Take That, Mars Society

j05h · Dec 7, 2006

> There is a BRIGHT spot on 1 Ceres, just north of the equator, possibly an impact crater, maybe though unlikely a cryovolcano, but I too, like alokmohan was unaware of a WARM spot??? Warm, bright, what's the difference? (joke) I actually thought the Hubble image was in near-infrared, so it would have been both. Anyway, Ceres is fascinating, the idea of a water-rich world-let with extremely low gravity is compelling from both commercial and exploration viewpoints. josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

halman · Dec 7, 2006

spacefire, It seems to me that both Mars and the Moon have need of the same significant technology: Getting mass off of Earth and into orbit. Building large rockets seems to be a challenging proposition, and very expensive. And, yes, I have seen proposals for sending a mission to Mars without having to use big rockets. I certainly am looking forward to when we can send people to Mars, so that all of these Mars First! folks will be go away. Then we can get down to the serious business of developing the Solar System, without any romantic or soft hearted drivel confusing the masses who are going to be paying for all of this. Resources will have to be extracted, and the Moon provides a large supply of silicon, aluminum, and oxygen. These resources can be launched from the Moon using a magnetic launcher powered by stored sunlight. The resources will be used by factories in orbit, to manufacture things that can not be made on Earth. This will be the beginning of the exodus of heavy industry from Earth, because heavy industry uses lots of energy, needs lots of stuff that has to be be dug out of the ground and purified, and is very messy. The time will come when it will be cheaper to do it off planet than it will be to figure out how to do it on Earth without causing a lot of environmental damage, or using up a lot of energy. The Berkley Pit in Montana, acid rain, abandoned factories in the Rust Belt, these are the legacy of the infancy of our technology. Protecting the only place that our children can walk unprotected under the open sky is what off planet development will bring, while at the same time making it possible for people to live just about anywhere in the Solar System, not just Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mako71 · Dec 7, 2006

halman, I agree with you largely, but here I need to disagree: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> halman: [About the exodus of heavy Earth industry] The time will come when it will be cheaper to do it off planet than it will be to figure out how to do it on Earth without causing a lot of environmental damage, or using up a lot of energy. <hr /></blockquote> I really can't see this happening. There should be quite unbelievable inventions before we can bring big constructions (like bridges, houses and such) from space directly "on-spot", without needing on-Earth heavy machinery (e.g. bulldozers, cranes), which means that there should be factories to make those heavy machines. So, I don't think that heavy industry is leaving Earth for a long time, although it is messy. Better canditate is "light industry" like IC / electronics, but I think that neither that is moving to space in mid term. EDIT: Again, if I'm deadly wrong, I'm very happy to be deadly wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

docm · Dec 7, 2006

Don't re-invent the wheel - adapt something that already exists to new uses. Work/construction equipment can be created for the moon/Mars, it just has to be done intelligently; instead of making a rover, a bulldozer, a crane and a digger just make one general purpose machine with job specific attachments. Result - a mix of "Space Bobcat" & "Space Jeep" with manipulator arms (see submersibles) for tool/sample manipulation. Power: hot swappable rechargeable battery packs. The real Bobcat has three important concepts that need to be retained; 1. K.I.S.S. (IMO a good first precept for most things) 2. small/light 3. front/back tool hard-points Done correctly you could have a prototype in months, especially if one closely examined the attachments used on Earth-bound Bobcats. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mako71 · Dec 7, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> docm: Work/construction equipment can be created for the moon, it just has to be done intelligently; instead of making a rover, a bulldozer, a crane and a digger just make one general purpose machine with job specific attachments. Result - a mix of "Space Bobcat" & "Space Jeep" with manipulator arms (see submersibles) for tool/sample manipulation. <hr /></blockquote> I've been thinking somewhat similar approach when skething my PCR robot (especially when thought that a-little-bit-light-headed LEGO-prototype

. Taking multiple multipurpose vehicles, with modular tools and you can change the purpose of one with the help of others. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

docm · Dec 7, 2006

And housing is a perfect fit for something like the old Army tin bunkers but space adapted with an (inflatable?) internal pressure chamber. Because these bunkers are built up from sheets fab & transport is an easy matter. I built several as a kid on the farm for use as tool sheds & equipment barns. They're still very popular. Weight? Plastic, carbon fiber...whatever. Doesn't have to be metal. Use the "Bobcats" to cover 'em with regolith and you have radiation & some degree of meteoroid protection. Their arched profile provides the strength. Again; don't re-invent the wheel - adapt it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mako71 · Dec 7, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> docm: Weight? Plastic, carbon fiber...whatever. Doesn't have to be metal. <hr /></blockquote> Using elements not present on body (i.e. carbon or hydrogen [plastic, carbon fibers] on Moon) would give lots of problems for repairing devices, but only in the long run. At first, the devices need not be repairable "on-site" (there's no one processing the materials needed for building spare parts, such there's no need / possibilites for repairing). In a long run on Moon, I'd vote aluminum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

docm · Dec 7, 2006

Repairs shouldn't be a problem. Carbon fiber repair patches already exist (some UV cured/hardened; plenty of that on the moon) and many/most are peel 'n stick. Some are so strong they are used to reinforce cracked steel & concrete beams and oil/gas pipelines. Dunno if the current solvents/adhesives would work in a vacuum, but that's a short test series & likely fixable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mako71 · Dec 7, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> docm: But small to moderate sized repair patches for plastic and carbon fiber already exist [...] <hr /></blockquote> Yes, but you'd need to bring the patches with you. Yes, hypotethically you could reuse the carbon you brought to body in vehicles, but in practice - and in long run - I'd base the technology to elements abundant on that specific body. This - of course - has nothing to do with the "first wave" machines, where the mass is limiting factor, and which cannot anyways to be build to mine, refine and machinery the soil of that distant body (EDIT: ...to their spare parts). That (EDIT: self-repairing infrastructure) could be the target of those "first wave" machines. This is why I feel Moon so difficult environment. Lack of carbon and hydrogen would require entirely new chemistry... Lots of researching, lots of experiments. And because both of the elements are important part of many chemical processing (like ilmenite processing with "FeTio3 + H2 - /> Fe + TiO2 + H2O, H2O + electricity -> H2 + O", carbon [and hydrogen] in CO2, lubricants, fibers and other materials), it could take a long time to find suitable ways to overcome their inexistence (in large amounts). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

JonClarke · Dec 7, 2006

Looks like the original post was a classic hit and run tactic. Never mind, it has stimulated some good discussion <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

docm · Dec 7, 2006

You could fit enough patches for years in a suitcase. If you need more than that you'd better re-examine your construction processes. At depths down to 1-2 meters carbon exists at ~ 100-200 ppm. Most processes for extracting lunar O2 should also extract it along with hydrogen. Mining carbon rich asteroids is another source. All the more reason to do that Orion asteroid mission under discussion. Iron can be had at the cost of a magnet because the lunar soil contains a high percentage of free iron (unoxidized) powder. Add a solar smelter and local iron is available. Lots of other local metals as well, much of it aluminum...esp. in the highlands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mako71 · Dec 7, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> docm: At depths down to 1-2 meters carbon exists at ~ 100-200 ppm. <hr /></blockquote> That is very small amount compared to the amouts of iron, aluminum and oxygen. I'm not sure how cost-efficient would be the process of refining those small amounts of carbon. As an example: Finland (where I'm living) is not a world largest diamond producer, although there certainly exist diamonds in the soil in small amounts. To turn Finland to the world's leader diamond producer would be expensive process - but that would be done, if the diamonds would be (a) extremely rare in other parts of the Earth, and (b) would have applications that are so important, that people are willing to pay high prices for those. Althought you're not directly measuring values of things in Moon in money (actually, robot on Moon is living in a communism society ;-), it is still the same thing if measured as an effort. But of course there might be some locations in Moon, which would contain high concentrates of carbon / hydrogen. These places would be extremely interesting for factory location. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> docm: Most processes for extracting lunar O2 should also extract it along with hydrogen. <hr /></blockquote> True, and that makes things harder. Aluminum (AlO3) can be extracted with electrolysis i.e. using "only" solar cells, making it most interesting source of raw materials to my thoughts (in addition to use free iron, possible to be extracted using magnetics). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Mining carbon rich asteroids is another source. All the more reason to do that Orion asteroid mission under discussion. <hr /></blockquote> Carbonaceous asteroids, while containing high levels of carbon, water and organic compounds, may lack some other materials (metals? Silicon?), so they basicall <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

rocketman5000 · Dec 7, 2006

Hmm, I work for the company that owns Bobcat. Maybe I should start making some calls. We make paving equipment too. Maybe we could develop a regolith sinterer..... ah, if only such a thing was feasible....

docm · Dec 7, 2006

C-asteroids are likely very similar to chondrites - a real chemical hodgepodge including metals, sulfates and silicates, organics etc; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />ah, if only such a thing was feasible....<hr /></blockquote> Turn the platform prototyping over to the guys who build hot rods, garden equipment and plug-in electric car mods and you have a big head start. "Normal" engineers are generally too closed minded/set in existing ways for such matters. As in designing a cool car you need passionate maniacs dedicated to "the cause" then lock 'em in a room 'til the prototype is done or blood seeps under the door <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Dec 7, 2006

Mako71, I think that you are confusing construction using heavy equipment and the industries that build the heavy equipment. Girders and truss sections for a bridge are generally made out of steel, as are the booms of the cranes that put the pieces in place. Manufacturing steel is an excellent candidate for being done off planet, as there is a lot of iron on the Moon, and plenty of energy from the Sun. This abundant energy allows for annealing steel products completely, something which is almost never done on Earth, because it can take weeks of holding castings at temperatures of hundreds of degrees. But annealing allows the strongest possible molecular bonds to form, which means the highest quality steel. And what about foaming the steel in the bridge truss pieces and girders? In a microgravity environment, a gas can be injected into liquid steel, causing bubbles to form, which remain in place. This is impossible in a strong gravity field, because the bubbles will rise and burst. By foaming and annealing, it will be possible to manufacture metal items that are lightweight, yet much stronger than any items made on Earth. So it is likely that not only will planetary steel manufacture be pressured by energy costs and environmental concerns, but also by the inability to compete with the quality of the products made off planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

halman · Dec 7, 2006

docm, We really are guessing about what is available on the Moon until we get there and do some prospecting, like setting off explosives and monitoring the transmittal of energy with a network of seismographs, drilling core samples in the Maria several kilometers down, tunneling into a cliff face a few hundred meters. The lunar surface is exposed to such extreme conditions that the chemistry of anything lying on the surface is probably going to be quite different from what we will find a few meters down. And the lack of some element may be compensated for by an abundance of another that is very rare on Earth, making it possible to buy what we need with dirt. But, like I said, we are just guessing until we get there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

josh_simonson · Dec 7, 2006

Construction isn't the type of activity that could be moved offworld, but the processing of raw materials could be. Huge amounts of energy are used to produce raw aluminum and titanium for instance, and it's required in huge quantities. Compared to those industries, the electronics industry has a negligible environmental footprint. The only part of this industry that might be spaceable would be the production of wafer stock because the current 300mm diameter crystals are around the maximum weight that can be hung from a seed crystal. They could be 6x heavier on the moon. The first things to export should be ones that can be done better in space, such as crystal growth, or industries that are extremely harmful to the environment, either in mining pollution, or energy use.

mako71 · Dec 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> halman: I think that you are confusing construction using heavy equipment and the industries that build the heavy equipment.<hr /></blockquote> Oops, yes, I was advancing far to far in my head when writing that (heavy industry to space - /> heavy structure building to space) and not concentrating to the issue itself. But anyway, the year 2006 steel production is approximately 1,204 million tonnes according to this. Most of that steel goes to applications which quality requirements are not very high. For me it is personally very hard to imagine that we could drop that amount of steel from sky more cost-effectively than producing it "on-site". Interesting (?) calculations: iron weights 7874 kg/m3 -- /> volume of 1,204 million tonnes is 152,995,469 m3, that is, a cube with edge of approx. 534 meters. Or if dropped in 10x10x10 meter (1000 m3) blocks, you would need to drop 152,995 blocks. Steel production is just a part of other metal production, and metal production is only a part of the overall heavy industries, like concrete (and other chemical production), plastics and such. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> halman: Manufacturing steel is an excellent candidate for being done off planet, as there is a lot of iron on the Moon, and plenty of energy from the Sun.<hr /></blockquote> This is true, but I still have difficulties to imagine 1 billion tonnes of raw steel raising from Moon and dropping to Earth. Or about the same amount of concrete dropping from skies. But as said, if I'm deadly wrong, I'm happy to be deadly wrong. --- About foamed metals and similar Cheaper/Only-In-Space products; yes, they cannot be produced with same process on Earth. Two questions arise immediately in my head; (1) what are the applications f <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

mako71 · Dec 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> josh_simmons: The first things to export should be ones that can be done better in space, such as crystal growth, or industries that are extremely harmful to the environment, either in mining pollution, or energy use. <hr /></blockquote> I agree with you that moving these to space would be very interesting and studying how to do it definitely makes sense. But I think that the first things to export should be the ones making profit in space, no matter whatever they would be. Getting the infrastructure there could allow some other things to follow - usually, the first step is the hardest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

JonClarke · Dec 8, 2006

Hmm, I work for the company that owns Bobcat. Maybe I should start making some calls. We make paving equipment too. Maybe we could develop a regolith sinterer..... What sort of R&D is possible for your company? Automatic and teleoperated bodcats and similar machinery, water extraction plants, and soil sintering technology could be tested using analogue materials at various field locations for relatively small investments and yield useful results. NASA has offered a number of grants to fund such work, and it might also be tax deducatable as well, as there are terrestrial applications. It's the sort of work that the Mars Society would be interested in and could be easily tested at the MDRS or Arkaroola. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Take That, Mars Society

j05h

Guest

halman

Guest

mako71

Guest

docm

Guest

mako71

Guest

docm

Guest

mako71

Guest

docm

Guest

mako71

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

docm

Guest

mako71

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

docm

Guest

halman

Guest

halman

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

mako71

Guest

mako71

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page