 
     |
| Establish a sustainable presence on the moon... (Page 4/4) |
|
sourmash
|
DEC 14, 07:43 AM
|
|
Like all things we get scammed on, space will be a public/private partnership wherein the companies heading it will use public money to privately enrich themselves. If you can pull down resources that are scarce here it'll be like the Spanish pillaging the Southern Americas for gold.
There was an asteroid covered by media sources recently, suggested to be so valuable it equals or exceeds the value of the Earth while simply being a small body.
The discussion about stealing other national patents and intellectual property also comes down to quality. Like counterfeit currency, liquor or Coach products, the maker has to raise quality to a level that will fool the buyer and historically that's been something that can be determined with careful examination.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
DEC 14, 08:00 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
Don, I have no doubt you are a very intelligent man. Please tell me you know the reason for patents, including intellectual and artistic as well as inventions and less tangible "properties" like software. |
|
Sure I do, but patents run out (expire) and even before that, there's nothing to really stop someone from duplicating a product or item, changing a little bit here and there to make appear different but based on the original idea.
That's the real world and how it has exisited for decades if not centuries.
Henry Ford didn't invent the internal combustion engine automobile.
Karl Benz did, and he patented it. Everyone else just 'borrowed' that idea.
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 14, 08:42 AM
|
|
Ford was prevented from producing an automobile because of patents for a while.
Hollywood was started because the jewish people didn't want to pay Edison's royalties so they ran as far as they could so he couldn't pursue them.
Want a MADE IN USA Les Paul for less than $250?
https://www.dhgate.com/prod...1-0-1;onsh|688539205[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-14-2020).]
|
|
|
|
cvxjet
|
DEC 14, 12:24 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
Seems like it would cost A LOT to me. Just causing asteroids to shower down to Earth would burn them down to nothing, unless the size started out so large it would cause massive damage. And what poisonous gasses will be made and how much doing this type of mining. What Country will the miners need to pay to send the asteroids crashing to? Landing in the Ocean means a retrieval team and that would be expensive.
A safer and more reliable method would be to send the material down in a heat shielded vessel that can aim its way down and land safely/safer.
I don't know what the environmental impact of hundreds or thousands of rockets going to space is, but does anyone know the cost per pound of payload to go to space?
I disagree with you statement about the cost of a factory in space. I can see the cost of running a factory out there being VERY high. The simplest of tasks like just going to the bathroom is a big deal, more or less venting the deadly caustic gasses from a manufacturing process. The safety measures to maintain any personnel out there would be crippling.
|
|
A lot of stuff seems to be way out there in cost, etc....Until we figure out how to do it efficiently....Think about this...>What would you have said if someone told you 50 years ago that the best way to figure your location on the surface of the Earth would be to use satellites? You would have said "That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard!!" Yet now we tale GPS for granted.
Basically, going up into space or to the moon is going UP hill.....coming back down is like riding a skateboard downhill.....with obvious technical differences (Going downhill on a skateboard generally doesn't generate thousands of degrees of heat!) Sending alloys back to Earth can be done easily and safely; A hollow sphere with a radar beacon on it would skim the atmosphere to slow down for re-entry...Landing in the south Pacific....Floating until the tug came and towed it in. Don't know why you would crash an asteroid into the Earth though....
The alloy that I am referring to would be 20-30 x stronger than Titanium- and completely corrosion proof.......The C6 Vette frame in steel weighed around 500 lbs...the Aluminum Z06 one weighed in around 400 lbs.......How about a STRONGER frame that weighed less than 100 lbs? And no painting required! Or an engine block for an LT V8 that weighed 50 lbs and would never wear out? You could conceivably have a 7 L V8 that weighed less than 100 lbs.....Take approx' 300 lbs off a V8 conversion on a Fiero.....If you made the whole Fiero out of this stuff, it would lower the weight by at least 6-800 lbs and be much stronger and no rust ever.
A Boeing 777 weighs approx' 300,000 empty....How about a MUCH stronger (And Safer) plane that weighed 50,000?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 14, 02:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cvxjet:
A lot of stuff seems to be way out there in cost, etc....Until we figure out how to do it efficiently....Think about this...>What would you have said if someone told you 50 years ago that the best way to figure your location on the surface of the Earth would be to use satellites? You would have said "That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard!!" Yet now we tale GPS for granted.
Basically, going up into space or to the moon is going UP hill.....coming back down is like riding a skateboard downhill.....with obvious technical differences (Going downhill on a skateboard generally doesn't generate thousands of degrees of heat!) Sending alloys back to Earth can be done easily and safely; A hollow sphere with a radar beacon on it would skim the atmosphere to slow down for re-entry...Landing in the south Pacific....Floating until the tug came and towed it in. Don't know why you would crash an asteroid into the Earth though....
The alloy that I am referring to would be 20-30 x stronger than Titanium- and completely corrosion proof.......The C6 Vette frame in steel weighed around 500 lbs...the Aluminum Z06 one weighed in around 400 lbs.......How about a STRONGER frame that weighed less than 100 lbs? And no painting required! Or an engine block for an LT V8 that weighed 50 lbs and would never wear out? You could conceivably have a 7 L V8 that weighed less than 100 lbs.....Take approx' 300 lbs off a V8 conversion on a Fiero.....If you made the whole Fiero out of this stuff, it would lower the weight by at least 6-800 lbs and be much stronger and no rust ever.
A Boeing 777 weighs approx' 300,000 empty....How about a MUCH stronger (And Safer) plane that weighed 50,000? |
|
Is that 20 to 30 times stronger than Titanium, or 20 to 30 percent stronger?
I don't know anything about metallurgy but 20 to 30 times stronger, because it's manufactured in low or microgravity? That seems beyond the extraordinary.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-14-2020).]
|
|
|
|
cvxjet
|
DEC 14, 04:35 PM
|
|
There are two important benefits to manufacturing in Zero gravity/vacuum.....Purity of the materials, first, and also the ability to mix different materials and KEEP them mixed well while SLOWLY cooling it.
Think of Italian salad dressing....You MUST shake it up just before pouring it- it won't stay mixed because the different densities of the oil and vinegar cause it to stratify due to gravity.
An Alloy is made up of different metals mixed together......You can make some alloys by quick cooling....but some company did some research and found a number of alloys that could be only made in space- keep it mixed and SLOW cool it....One was 10 times stronger than ANY material made at that time- meaning Carbon fiber....Actually I remember one article referring to single carbon fibers (Not a Matrix)...They also stated that (In theory) they believed they could make an alloy 100 x stronger than a single carbon fiber....
Ah-Ha! I just remembered the company; TRW.....That is why I believed the article....A real company that MAKES metal parts- including engine Pistons.....
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
DEC 14, 05:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cvxjet:
There are two important benefits to manufacturing in Zero gravity/vacuum.....Purity of the materials, first, and also the ability to mix different materials and KEEP them mixed well while SLOWLY cooling it.
Think of Italian salad dressing....You MUST shake it up just before pouring it- it won't stay mixed because the different densities of the oil and vinegar cause it to stratify due to gravity.
An Alloy is made up of different metals mixed together......You can make some alloys by quick cooling....but some company did some research and found a number of alloys that could be only made in space- keep it mixed and SLOW cool it....One was 10 times stronger than ANY material made at that time- meaning Carbon fiber....Actually I remember one article referring to single carbon fibers (Not a Matrix)...They also stated that (In theory) they believed they could make an alloy 100 x stronger than a single carbon fiber....
Ah-Ha! I just remembered the company; TRW.....That is why I believed the article....A real company that MAKES metal parts- including engine Pistons..... |
|
Call me skeptical, 1,000% is a big jump.
Who has smelted these metals and where is research, articles photos and video documentation?[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 12-14-2020).]
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
DEC 14, 06:58 PM
|
|
|
I look forward to seeing proposals to the problems rather than just me being a skeptic. I have honest questions concerns and interests in this stuff. I appreciate the civility in the thread, but so far very few if any answers? [This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 12-14-2020).]
|
|
|
|
cvxjet
|
DEC 14, 07:11 PM
|
|
Rick- I wish I could find the articles I read...But it was a long time ago(Mid 90s). Think of the difference in strength and other properties by Alloys- Stainless steel, light but strong Aluminum alloys- They even have >>Non-flammable<< magnesium alloys! (Where are my magnesium wheels dang-it?) What other kinds of alloys would be possible in Zero G being cooled over a long period of time....By the way, I stated 100 x.....not 1000 x.....
Our space program ground to a halt in 2011 after the shuttle flights stopped...We had a great replacement coming from Lockheed (Venturestar) but an idiot planetary scientist told congress "Why bother with the whole thing if you aren't going to do ALL of the advance technology" and congress, being politicians with no real knowledge, went ahead and killed it...so we had to go, Hat-in-hand, to Russia to get people up to the ISS.
(The original plan had been to develop a number of technological advancements for Venturestar...One was composite CRYOGENIC fuel tanks,,,,a number of engineers at NASA and Lockheed stated up front that it would be next to impossible because the Composite skins would have a Honeycomb-like structure...in testing the tanks failed time and again as the cryo fuel caused ice crystals to form inside the skin, destroying the structure. But Lockheed had a team working on an ALUMINUM tank....not only did it work, but it was actually lighter than the composite tank (The three-lobe shape of the tank needed large joints- although the composites SKIN was lighter than the aluminum, the joints ended up being much heavier. The idiot planetary scientist knew this (Probably didn't fully understand that the main reason for a Composite tank was LIGHTNESS) You can test all kinds of ideas- but if it doesn't work (Fails) then you have to accept that and move on.)
They also had fully developed the Aerospike engine......
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
DEC 14, 08:44 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cvxjet:
Rick- I wish I could find the articles I read...But it was a long time ago(Mid 90s). Think of the difference in strength and other properties by Alloys- Stainless steel, light but strong Aluminum alloys- They even have >>Non-flammable<< magnesium alloys! (Where are my magnesium wheels dang-it?) What other kinds of alloys would be possible in Zero G being cooled over a long period of time....By the way, I stated 100 x.....not 1000 x.....
Our space program ground to a halt in 2011 after the shuttle flights stopped...We had a great replacement coming from Lockheed (Venturestar) but an idiot planetary scientist told congress "Why bother with the whole thing if you aren't going to do ALL of the advance technology" and congress, being politicians with no real knowledge, went ahead and killed it...so we had to go, Hat-in-hand, to Russia to get people up to the ISS.
(The original plan had been to develop a number of technological advancements for Venturestar...One was composite CRYOGENIC fuel tanks,,,,a number of engineers at NASA and Lockheed stated up front that it would be next to impossible because the Composite skins would have a Honeycomb-like structure...in testing the tanks failed time and again as the cryo fuel caused ice crystals to form inside the skin, destroying the structure. But Lockheed had a team working on an ALUMINUM tank....not only did it work, but it was actually lighter than the composite tank (The three-lobe shape of the tank needed large joints- although the composites SKIN was lighter than the aluminum, the joints ended up being much heavier. The idiot planetary scientist knew this (Probably didn't fully understand that the main reason for a Composite tank was LIGHTNESS) You can test all kinds of ideas- but if it doesn't work (Fails) then you have to accept that and move on.)
They also had fully developed the Aerospike engine...... |
|
Cool, thank you.
Like I said I LOVE the technology as much as the next guy. I love watching the programs about space, even tho I am a Christian and do not believe the stuff about evolution. Space tech is very interesting to me.
But I very much would like to hear opinions and suggestions along with scientific answers to my concerns.
And I purposely used the % symbol not an x in reference to Rinselberg's reply 
|
|
|
|