Slashdot Mirror


Radio Waves Employed in Space Construction

CDeity writes "Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology claim that radio waves could be used to shape and fuse debris in space to form massive structures according to this article. Scientists have in the past employed sound and light waves to position small particles, and every expectation indicates these techniques could work on a large scale. One engineer estimates " it would take approximately one hour to form a rubble cloud into a 50-meter long enclosed structure.""

71 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps by kaoshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could seek the advice of street bums. They have lots of experience with forming structures from rubble and may provide valuable insight!

    1. Re:Perhaps by coryboehne · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah but then everything in space would start to look like a soda can.... wait,, it already does! :)

    2. Re:Perhaps by MulluskO · · Score: 2

      I suspect that street bum might have this to say.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
  2. I've seen this done on a smaller scale by faeryman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and its very cool! At the Space Camp center, there used to be an exhibit where you could suspend in midair some little white polystyrene (?) balls with sound waves. After about 10 seconds the sound would sto and the balls would fall. I was always amazed at it, and always wondered if there were any practical uses for this.

    --


    ,
    faeryman
    1. Re:I've seen this done on a smaller scale by LineNoiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      If someone farts in space, does it make a noise???

      Yes. But the only person who would hear it is the guy in the suit it was released in. Unless he has his transmitter on...

      Once the sound wave leaves the suit, it would be silent, but deadly. To the guy in the suit anyway...

      --
      "Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit." --Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:I've seen this done on a smaller scale by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

      We move debris into useful shapes on Earth, too.

      It is 2002 you know. In all the movies set in the 21st century they use "sonic shapers" for construction.

  3. just make sure you get the right channel by Wantok · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK, just tune the megatransmitter to a hiphop station for the structural elements...

    classical for the smooth solar sails...

    and talkback for all the crap that has to be cleared off the building site.

    --
    mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
  4. Neat-o by Vraylle · · Score: 2, Funny

    I imagine results visually akin to a Borg sphere. Does this work on all matter? If so, can we ship up all the stupid people and finally put them to good use?

    --
    Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
  5. In Space no one can hear you build by codeonezero · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hehe,

    Lets just hope the engineers aren't big Star Trek fans or they'll try building these structures with sound in outer space. :-)

    --

    ....
    int main (void) { ... }

    1. Re:In Space no one can hear you build by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "You do of course understand that the article is about *radio* and not sound. Don't you?"

      Snippet from article: "Scientists have in the past employed sound and light waves to position small particles, and every expectation indicates these techniques could work on a large scale."

      You do of course understand that the parent poster was well aware of that, which is why the joke was funny. Don't you? It's called a joke.

    2. Re:In Space no one can hear you build by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You do of course understand that the parent poster was well aware of that, which is why the joke was funny. Don't you? It's called a joke. "

      Heh perhaps he didn't watch that episode where Data learned the human value known as 'humor'.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:In Space no one can hear you build by rossifer · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I was to design a combat spacecraft control system, you would hear the other spacecraft exploding because the system would note that the spacecraft was exploding and would make the noises in your headset.

      I probably wouldn't make the bridge chair shake however.

      Regards,
      Ross

    4. Re:In Space no one can hear you build by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      That's a good idea. Link the radar to dolby spatialized sterio and have "engine noises" doppler shift around you so you can be queued as to where other craft are without turning your head...

      You should join the airforce. Or take out a patent.

    5. Re:In Space no one can hear you build by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      They might do this already for jet pilots. With the engine noise of your own jet, there's no way in hell you'd hear another plane, even if it were two feet away from your cockpit.

      Some poster on /. said they simulate the sound of nearby objects for exactly this purpose.

      The UI innovation *I* want is for this guy to start talking to these guys and get me a complete computer interface that fits in my hand. It'd beat the hell out of a blackberry...

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  6. energy? by sploxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm really wondering where all the energy should come from.... energy to move these "bricks"...

  7. Hmm... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Noob Astronaught: We appear to be flying towards that small moon.

    Seasoned AStronaught: Thats no moon....

    1. Re:Hmm... by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 2, Funny

      Noob astronought and seasoned astronought were flying in the millenium falcon when that happened.

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    2. Re:Hmm... by glwtta · · Score: 2

      What, is it a Budong?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  8. Can the opposite be done as well? by codeonezero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok,

    So I haven't quite read the article but it occured to me.

    Is it possible to demolish such a structure with radio waves? Or do the laws that lets you do things one way, prevent you form doing things the other way?

    if you can't demolish the structures with radio waves, then what changes once you have built the structure that prevents you from doing so?

    --

    ....
    int main (void) { ... }

    1. Re:Can the opposite be done as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's easy to protect the structure once you've built. I've studied this.. They fabricate and anneal a thin Sn-based alloy. Then, they shape it into a semi-conical, logarithmically-pitched manifold, which is then affixed to the perimeter of the structure. This creates an area where impinging radio waves create surface currents, which then create radio waves of their own. The two waves cancel, thus protecting the internal structures.

      This theory also has medical applications: you can fashion a similar device to keep certain extraterrestrial radio signals from interfering from your neurotransmitters. There isn't much medical literature about this yet, but it's a growing field and doctors are beginning to appreciate the dangers of these radio waves.

      I wear such a device myself.

    2. Re:Can the opposite be done as well? by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Is it possible to demolish such a structure with radio waves? Or do the laws that lets you do things one way, prevent you form doing things the other way?

      Entropy increases. Therefore, I would assume that you could easily do the opposite if your structure was not robust enough.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:Can the opposite be done as well? by johnalex · · Score: 2

      OK, so I'm breaking my cardinal rule and replying to a comment I modded.

      Hilarious. I remove my own Sn cranium covering in deference to your wit.

      I'd mod you up again, but drat, I'm out of points now.

      --
      JA
      http://www.johnalex.org/
    4. Re:Can the opposite be done as well? by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      You really should have read the article. They are not claiming that radio waves can be used to support the structure forever. They are using the radio waves to move the raw materials into position and hold them there while they are fixed in place with something more permanent.

    5. Re:Can the opposite be done as well? by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2

      Since when moderators post to stories they've moderated?

  9. moon manipulation by EEgopher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quite a cool idea. But consider how much output power would be required -- more than any earthly transmitter; and the zappers would require jets and fuel to keep them stationary while they zapped, and an extensive control system for the jets would be needed to shape the rubble into the astroid-sized bust of Jaromir Jagr.
    What if his smiling face was looking down at us from orbit? Imagine how many astronomers we could scare!

    --
    hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
    1. Re:moon manipulation by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      Quite a cool idea. But consider how much output power would be required -- more than any earthly transmitter; and the zappers would require jets and fuel to keep them stationary while they zapped, and an extensive control system for the jets would be needed to shape the rubble into the astroid-sized bust of Jaromir Jagr.

      There are other ways to do stationkeeping if you have this technology down. Mostly I would be thinking of putting them on a frame, and using any materials you wouldn't want to include in your structure along the frame to add mass. You can also throw it away to give yourself a push to keep balance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. could be exploited for explosions by Sarin · · Score: 2

    When you create a dustcloud in a closed room and ignite the dust with a simple light, it gives a big boom, because the air expands rapidly.

    I bet some malicious devices could be created with this technology.

  12. What about weapon uses? by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since I'm currently watching a TiVoed episode ot The Outer Limits where this is a common theme, I have to raise the question of "the promising new technology being perverted into a weapon."

    If you can form structures out of crap floating in space, why couldn't it just be compressed into a large enough object to survive re-entry, and sent on its merry way, aimed at what the aggressor wants to obliterate here on Earth?

    Imagine if GWB suddenly backed down on all his we-gotta-git-Saddam rhetoric because it was getting hom nowhere and the American people were firmly against attacking Iraq, and then two or three months later Baghdad was mysteriously leveled by an nearby meteor strike one morning.

    ~Philly

    1. Re:What about weapon uses? by freuddot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Human have known, for the last 35 000 years ( at least ) that a rock is an efficient weapon to throw at the head of your ennemy. There's just no way you'll prevent weapon discovery, big or small. Put more than 1 person in a group and noone can both enjoy freedom and be sure not be killed by another one.

      That's why we have society. And culture. And laws. And morale. Preventing the technology use/discovery or whatever is pointless. You have to acknowledge that you are living in a big spaceship with 6 000 000 000 other living being. Jettison is not an option.

      The solution is a social one, not a technological one. I do not claim to know it. I just claim that it is not by saying this XYZthingy could be a weapon that anyone's gonna solve anything.

      If you want to solve problems, just take away the reason that LeaderXYZ has to kill others/invade country/destroy environment.

    2. Re:What about weapon uses? by unicron · · Score: 2

      "The earthlings have won; we were no match for their board-with-a-nail-in-it. But they will continue to make bigger and bigger boards until they make a board so big it will destroy all of them!"

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:What about weapon uses? by freuddot · · Score: 2

      Or, in the words of Einstein :

      I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

      The problem is, there's no known way of raising the global IQ of a planet.

    4. Re:What about weapon uses? by Myco · · Score: 2

      Sure there is -- the parent poster had it. World War 3. It's called "nowhere to go but up."

    5. Re:What about weapon uses? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      That assumes that the Bad Guys have easy access to space while the Good Guys sit here on the ground praying (literally, where GWB is concerned) that nobody drops anything heavy. The military advantages of having easy access to the upside of Earth's gravity well, particularly if you have some level of industry up there, are amazing. In some future era where spaceflight is commonplace, any country that a) is capable of establishing a presense in space and b) chooses not to, is being foolishly lax and will almost deserve what it gets.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  13. Weapons Research by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And how long would it take to push debris into an enemy satellite? Or form a large enough mass to plunk down on an unsuspecting enemy?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Weapons Research by dupper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Umm... what enemy satellites? Unlike whatever fiction you've integrated into your view of reality, the US is pretty well uncontested in the satellite area. No current enemies (Iraq, Afghanistan, even friggin' Mexico) have space programs, much less useful satellites, much less useful satellites which could possibly pose a threat to anybody.

  14. I used one of these once... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was using one of these radio wave generators to construct my own personal spacecraft last week.

    My friend and I were sitting there in the station, and were getting real tired of the annoying noise being picked up by our stereo. We were getting really bored bored, and as you know these things take hours, so we decided to see what would happen when we broadcast some hard rock via the device.

    And it worked... mostly. All was going well until the end. All of a sudden, about 3/4 of the way through Jimmy Hendrix playing "All along the Watchtowner", the craft started spinning around wildly, and smashed itself to the moon where it shattered into a million pieces, and then it set itself on fire.

    I can't figure it out...

    And then my sister put in some Michael Jackson, but I don't even want to talk about that...

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  15. Clean up the space junk by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could this be used to solve that nasty space junk problem? As I understand it, there is no known way to clean this stuff up.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  16. what about? by perrin5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Newton's 3rd law (equal and opposite reaction...), according to their nifty little diagram, this would require satelites surrounding the object, and pushing them from all directions, so:
    1) how do you keep the satelites around after they start generating their waves?
    2) how do you keep them symmetrical? (the requirement is that they set up a resonator, I think, in which case, spacing is VERY important).

    --
    hmmmm?
    1. Re:what about? by freakinPsycho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forget two things: intertia and mass.

      If I have a rather large satelite using waves to push rather small objects, the satelite won't move, much.

      It would be very simple to counteract the marginal amount of force generated by pushing the particles around.

      --
      "All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
      - Alexandar Woolcot
    2. Re:what about? by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      1) Read the article. They use the radio waves to temporarily hold the raw materials while they lock them down with more permanent measures.

    3. Re:what about? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2

      Maybe the satellites could also be pulling & pushing on each other, in order to maintain their relative positioning.

    4. Re:what about? by LWolenczak · · Score: 2

      Well... what we're going to do is put the satelites in a warp bouble... so they are displaced from the real world...

  17. What about on earth, in water? by btempleton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could this technique be used to take building blocks that have been tuned to be neutrally boyant, and then assemble them into structures using sound in the water, then slowly lower the water and weld each layer as it comes out of the water?

    Of course neutrally boyant requires no gasses in the objects that can be compressed, though I could imagine you might have metal building blocks with a gas bladder inside that can be filled by computer controlled pump to make it neutrally boyant to some degree.

    Imagine building the frame of a house in a big
    tank.

    Anybody done this?

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:What about on earth, in water? by btempleton · · Score: 2

      Well, actually tanks are fairly easy to build, but yes, this would be for factories mostly.

      And being able to design buildings in CAD, and then just push a button and have the building rise out of your tank with no labour would be a revolutionary principle.

      Or any other structure. No labour, just software turned into structure.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  18. And in other news by PsychoElf · · Score: 2, Funny

    And in other news: I shaped my mash potatos into a fort using only a spoon. One scientist was quoted as saying, "It took him 4 hours, but with enough practice and a bigger spoon, it could be done in an hour."

  19. Asteroids by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2
    So they are going to send robots out to pulverize an asteroid in the asteroid belt. Next they are going to take the particles remaining and use radio waves to create... a ball in space. Sounds almost like an asteroid.

    Yes I do realize that they are attempting to create a more useful structure with the debris, but this just reminds of the innate human drive (of which I fully admit guilt) of breaking things in order to put them back together- only better!

    Maybe there is a use for that satellite radio service now...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  20. Radio waves by MongooseCN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude: Dude, nice techno.

    Technician: Actually I'm sending out the construction sequence for the storage module for the ISS.

    Dude: Woaw.... Rock on.

    1. Re:Radio waves by Monkelectric · · Score: 2

      and now for a *funny* joke involving techno ...

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  21. Re:Since when do radio waves move things around? by inburito · · Score: 2

    They do have force.. or more exactly momentum!

    E=hf=mc^2 -> m=hf/c^2
    v=c, p=mv=hf/c

  22. Re:Since when do radio waves move things around? by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 3, Informative

    All electromagnetic waves, including light, are made up of photons and they do excert a force. The momentum of light can be calcuated via its frequency. The smaller the wavelength the more momentum and energy it has. According to Einstein: E^2=p^2c^2 +(mc^2)^2 Since the mass of a photon is negligable, if it even has one, E=pc where the energy is dependant on the momentum. C is a constant, ~ 3.0e8 m/s P is the momentum of the photon. Light is both a particle and a wave. P = h/(wavelength) where h is plancks constant. In fact P = h/wavelenght is true for all matter as well. If you want to learn more do some reading on quantum physics.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
  23. Re:1 Hour Eh? by extagboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of us who have trouble reading binary.

    Binary to Text converter

  24. Quality Control by broken_bones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would have to imagine that quality control on something like this would be a nightmare. I didn't see anything in the article that talked about refining the pulverized asteroid. One would think that if you had a non uniform mix of materials it would affect the structural integrity of whatever you're building. Still the idea is really intriguing:

    1. Break Rocks
    2. Compress with radio wave "force field" (now how cool is that?)
    3. ???
    4. Profit

    I know it's an overused joke but, in this case, it seems to me to be exactly what they're talking about.

    --

    Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
  25. The moral... by Quaoar · · Score: 3, Funny

    When Earth is threatened by a large asteroid, everyone should turn their radios on and play loud, annoying music until the rock explodes.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:The moral... by Myco · · Score: 2

      Been working so far. Doesn't mean it's worth it.

    2. Re:The moral... by limekiller4 · · Score: 2

      Quaoar writes:
      "When Earth is threatened by a large asteroid, everyone should turn their radios on and play loud, annoying music until the rock explodes."

      That, more or less, worked against Manuel Noriega...

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
  26. Wattage? Chicken & Egg? by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2
    An interesting idea, but the article seems to skim over just how much power would be needed to manipulate physical objects over and great distace (even in a perfect vacuum). I don't know enough about the physical processes involved, but from what I know about solar sails (several meters of reflective surface to move a gram or two), it'd likely take a phenomenal amount of energy to do this. (Someone please correct me if my numbers are wrong and/or there is a different mechanism is being suggested here, please...)

    The only way I can imagine gathering this much energy would be with a massive solar array, one of incredibly large porportions...

    ...so massive that it would be best built using directed radio energy.

    PS - I leave issues of inertia of the transmitting station and also the subtantial risks of a misfire/hijack of one of these transmitters into an inhabited settlement as exercises for the astute reader...

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  27. Re:sound waves? by broken_bones · · Score: 2

    What I gathered from the article is that they have done proof of concept testing/research using sound waves but would plan to use electromagnetic waves in space.

    --

    Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
  28. Crumbs! by Cally · · Score: 2

    Pardon our dust?

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  29. Quick Q. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny
    So, would that mean they'd use some Nine Inch Nails to fasten the structures together?

    I like the sound of that.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  30. Re:Since when do radio waves move things around? by spike+hay · · Score: 2


    The article just assumes that we all knew about radio waves having force, whereas I was laboring under the impression that they had none.


    Photons do have force. In fact, probably the most viable concept for intersteller travel at close to the speed of light is a laser or microwave sail. (You shoot lasers or microwaves at a gossamer sail. This is actually better than antimatter for intersteller travel)

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  31. Re:sound waves? by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Redundant



    This has been a fallacy that has urked me for a while.... now tell me how the hell do we use RADIO telescopes to do research on extraterrestrial phenomenae?

    No sound in space huh?! Well, maybe nothing you or I could hear, WHILE in the VACUUM of space.

    The only reason we can't hear in a vacuum is that OUR ears need a media such as air or water to carry the sound waves to them. Radio waves which BTW != "sound waves" can travel though space or a vacuum just fine. Again this is why we can 'listen' to natural events like supernovas via our radio telescopes.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  32. Re:Douglas Adams lives on..... by spike+hay · · Score: 2

    Exactly my thought. But it wasn't deep thought.

    It was Hactor, built by the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  33. Re:Since when do radio waves move things around? by pfalstad · · Score: 2, Informative

    As several people have mentioned, photons have momentum and do exert pressure (called radiation pressure).

    Looking at it classically, though, electromagnetic waves are made up of electric fields and magnetic fields. Electric fields exert a force on charged particles. So if you point a radio wave at an object that reflects waves, then the wave's electric field will push the electrons in the object back and forth. The moving charged particles then interact with the wave's magnetic field, pushing them in the direction the wave was traveling.. Which is the same thing we could have predicted from conservation of momentum. (Warning: IANAP.)

  34. Supergun Materials Into Space And Then... by limekiller4 · · Score: 2

    Oh, this is fantastic! Instead of launching building materials into space, you could simply supergun material into orbit or, safer, Lagrange points for longer-term parking, and then coagulate and shape them as needed. Of course space material could be used but if that was impractical for the need -- such as not providing the type of radiation shielding needed, for example -- this would be a cheap alternative.

    This is the best news I've heard all day.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  35. Buy space junk by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could this be used to solve that nasty space junk problem? As I understand it, there is no known way to clean this stuff up.

    From the link above: The oldest debris still on orbit is the second US satellite, the Vanguard I, launched on 1958, March, the 17th, which worked only for 6 years.

    NASA should take it down with one of the shuttles and sell it on Ebay... I bet some billionaire would buy it.

  36. Re:sound waves? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 3, Informative

    What is your point? Of course you can send sound through space encoded in some form of radio transmission. But radio is not sound. There is no sound in space. Saying that there is sound in space is like saying there is sound inside the telephone wire. Sure there is information about sound waves traveling through the wire, but there is no sound. Sound is a vibration of matter. There is no matter in space to vibrate. Hence, no sound. (if you want to be pedantic about it, there is matter in space but the amount is so incredibly tiny, on the order of a few atoms per square meter, that it is not worth talking about. Certainly not enough matter there to carry sound).

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  37. Re:Wattage? Chicken & Egg? by opaqueice · · Score: 2, Informative

    I _do_ know about the physical processes involved, and while I'm a physicist rather than an engineer (and hence less quick at estimating these things), this idea sounds completetly loony. You'd need to transmit an enormous amount of power to move a big chunk of rock even a small distance, because the power radiated by your transmitter will fall off rapidly with distance, and the rock will only absorb a small part of the radio wave anyway (for the same reason the walls of your house don't block radio reception).

    And don't forget - NASA is funding research into an anti-gravity machine too, so the fact that they may be taking this seriously is no sign that it makes any sense....

  38. Re:1 Hour Eh? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

    You don't watch Cartoon Network, do you?

  39. Re:This looks fairly interesting by foniksonik · · Score: 2

    Problem is Mars has also lost it's Electro-Magnetic Field so as soon as you do this the sun's radiation will blast it into space... atmosphere isn't enough. You also need the EMs of an active planet.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  40. Completely Different Idea by serutan · · Score: 2

    How about this: we capture a small asteroid into Earth orbit, and equipped it such that we could nudge it into different orbits. Then we could steer it into the path of an incoming killer asteroid -- not to smash it but to barely miss it, gravitationally dragging the bad boy off course to miss the Earth.

    Remembering an earlier /. posting about using force fields to assemble objects in space, maybe we could even build our own guardian asteroid from bits and pieces rather than going out and getting one.