New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.
  1. Index
  2. » Search
  3. » Posts by Rxke

#3626 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Using the shuttle's external tanks as spacecraft » 2003-11-23 06:13:09

Looks like Space Island Group has updated their plans...

The 'new' shutlle they envisionaged(sp?) seems on the way out, instead they are thinking about using a Delta Clipper kind of reusable vehicule. Their plans are BIG, but something like this is exactly what Mars Direct could use: a Heavy launcher system, capable of launching really big modules...
Dual ET-Launcher
When (or if... Their plans are not small-scale...) they get into the business of launching these things, costs of development are bound to plummet, and the future'll be wide open...
Ahhhh.... Dreams....

#3627 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 15:30:42

Hey... that last link... about the memorychips... Nano-lab.com makes stuff like that, you can buy it for experimenting, there's a guy on Spacedailyboard trying to get a new kind of 'solar'cells (not neccessary solar power) out of that... using massive arrays of nanodiodes on a macro scale... That's the link,

he experimented with an array of limited connections on macroscale wich seemed to work under labconditions and now he's looking if it scales up to a usful powerlevel. He patented the idea, but now it's 'open source' so to say.

#3628 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 15:10:15

big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  Noooo! stoppit! you're posting links faster than i can absorb, poor me! (yea, i end up reading them all)

Appreciate it, though!


(Hey, one of those links i read before, on another place, it's a small world... pun intended)

#3629 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 14:58:42

Nope, again :;):  turns out there's been so much publicized about it, it's the nano needle in the macro haystack...

'bout the health effects... Had a course called toxicology last year, asked the (damn... watchacallit in english...) Anyway, he's a doctor, does a lot of reading up on the subject, and there's a lot of confusion about the whole subject. There's nano and nano. Asbestos fibre being in fact Macro... some nano'd go 'right through' you, or get errr... absorbed by your system harmlessly through simple (what's in a name in biology) osmotic reactions of your cells...without causing much damage, unles it coalesces into bigger 'clumps,' wich go macro, in fact, it all depends how big the particles are...

(boy doesn't seem to make much sense, trying to translate from dutch a short discussion i had a year ago with a 'crazy' professor, i bet i got half of it wrong too...) Anyway if i remember correctly, most of these nanothingies get produced and applied in a soluble form, so there'd be minimal risk of huge 'dust' clouds entering your lungs. Sure enough, you wouldn''t want to go swimming in the stuff...

(edit) damn, i remember, the could pose a treath to health: some of these particles are possibly reactive, they can bond with other particles, like lead and so on, posing a threath for buildup of contamination or worse interference with antibodies (not sure if that's possible w pure carbon nanostuff)... But he was mainly talking about buckies and tubes w/o external free bonding places, so inert stuff...

#3630 Re: Terraformation » When should we terraform » 2003-11-16 14:40:01

For me personally, it's not to flee Earth's ills, that'd be stupid escapism, to begin with, and not very democratic (only the 'rich' will get there.)

I see Mars settlement as an inescapable fact for the future; of course, there's a difference between an outpost and real settlement (that'll take really long, i think... )
But once there are people walking around there, Terraforming WILL start soon after, wether we like it or not... be it unintentional (contamination) or intentional (with or without major consensus) Mars is fit for life, even if just barely, and life is hardy, so contamination or terraformation is inevitable in the long run (again, that's my opinion)

You could consider me a Red when i use the term Terraformation when i 'only' mean the introduction of some puny, barely reproducing bacteria, but Mars won't be pristine for long, thus i call it terraforming... (struggling w English here)

About curing the ills on Earth: both are not mutually exclusive, for instance research into cheap, simple to construct greenhouses could be used here, same with recycling, materials, engineering, making exhausted land life-bearing again out of 'dead' soil (Sahel) etc.

I think it would actually help a lot of problems getting solved here on our battered, wounded beautiful blue Globe.

As the punkband Dead Kennedys once stated: 'It's the only world we've got- let's protect it while we can- it's all there is- and there ain't no more.'

and no fancy Terraforming plans will change that fact, ever.

Killing our Earth is not an option.

#3631 Re: Mars Society International » Projects - projects we can do now to get to Mars » 2003-11-16 13:00:36

Has there been any following-up on this tethering idea? When the Russians start launching paying customers again, and one of them is a Mark Shuttleworth(sp?) kind of guy, it should be possible to negociate with them to implement the idea. Shuttleworth insisted to do some sciencework himself, and he got away with it. Experiments could be 'simple' (read:small package) like embryonic bonegrowth (not human)... An 'eyes-closed' coordination test, a fruitflies-in-a-box flight pattern recording... Spiderweb building... Fluid mixing behaviour, osmotic behaviour... Of course, it all depends on how long they'd be prepared to operate in tethered mode...

#3632 Re: Terraformation » When should we terraform » 2003-11-16 11:31:27

Cheer up, Wim, You're 4 years younger than me, and i firmly believe i'll see the first steps to terraforming in my lifetime, (and i'm a smoker! )


BTW you got some auto-update-avatar-script running or something? Everytime i see a post of you, it's different... smile

#3633 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 09:59:39

No, the one i'm looking for is elusive, if i try to google it, i get gazillion matches... sigh...

The Space elevator is in my 'favourites' book, another amazing project... But it's not using nano-machines, 'only' nanotubes for it's cable.

I'll never find that article back, i'm afraid, found it 'by accident' while looking around tech pages, forgot to bookmark it.

#3634 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 05:48:37

We're going off-topic but anyhow...
I guess NASA gets most of the attention because of their huge budget, compared to the other organisations...
ESA clearly does not have the money, for the forseeable future, but their cooperation with Russia (Russian hardware on Frenc Guiyana) is interesing, to say the least. China has just started etc... Japan looks kinda cash strapped too...
X-Prize is interesting for subborbital, Rutan's SSO going through it's paces nicely, and Armadillo looks to be doing fine too (this *just* popped up in my subscription- another X-Prize contender...)

But there are other private entrepeneurs building rockets going orbital, so, that could prove interesting in the long run. (Hey, one of them is even selling sattelitelaunches on eBay, as we speak!)


To get on-topic again: X-Prize contender Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites could get its hands on some interesting new composites in the near future, there are now composites being made (small scale production) that use nanotubes. They look very promising, people calling it a great breakthrough, comparable with the introduction of glass-fiber in composites. The stuff is lightweight, stress and pressure characteristics are spectacular, and it seems very tolerant to high temperatures, there's even talk to use it in rocket engines... (I'll try to find the link)
Imagine Burt getting his hands on this stuff... cool

#3635 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 05:02:36

Same feeling here, Wim...

Read the MDRS stuff too, he got flamed for no reason, in my opinion, they worked hard, and relaxed 'hard.' Nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't wreck things. I had my questions sometimes, like the racing stuff, what if someone gets really badly hurt etc... but still, Chuck Yeager and a lot of the first astronauts were a wild bunch, too... As long as you know when to party and when to get serious...
MDRS is very valuable to get to know in advance exactly the problems Adrian mentioned.
(BTW why only 2 weeks 'missions' ? By the time they get their bearings, they must start preparing to pack again. Probably a lack of money, but 4 weeks or longer seem to make more sense...)

About the "wait 'till the technology matures and gets cheaper" kind of reasoning... You're too right. Also, if everybody waits, it won't mature, or are there some magical creatures working for us when we sleep, doing the basic stuff?
Everybody that says something like that should get retired. I mean it. I'd say to them if you don't have a vision, you don't belong in science/engineering. Take a walk to the nearest pond and go fishing, but don't interfere with the hardworking people that actually DO something. You're burning up taxpayer money if you stay.
Sounds harsh, I know, but i have too much respect for people that still have a goal in their life to be apologetic towards the 'settled' ones. I still have a lot of respect for certain NASA and JPL people that make things possible, in spite of the hugely inefficient workings (what's in a name?) of the Dinosaur.

(ok, end of rant)

#3636 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-16 04:32:31

Yes, and it's true ethanol is a valuable product in labs: low toxicity(sp?) good solvent for a lot of stuff... easily mixed with water to get stronger or weaker concentrations... good fuel etc. (forgot one: disinfectant!)

Use it every day at college. (not in the canteen, no...) couldn't imagine life without it. a lot of stuf reacts too 'much' in aqueous environment, ethanol is a life-saver for cleaning and degreasing metals, 'dry-cleaning' organic based stuff (paper, textiles) microscope preparations..

#3637 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-16 03:22:33

Hmmm... Found something disturbing... On the Foresight page.

Eric Drexler, the 'God' of nanomanufacturing, wrote a paper called: The Case Against Mars in 1984...

I think this is, sadly, the way a lot of scientists react: they're afraid to lose *their* funding if *another* Big Project? gets the limelight. Sigh.

#3638 Re: Terraformation » When should we terraform » 2003-11-16 02:57:14

the nano discussion is off-topic insofar that there's a dedicated thread going on somewhere else in this forum, but i just wanted to point out the future reality, and its consequences on theorizing... especially for big-scale engineering projects (Terraforming, in this case) nanomanufacturing will be very important and can not be overlooked...

(browse,browse... it's under 'Science and Technology', thread named 'question, nanotechnology' )

#3639 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-15 14:56:39

big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  You mean: don't tell the Russians?

Seriously, that'll be exactly the reason why this technology will be vetoed down by some idiot behind a desk... no way they'll trust the hardworking crews with a 'still in their living quarters...

#3640 Re: Terraformation » When should we terraform » 2003-11-15 14:37:45

Mind if I kick up some dust, (or fines, since we're talking about Mars...)

When there will be a permanent settlement on Mars (when...) i think it's inevitable 'someone' will start terraforming w/o others vote... because it'll be ridiculously easy to do it, by that time.

Let's say this permanent base is established by 2040, roughly speaking. One of the terraforming techniques is synthesizing regolith and atmosphere into greenhouse gases. With today's tech, that'd be slow and expensive, so you'd need cooperation, thus general agreement to do that.

But... by that time we'll *definitely* have nanofactories, capable of growing an unlimited amount of these things, for very little or no cost. Set one up, program it, and let it do its multiplying job. Be sure someone WILL.

No, this is NOT science fiction... As this white paper shows the technology to build these processors is a measly 10-15 years away... To read the full paper, go to the 'ideas and publications' section, then 'published papers' the full title is: "Design study of a primitive nanofactory". Warning: 84 pages of tech-talk...

#3641 Re: Terraformation » Nozomi might contaminate Mars - since it was not sterilized » 2003-11-15 13:03:51

Martian citizens, after reading this, collecively heave a huge sigh of relief...  :laugh:

#3642 Re: Human missions » china - manned spaceflight » 2003-11-15 12:28:18

No mea culpas, please!
I know from experience i sometimes sound a bit confrontational, but that's just because my english is not that good, so i write a bit 'compressed'

Those vodka labels give a wrong idea of the situation, people always count them double...:D

BTW 'made in Russia' stuff is, at least in europe, sought after by the people that are looking beyond the lenght of their noses (is that a correct saying, i doubt it...) Especially anything with lenses: camera's, binoculars, telescopes, the stuff...) also the former DDR stuff, it's all built like a tank, looks like really low tech, but it works so good it's amazing... Most of their 'consumer stuff' was merely military grade with a different paintjob... Prices have soared, but 10 years ago you could score 300mm camera lenses that were really good for 125-ish dollars, if you could find them that is...

#3643 Re: Human missions » china - manned spaceflight » 2003-11-15 11:47:30

There's a huge difference 'tween China and former USSR. USSR collapsed, and almost overnight changed to capitalism, for wich they were not ready at all... China is slowly adapting, in fct they have a lot of economical ties with Europe etc, that they didn't have only 10 years ago...

Also consider the 'made in china' stuff, it less pronounced now, but you'd be surprized how much stuff you use that's been manufactured there, and i'm not talking about low tech stuff, a LOT of high end computer-cases, for instance are made in China, their plants are relatively up-to-date. You never saw a lot of "made in Russia" stuff, did you?

... Back to their hardware...

I repeat myself when i say i don't understand why everybody dismisses their achievment as being 40yrs+ behind the other spacefaring countries...

Some points:
-"it's basically a copy of Soyuz" ...WRONG! It's true they got a lot of info from the Russians, but it is NOT a copy, it's a really sophisticated capsule, and if it looks like a copy, that's because of the fact that Soyuz is a very sound design (look up the "pre-Apollo" (beta-versions?) designs, they look like a Soyuz, too, hmmm)

-Consider this: Shendzou is the most modern manned craft in use today! Yes, you read that right... Soyuz: 50's tech with some upgrades... Shuttle: 70's... Shendzou: 90's!

-It's a versatile design: launch two, let them dock, leave the servicemodules in orbit, hey presto, a small spacestation for the cost of two cheap launches. Add modules as much as you like...
-Abundant power: two sets of solar panels, so the abovementioned minilab will not need extra panels, launched separately. Again a very flexible design.

-docking system is compatible with Soyuz, thus ISS. lifeboat in emergency situation anyone?

My question: if they launch the next craft... leave service behind...(with experiments) three months later, they launch again, dock with the orbiting hardware, stay there some weeks, bring back their experiments...

Then, how far 'behind' would they be? (Also considering the low cost of such an operation, compared with a Shuttle launch)

#3644 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-15 11:16:55

Also agree with Enyo... (pessimism)

"... environment not similar to Mars... Spacesuits will be vastly different, ... Lunar ISRU will be meaningless to applications on Mars... No one will make a close loop life support system for a place three days away... doesn't make economical sense... costs will get out of hand the useful gains will be low "

Only good way to go to the moon is Zubrin's proposal: go to the moon with a subset, that's built for MARS. NASA would end up with 'overkill' hardware, so it would be a waste NOT to go. Of coure, there'll be beancounters along the way, leading to the launch of substandard stuff, leaky life support...

If they say "we'll go to the moon, and later to mars, when we have the experience," then the party's over i guess.

I'd love to hear "We're going to Mars, and on our way (building stuff; that is), we'll pay a visit to the moon... if anyone is interested in our hardware, it''s for hire, feel free to expand on it" Of course that'll never happen(?)

#3645 Re: Unmanned probes » Mars Odyssey THEMIS true color pics - ...almost » 2003-11-15 07:19:45

spaceref

Nice pictures, amazing what can be done with a bit of coordination...

#3646 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » question - nanotechnology » 2003-11-15 04:10:53

"the machine... only a crude form... i was looking way ahead..."

Heh, MY mind staggers at the possibitlities this crude device would come up with... I guess i've got no imagination tongue

BTW that foresight site is a real treasure-trove of info... Damn, a lot of sleepless nights ahead... again. (Love it.)

#3647 Re: Life support systems » Mars regolith analog » 2003-11-15 03:48:51

One other thing I need to ask of the experts who frequent this arena.

How do you measure the quantity of light?  Do you break it down by spectrum/wavelength?  Intensity?  Some combination of the two?  The one reference (Plant growth chamber handbook) I have says "use your calibrated light meter" but what is it calibrated to?   Anybody know?

Cyclohm, there are devices on the market, mainly for use in musea, that measure relative humidity, temp, lightlevel (ambient and direct) (in visible/UV) in one handy enclosure Some of these have serial ports, so you can download/monitor their outputs. I've worked with some of them, and they're lightweight and very precise... They are pre-calibrated, and you can let them re-calibrate by service personnel... Stupid of me (or my fried harddisk), but i can't find the specs, not even the manufacturer, but there are several on the market... maybe you could ask your local museum?

I'm afraid these thingies are quite expensive, though, being 'reference' measurin devices...

All the luck with your project!

#3648 Re: Unmanned probes » ESA Mars sample return mission » 2003-11-14 08:14:54

SpaceDaily article

it would be followed 2 yrs later for a 'pick-up-the-sample' mission, so it'll take a while before we get our hands on it...

#3649 Re: Terraformation » Nozomi might contaminate Mars - since it was not sterilized » 2003-11-14 08:04:48

Spacedaily is a bit slow to load sometimes... (Australia)
I tried it myself to doublecheck, and it seems to load now, i'm in europe, so maybe that doesn't say a thing for connection of routers to your place...

(don't you just *hate* it when slow pages load, it's always the ads that load first? If it was not for the fact that i like that site so much, i'd be quite angry, sometimes)

I read the Nozomi thread, but i thought, because of the potential environmental impact (no pun intended) it was ok to put up here...

#3650 Re: Water on Mars » Lakes on Mars today?! - What could they be? » 2003-11-14 05:56:49

Rex might be onto something. According to University of Arkansas Scientists, their experiments in a Mars-atmosphere room show it is quite possible to have pools of liquid water on Mars. smile

  1. Index
  2. » Search
  3. » Posts by Rxke

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB