits from a compartment of the machine and perhaps tighten them independently.

Of course it's not *that* simple, but the C.N.C. and BEAM stuff are 2 parts of a bigger puzzle.

And... cq the 'BTW' : Exactly. There are lathes that change their ceramic errr.. chisels (beitels in Dutch) automatically, i guess some can even 'sense' when the bits wear out (pretty simple to do i guess: resistance gets bigger, so you monitor your motors or you just check it optically)

John Creighton · 2004-06-16 14:15:25

Of course it's not *that* simple, but the C.N.C. and BEAM stuff are 2 parts of a bigger puzzle.
And... cq the 'BTW' : Exactly. There are lathes that change their ceramic errr.. chisels (beitels in Dutch) automatically, i guess some can even 'sense' when the bits wear out (pretty simple to do i guess: resistance gets bigger, so you monitor your motors or you just check it optically)

Cool

Rxke · 2004-06-16 23:41:57

Smurf975, you read the new report? What do you think of it?

I think it's fascinating. The points needing more attention are pretty small-scale to work them out, distribute it over some mayoring thesis, and this could go fast.

I'll readily admit I'm a bit of a nano-fanboy, but all this can be done in the macro-scale, with the added benefit it helps the 'programming' foundations needed for (eventual) nano-implementation.

Oh, in the other thread i said something about they might be cheating with implementing FPGA's, but considering the building blocks will eventually form FPGA's themselves (in essence, but they're more than that...) i take that back!

The main challenge, IMO still stands: building the blocks themselves, using similar blocks... But you can start with just shipping a bunch of 'loose' (ie non-programmed) blocks, then let them build structure 'A' (from an 'erector-set, sent up in pieces, packed very efficiently, compared to finished hardware)
First task would be to build some kind of simple powerstation i'd think, because w/o power...
Then disassemble or reconfigure the 'blocky' structure again, to build 'B' etc...
Some kind of Macrogoo, flexible, fault tolerant (50% can be lost, damaged, but the stuff will still be functional! (Allbeit slower in execution...)

(*offtopic: Smurf, when i was a kid, i met your 'spiritual father,' Peyo! My uncle knew him (he's an illustrator from the same generation) and i was totally starstruck to meet the creator of the Smurfen... )

smurf975 · 2004-06-17 03:36:15

(well, i guess you could build a small one, anyway. I'm nitpicking, kinda, i just wanted to point out it doesn't all have to be 21st C hitech. We've been building robots since the 60's. )

Yes I agree a 1970’s era computer can control a lot of the machines and even more machines can get by with just logic that’s made out of transistors and diodes (electronic punch cards).

But I just wanted to point out that its possible. It’s not the technology stopping you but the ideas on how to implement it in space.

Soooo... Any mentioning of all this in the new space-initiative? It looks feasible, and tremendeously promising, so they'd be stupid to let the new General Dynamics report gather dust...

Yeah that’s sad, because if you have a plant like this working (even on the moon) you can have 100 space-initiatives every 6 months. But personally I think the first report was more like I imagine it. Scientists IMHO like to dabble of with building extreme stuff if given the chance.

General Dynamics report also somewhere mentions the original report and said it was greeted with great enthusiasm. But died slowly for no real reason.

The knowledge gained from actually building something like this would be already be worth the investment and then the gain from having it spit out anything you feed it would be enormous.

But then they did continue with a Shuttle program for years. I think its hard move NASA in another direction, because of all the politicians wanting their say in what happens. :angry:

---

From the General Dynamics report:

Self-assembly does not use von Neumann’s “Genotype + Ribotype = Phenotype” paradigm,
which he proposed even before Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA. In other
words, unlike in self-replication, with self-assembly you can’t just change the instructions, keep
the same machines and input parts, and get a predictable output, much less a desired one.

I thought: “heh?”, when I read the first pages. But after reading this point I guess I was thinking correct. What they are saying is that they want nano machines to basically create anything from known blocks. And just keep them running until something useful comes out of it.

I want the self replications were you feed in known and tested designs that can be build with the parts (blocks) that you have or are able to make. And you can change those designs at anytime.

So I say no to Self Assembly but yes to Self Replication Systems (SRS) that follow the “Genotype + Ribotype = Phenotype” paradigm

I’m now at the end of chapter three and I think they are losing it. They started well with modular robots but then started talking about smart matter and programmable matter. Which I think is nice but out of scope. Its like if I would start talking about a mission to Mars and at the second paragraph I start talking about faster then light travel, which is sweet but not needed.

Well chapter 3.10 explains what they are thinking which is good and as I posted. You can’t build nano machines by hand and if you want a lot of nano-machines you will some automated process.

In general the report has a lot of information but they forget to look at what is already happening now. Now if you build a car, most parts (engine, tires, transmission, lights, radio and etc.) will work in any other model or brand. So there already exists a modular parts way of building and it is applied. And you can cut for example the transmission into even smaller parts, which I guess is also already happening. You got the nuts and bolts, wiring, gears and many other parts that make up a transmission that can be build by a third party and be build into many different types of transmissions or other devices. So at macro scale nothing new and already working except for the 100% automated part.

I saw an image of a SRS build using lego blocks. Funny thing I was also thinking of doing that to prove the concept of SRS’s. Build using lego mindstorms a SRS that is able to build it self in parts and also build mobile assembly robots, that then will assemble the parts at a different location.

(*offtopic: Smurf, when i was a kid, i met your 'spiritual father,' Peyo! My uncle knew him (he's an illustrator from the same generation) and i was totally starstruck to meet the creator of the Smurfen... )

Well to be honest there is no real reason behind this name. It’s just that I’m bad at making up names and smurf was the first that came to mind.

MarsDog · 2004-06-17 17:22:00

Keeping it simple;
-
Most useful is being able to produce large, heavy, impossible to transport from Earth items. Some smaller items are more difficult to produce and will have to be supplied from Earth for a long time.
-
Then, as the Martian technological base improves, eventual self sufficiency, and the ability to replicate production lines through the internet. It will be interesting as teams of researchers optimize the use of equipment on Mars.
-
The critical mass is time and technology dependent, quicker to ship or to make ?

smurf975 · 2004-06-17 17:56:35

I think its correct about Mars, Asteroids, mining and stuff.

But you need to confince people why they need to invest trillions of dollars for a Mars colony and terraforming without calling them the stupid mass.

Yes eventually the Mars and other space colonies will be self sustaining and perhaps fancy tech may come from it but before that trillions of dollars need to be invested.

Confince people that there is a need here and now for Mars and space colonies. If you can't do that there will be nothing but scienctific missions or other Apollo projects (get there and forget).

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-16 13:14:58

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#27 2004-06-16 13:26:21

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#28 2004-06-16 14:05:31

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#29 2004-06-16 14:15:25

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#30 2004-06-16 23:41:57

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#31 2004-06-17 03:36:15

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#32 2004-06-17 17:22:00

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

#33 2004-06-17 17:56:35

Re: Critical Mass - Self Sufficient Industry

Board footer