Slashdot Mirror


Glass In Spaaaaace

AnKsT wrote to mention an article on NASA's site about creating and manipulating glass in space. From the article: "In microgravity...you don't need a container. In Day's initial experiments, the melt--a molten droplet about 1/4 inch in diameter--was held in place inside a hot furnace simply by the pressure of sound waves emitted by an acoustic levitator. With that acoustic levitator, explains Day, 'we could melt and cool and melt and cool a molten droplet without letting it touch anything.' As Day had hoped, containerless processing produced a better glass. To his surprise, though, the glass was of even higher quality than theory had predicted."

292 comments

  1. *Crash!* by Reaperducer · · Score: 3, Informative

    And best of all... In space, no one can hear you break the glass.

    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  2. Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh. Microgravity rocks.

    1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, next to boxen, is the worst English word in the world. Congratulations.

    2. Re:Meh. by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Actually, cromulent is the worst English word in the world. Ironically however, the word cromulent itself is, in addition to the words meh and boxen, perfectly cromulent.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:Meh. by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how much that embiggens the discussion.

    4. Re:Meh. by poor_boi · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather like meh, myself. Its so onomatopoetic. Matter of fact, you might even describe it as... well.... meh!

    6. Re:Meh. by ionicplasma · · Score: 1

      Little do people know, when using the word "Meh", that they could collectively be summoning up a giant cow-woman bearing a child with enough ammonitic fluid in her uterus to cause a great flood upon the land of Egypt. Meh.

      --
      The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
    7. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely wrong.

      Microgravity sucks, but only a very little ammount.

    8. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feh.

  3. high-definition window by Ravatar · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of that commerical for Windex, where the term "High Definition Window" was used... How much per square foot?

    1. Re:high-definition window by Shook18 · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a low-def window, where you can see only the largest streaks and fingerprints on your window. Windex definately has that commercial backwards.

    2. Re:high-definition window by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      Isn't that like that bathroom window where you see things pixelized through it?

  4. Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only reason he wants to create glass in space is to one day fashion a giant magnifying glass in space. After calibrating it on ants, he plans to bring the world to its knees.

    1. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      "how to make a glass of yourself"

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by fmobus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What? No shark-mounted lasers? This is just not right.

    3. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by mrgsd · · Score: 1

      I for one am glad someone is preparing for our inevitable alien ant overlords..

      --
      End Communication.
    4. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by Mozk · · Score: 1

      Another reason would be to make 99%+ transparent glass and have people run into it. :D

      --
      No existe.
    5. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Groundbreaking research performed in my home has shown that if you get your friends drunk enough, the glass doesn't need to be 99%+ transparent for them to run into it. In fact, with enough tequila, the glass doesn't even need to be clean.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    6. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by bmalia · · Score: 1

      NARF! What are we gonna do tomorrow night, Brain?

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    7. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (pinky against mouth)

      One billion dollars...

    8. Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "In fact, with enough tequila, the glass doesn't even need to be clean."

      With enough tequila, it doesn't even need to be glass; an ordinary wall will do.

  5. ok... by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1, Funny

    But can molten glass in space sort bolts.

    1. Re:ok... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      A hot meteorite smashing into the ISS would definitely rearrange the bolts in contains I would think.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new molten glassed bolt-sorting overlords.

    3. Re:ok... by EvilUmpir · · Score: 0

      Not sure why this one if off topic. After being on for 16 seasons, I think the simpsons are always on SOME topic. Hell, South Park made a show based off it! I guess the reference was just too obscure, but I'm with you! Me and my inanimate carbon rod!

  6. glass in spaaaaaace? by bobinabottle · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd be much more interested in new discoveries of delivering televised footage of muppet pigs exploring the universe.

  7. purity by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Several SF authors have predicted that electronics manufacturing would eventually move to space because it'd be easier to produce purer semiconductor crystals in microgravity. Maybe the time has come?

    1. Re:purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not using this technique. TFA says the reason glass is so much more pure in microgravity is because it is RESISTANT to crystallization under such conditions.

    2. Re:purity by joeybagadonuts · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yea, but the shipping costs are just crazy!

    3. Re:purity by onepoint · · Score: 1

      In reading the link, it would seem that crystal structures might be more difficult to create. Why? I really don't know, but it might be due to gravity.

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    4. Re:purity by KingPunk · · Score: 0

      i cant remember where i saw it, or even if its entirely accurate,
      but didn't nasa once say that payload price is only like 850$/pound or something like that?

    5. Re:purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really: open airlock, kick package out. repeat. ;)

    6. Re:purity by oddsends · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Cost. Even newegg wouldn't sell those.

    7. Re:purity by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Yup. If we bought pentiums made in space each one would cost $20,000.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    8. Re:purity by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "because it is RESISTANT to crystallization under such conditions"

      Heres a thought.

      Will this sort of effect be important in hibernation and cryogenic storage of human beings?

      Think about it like this, we develop a way to freeze people and thaw them out, test it for a few years here on Earth, deploy the system for space trials and find that the human body reacts quite differently to crystalisation under microgravity.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:purity by houghi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that is just Opiate for the Geek Masses

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:purity by Bastian · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the reason that glass is resistant to crystallisation in microgravity is because of the way the liquid glass flows in the presence of gravity.

      The article doesn't make it clear whether this property is unique to glasses, or whether it is normal for any molten material. It could be that semiconductor materal still does crystallize much more easily in microgravity.

    11. Re:purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really: open airlock, kick package out

      Watch package burn up in re-entry

      Although the point remains. No fuel costs to bring something down from orbit. Its the cost of bringing the raw materials up that will really get you.

    12. Re:purity by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be a dream - under 1900$/kg? The shuttle cost estimates vary, but are usually over 15,000$/kg. ESA bulk launches are 10,000$/kg. Bulk Russian and Chinese rocket launches are around 7,000$/kg. SpaceX thinks that by the time they get to their Falcon V, they'll be down to almost 2500$/kg (which would be truly incredible - time will tell if they can pull it off).

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    13. Re:purity by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can kick hard enouh to add 7,800m/s velocity (its orbital velocity), I'll be darn impressed ;) Even if you can kick hard enough to get enough atmospheric drag to take care of the rest of the energy (say, 1,000 m/s), I'll still be darn impressed.

      Why do so many people have this mistaken idea that you can just jump out of orbit?

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    14. Re:purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans ain't windows.

    15. Re:purity by tooth · · Score: 1
      eploy the system for space trials and find that the human body reacts quite differently to crystalisation under microgravity.

      We'd probably do it on something smaller to start with, like rabbits, then monkeys.

    16. Re:purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now granted I'm no master of this field but, I imagine it's actually BECAUSE of the added resistance to crystallization that you could create higher quality crystals. Here's why, resistance is not immunity, but it does mean that added resistance has less tolerance for flaws in the crystal's molecular weave. It's because of the increased resistance that higher quality crystals could form.

    17. Re:purity by coolcold · · Score: 1

      not quite, since you only need to move the materials up, then drop them back down earth when they are made.

      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    18. Re:purity by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people have this mistaken idea that you can just jump out of orbit?

      Two words, Space Elevator.

    19. Re:purity by smatthew · · Score: 1

      Glass breaks on me when I drop it from a countertop and you want to drop it from how high?

      --
      slashdot username - at - email.domain.name
    20. Re:purity by J05H · · Score: 1

      the article indicates much slower cooling which prevents crystallization. For silicon chips, the process might involve a similiar sonic furnace for melting, then a centrifuge for very controlled crystallization. Elements of semiconductor manufacturing have been tested on the Shuttle, IIRC, and due produce purer chip precursors.

      The problem with chip manufacturing in orbit is that every bit of equipment and materiel must be gathered in one orbital slot. With the expenses of modern chip fabs, it would be immensely expensive, even at lower "near future" launch prices. It's the $500 billion question. There might be a way to grow the crystals in space and do the etching on earth?

      One interesting point that the article didn't make was that ZBLAN (transparent aluminum!) glass fibers made in space could revolutionize the speed and reliability of Internet and phone backbones. Still has the startup costing issues, but at first brush seems to have less unknowns than a zero-g chip fab.

      What I'm wondering is if this technique with the sound waves could be used to make glasses from water? Being able to blow ice bubbles that are pure and have uniform strength could make for an interesting habitat. This paragraph belongs in the the "SF as geek opiate" thread! 8)

      Josh

      --
      gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    21. Re:purity by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      That's actually a good thing. Semiconductor manufacture relies on the material forming around a seed crystal that is introduced into the molten material, and other crystalization would disrupt its structure.

  8. Build a better BONG by drewzhrodague · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder how long it will take humans to use this technology to build a better bong. Think about it -- bongs made in space...

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    1. Re:Build a better BONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka: GRAVITY bong?

    2. Re:Build a better BONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, I was just thinking about how much I would pay for something like that... Then I got to thinking, about thinking, about thinking, about thinking about this glass... and then I got like real confused and decided to use a pipe instead.

      Nachos anyone?

    3. Re:Build a better BONG by TexVex · · Score: 1

      How would one go about making a bong that could operate in freefall?

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    4. Re:Build a better BONG by mrhandstand · · Score: 1

      spin arroung with the bottom out while you use it...centripedal force will keep the liquid on the far end of the tube....course...spining aroung whilst getting a binger....not so easy.

      --
      Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    5. Re:Build a better BONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turn the bowl parallel to the diredtion of motion, keeping the cherry facing an object which you happen to be gravitating towards...

    6. Re:Build a better BONG by jsweval · · Score: 1

      Whoah, like, far out man!

    7. Re:Build a better BONG by youknowmewell · · Score: 1

      How...did...this...get...insightful?

    8. Re:Build a better BONG by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Any sort of non-liquid bong should work fine in freefall. Now... a water bong in freefall, that'd be an interesting project.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    9. Re:Build a better BONG by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      I have never wished I had mod points more than I do now... bravo, drew, bravo.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    10. Re:Build a better BONG by Mozk · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering that myself.

      --
      No existe.
    11. Re:Build a better BONG by syukton · · Score: 1

      Oh, oh, I know! stuff some cotton balls down the neck of the bong, so the water can't pass through. bingo! Plus you get an extra filter stage--what's not to like?! (mild sarcasm)

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    12. Re:Build a better BONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it in freefall.

      You use it on Earth.

      I imagine those NASA guys are probably real tightasses about using weed on their shuttle.

  9. What a relief! by ScaryMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a good thing they figured out a way to make glass in space. Maybe now they come overcome the titanic production hurdles involved with producing glass here on Earth, and bring down its astronomic cost.

    1. Re:What a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man oh man do i wish i had mod points.

    2. Re:What a relief! by iabervon · · Score: 1

      And to get it back to Earth, they can just produce non-glazed, defect-free items, which can then be sent down in microwaves...

    3. Re:What a relief! by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing they figured out a way to make glass in space. Maybe now they come overcome the titanic production hurdles involved with producing glass here on Earth, and bring down its astronomic cost.

      Hopefully they will. Ever tried to purchase a large sheet of strong Low-E glass? It's not exactly cheap.

      Put together an 8 foot long fish tank sometime and tell me it's cheap and plentiful.

      Acryllic would be close if it wasn't so easy to scratch -- horrible for a large window.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    4. Re:What a relief! by lungofish · · Score: 1

      You know what they should work on next?

      Bricks. Those suckers haven't gotten any better in like 10,000 years. I bet bricks made in space would totally kick bricks made on earth's asses.

      If bricks had asses, that is.

    5. Re:What a relief! by joncue · · Score: 1

      Glass manufacturing really isn't that expensive, but at the consumer level, the price is inflated more than most other industries (from experience, I work in the glass manufacturing industry).

  10. Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This article is a perfect example of the sort of technological advances that will be possible when we establish a space habitat capable of sustaining industrial production. Microgravity is a condition that is almost impossible to replicate here at the bottom of the gravity well, and we are just beginning to realize the applications.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by patio11 · · Score: 1

      And it only costs $7000 a kilogram to bring that glass payload back down to earth! Sweet! Micro-gravity coke bottles for everyone!

    2. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by geomon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although this article is a couple of years old, the scientific community is not necessarily convinced of microgravity's promise.

      This is one result that may or may not scale to industrial production.

      I'm not closed minded, but I am skeptical.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      This makes me think of space elevators. It almost seems like the ribbon will need to be manufactured in space, to ensure a smooth, high quality malarial. Then it could be lowered to it's destination in the Pacific.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    4. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by SillySilly · · Score: 1

      This is poor science, and very expensive at that. "Applications" are less science more more engineering or product development -- let the companies that see a profit in these products invest the enormous sums needed. If you want science, there are significantly better ways of spending money on research that will produce significantly more discoveries in a shorter amount of time.

    5. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by geomon · · Score: 1

      Yes you are. You are a bigot. A closed-minded intolerate bigot.

      The word you are reaching for is "intolerant".

      But being a dumbass, you wouldn't know the difference.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    6. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Basic research tends to be expensive. Once we know how to make these glasses, it becomes an exercise in engeneering, and the price comes down. Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure. And if there's enough profit out there, the costs will come down as more and more ships are going up and back.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by anagama · · Score: 1
      OK, I know it's a joke but I just love being a wet blanket. Obviously, the glass we make on earth is fine for coke bottles. It's also plain that this guy wants to make glass that will be unique from that made on earth in the hope that it's special properties will have special applications.

      How about "Transparent Aluminum"?

      In Earth-orbit, it turns out, these molten liquids don't crystallize as easily as they do on Earth. It's easier for glass to form. So not only can you make glass that's less contaminated, you can also form it from a wider variety of melts. But why is that important? What's wrong with glass made of silica?
      ...
      Another example: Glass made of metal can be remarkably strong and corrosion-resistant. And you don't need to machine it into the precise, intricate shapes needed, say, for a motor. You can just mold or cast it.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know though, this could be used to create finer lenses for lithography back on earth.

    9. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure.

      Knock, knock! Econ 101 is calling.

      Inflation will increase that $7000/kg just much as it will devalue the $7000. So, based on your hypothetical of it not getting any cheaper to bring stuff out of orbit, 50 years from now it is going to cost a heck of a lot more than $7000/kg.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by zilym · · Score: 1

      At Six Flags in California, they have a ride where you sit in a chair that they lift up high. Then they accelerate the chair down to the ground, simulating weigthlessness for a brief period of time.

      If research shows some kind of advantage of producing new types of glass under zero g, couldn't companies invest in some kind of apparatus like this and invent a process to produce their zero-g glasses on Earth?

    11. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by lightningrod220 · · Score: 1

      It may not be worthwhile to NASA to keep doing this (especially if Congress butchers their budget), but if private companies find a good use for this, it would give them a good reason to ignite the private space race. More than just million-dollar prizes for making a flight....

    12. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      I would think that inflation will apply to rocket fuel as much as anything else. You can't pay today's prices tomorrow, so I don't see where the whole value of $7000 in 50 years thing is relevant.

    13. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Back when the IBM PC first came out, you could buy a top-of-the-line PC for about $2000. You still can, even with inflation, and you get a lot more for it. My point is that even if the cost is still $7000/Kg, the price will be much less in purchasing power.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    14. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as you can heat, form, and cool the glass in three seconds...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    15. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "couldn't companies invest in some kind of apparatus like this and invent a process to produce their zero-g glasses on Earth?"

      Yeah, but they'd have to be really, uhm, high.

    16. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Although this article is a couple of years old, the scientific community is not necessarily convinced of microgravity's promise.
      Robert Park and the American Physical Society have long been foes of both the Shuttle and the ISS. Take his comments with a grain of salt.

      For example, take section 2 of the linked article - which criticizes a research program for not producing 'unique results'. Anyone familiar with science knows that non-unique results are as important as unique results.

    17. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the raw materials for rocket fuel won't be that much easier to produce in 50 years. Unlike computer chips, where the technology to produce it is rapidly progressing, keeping the cost down.

    18. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by patio11 · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to find an application for either glass, aluminum, transparent alumnium, or reflective glass, that would justify valuing it at substantially over $7000 a kilogram. Remarkably strong, corrosion resistant glass had better not cost enough that transporting one window from factory to installation costs more than the entire rest of the house. Glass motors sound like a wonderful idea for... well, absolutely bloody nothing. Might as well grind up diamonds into a fine powder and sprinkle them into the steel when you're casting it -- it won't accomplish much but you'll be able to say "Ford Infintium. We spent an infinitum of money to bring this car's engine to you", AND you won't lose 1% of your engines to the transportation system exploding. For that matter, there is almost NO manufacturing product which would be worth $7000 per kilogram in transportation costs -- one figure I've frequently seen cited is that you could turn lead into gold in space and you'd still lose money.

    19. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      First, you're assuming that transportation costs will never go down. Granted, it'll always be more expensive to ship something to and from orbit than it is to truck it across the continent, but the cost differential should decrease somewhat in the future as technology improves.

      Second, what about things that simply cannot be produced in a terrestrial environment? I see no evidence that this is the case, but humor me: suppose you can fabricate semiconductors that are significantly higher-performing in microgravity. Eventually Intel could manufacture their super-premium processors in space, that are capable of performing at eight times the capacity of their chips made in Malaysia. Certain customers would pay a rather huge premium for processors that give them that much more performance. You can see it now, in the way a Xeon EM64T 3.4 GHz will set you back over $700 while a Celeron with 2/3 the clock rate can be had for under $70. With a wider gap in speeds, I could see a much larger gap in prices becoming possible.

      Now, apply this to other markets - we'll eventually devize products that can only be manufactured with the greater precision afforded by the microgravity environment that orbital manufacturing can provide. Turning lead to gold is only a losing proposition because there is such a supply here on Earth. What about things that can only be manufactured in space?

      --
      ± 29 dB
    20. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by hubie · · Score: 1

      Robert Park and the American Physical Society have long been foes of both the Shuttle and the ISS.

      First off, the American Physical Society has no stance for or against the Shuttle and the ISS. They are a professional society for physicists. They occasionally perform studies or issue statements based on areas of their expertise. The only statement about the ISS that I am aware is Statement 91.2 and was released in 1991. Basically it said that the APS feels there is no current credible scientific justification for the proposed ISS and that the scientific value of the ISS has been greatly overstated and can be done better and cheaper on Earth and/or in the shuttle. I think 14 years later it is hard to argue that statement has not proven accurate.

      Bob Park writes a weekly one-page commentary work What's News pertaining to physics and general science folly. He is rather opinionated on many subjects and is not shy to state them (it is, after all, an opinion column). He does not speak for the APS any more than a political commentator speaks for any newspaper on the Sunday editorial page. Park's disclaimer at the bottom (at the time the link in question was posted) was:

      THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
      Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the American Physical Society or the University, but they should be.

      The "unique result" statement you criticize is taken from a report by the National Research Council (at NASA's request), which basically states (and Park reiterates) that nothing on protein crystal research has been done that has not been done on Earth. In fact, the exact statement taken from the Executive Summary is:

      The task group heard a great deal about experiments to date in NASA 's macromolecular crystallography program. The results so far are inconclusive, and the impact of microgravity crystallization on structural biology as a whole has been extremely limited. At this time, one cannot point to a single case where a space-based crystallization effort was the crucial step in achieving a landmark scientific result. In many of the cases that have so far been listed as successful, the improvements obtained have been incremental rather than fundamental. In addition, the difficulty of mounting simultaneous efforts to produce the best possible crystals both on the ground and in space has limited the ability of researchers to make the comparisons between microgravity and Earth crystals that would be necessary to demonstrate that the microgravity environment can produce superior crystals.

      Finding: The results from the collection of experiments performed on microgravity's effect on protein crystal growth are inconclusive. The improvements in crystal quality that have been observed are often only incremental, and the difficulty of producing the appropriate controls limits investigators ' ability to definitively assess if improvements can be reliably credited to the microgravity environment. To date, the impact of microgravity crystallization on structural biology as a whole has been extremely limited.

      A more descriptive statement Park made was in a link in the link. They aren't comments to be taken with salt but rather a listing of damning facts regarding selling the ISS for growing protein crystals. There isn't any way to put a good spin on that.

      That NRC report statement about protein crystals can be made for just about most of the research attempted on the ISS. You can argue all you want about the political and/or societial reasons for having or not having the ISS, but you cannot just

    21. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by photonic · · Score: 1

      BS, current lithography systems are not really limited by the quality of the glass. Limits are mainly caused by the diffraction limit, maybe a little bit by the finite accuracy of polishing and measuring the shapes. And remember that a current lithography machine probably has 500 kilo's of glass in it, so it is not really an option to make that in space.

      --
      karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    22. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Hmm.. From the Earth, it is very expensive to transport. I wonder what the cost would be from the moon.

      -InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    23. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by nihilus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is also a reminder of the risks we'll have to take if we ever get serious about colonizing space..

      This is from a page linked from the article in the story about shear thinning..

      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/07jun_elas tic_fluids.htm

      Researchers hope that a space-experiment called CVX-2 (short for "Critical Viscosity of Xenon-2") will soon provide new data about the basic physics of such fluids. Berg is the principal investigator for the experiment, which is slated to fly this summer onboard space shuttle Columbia (STS-107).

      Experiments with simple chemicals rather than ZBLAN and other actually useful substances is probably critical for getting data that physicists can actually work with to try to understand shear thinning in general... And this CVX-2 experiment was conducted on Columbia's last mission.

      Apparently they relayed most of the results of the CVX-2 experiment back to earth while still in orbit, according to this page. ..Just something to remember one day when we all have ultra cheap single-transmission fiberoptic lines right to every home.

      --
      Science: The original open source.
    24. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by nihilus · · Score: 1

      Actually, bringing stuff back down is relatively easy.

      --
      Science: The original open source.
    25. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is poor science, and very expensive at that. "Applications" are less science more more engineering or product development -- let the companies that see a profit in these products invest the enormous sums needed.

      To get a product on your desk requires both pure science and then application. When I was a physics undergrad we used to crack snyde jokes about the engineers, but that's just 'cause everyone needs to make fun of someone else. Don't piss on engineering or product development - you need it.

      And "let companies that see a profit in these products invest the enourmous sums needed"? Um when these technologies facilitate the existence of our high tech economy and YOU benefit by it, maybe you'll throw in for it? By paying a tax, maybe? Sports teams get public funding for their domes. Corporations get tax breaks for bringing jobs to a location. Industry gets all kinds of public funding - don't get stingy now.

      If you want science, there are significantly better ways of spending money on research that will produce significantly more discoveries in a shorter amount of time.

      Well then get to it, smartguy. C'mon we'd all like to see it. I'll be first in line to start telling everyone how wonderful "SillySilly (843107)" is when you start churning out more discoveries in a shorter amount of time.

    26. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Well one they do not accelerate the vehicles.. they allow gravity to take over. IE they let it drop. Small nit but an important one. If they acctually accelerated the car you would feel as if you were lifted towards the ceiling rather than experience Free Fall. It is exactly the same sensation as the astronaughts feel on orbit. At its most basic, orbiting the earth is just a continual free fall that misses the ground.

      There are in fact many such apparatus on earth. The article itself mentions using the KC 135 vomit comet, there are also several free fall structures used for these kinds of study. The problem is duration of the fall as someone else pointed out. But if you really want to understand the problem work it out for yourself. The acceleration exerted by gravity is 9.8 meters per second or some such. ~20mph. So after one second of free fall you are going 20 some odd miles per hour. After 2 you are going 40, so forth and so on. Thus at the end of say a 10 second fall you are traveling more than 200mph covering 98 meters per second or roughly one football field every second and still accelerating.

      At that rate if you went from the highest building ever built to the bottom of the lowest mine ever built you could not manage more than a few seconds of free fall. And you would still have to account for deceleration. For example if you mannage a minute of freefall you are now faced with something traveling at 1,200mph with considerable kinetic energy built up that must be dissapated before it reaches the end of the line else it will do so in a catastrophic manner to say the least. A prime example of that kind of problem is what happend to Columbia.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    27. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I believe many of these rides are accelerated down to help achieve free fall speeds. Mainly to counteract other sources of friction.

      The same goes for your hypothetical minute of "freefall", Without some downward force (or a vacume tube) there will be a need to force or pull down the object to keep it accelerating with gravety.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    28. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can send anything down for pretty close to free, if you don't care who it lands on or how many pieces it fragments into. If your 3. ??? includes actually delivering it to someone, you need to put it in a vehicle capable of surviving reentry, which means that either you magically build space shuttles in orbit or you have to lift the entire empty weight of the reentry vehicle just to transport the stuff back down. And do that for every shipment.

    29. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Eh thought about that after I posted... most of the research towers use vacume. And I know the free fall ride at six flags over georgia was not compensated. Metal wheels on metal rails don't really create all that much friction and at the speeds it was dealing with wind resistence never had much chance to impact the experience.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    30. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eventually Intel could manufacture their super-premium processors in space
      Oooo, SPACE-FAB!
    31. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      OK, I admit, the only ride I know uses it is the Disney Tower of Terror. And that is only anecdotaly.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    32. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by CFTM · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist but if my high physics memory is still working, you can achieve acceleration by changing direction so if you found a way to change direction at the right speed couldn't you create a psuedo-microgravity environment?

    33. Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Indeed you can... its called an orbit ! Or in other words the means of falling in such a manner that your path never intersects the object of gravitational pull by curving around the mass at such a rate that your acceleration is evenly counteracted by the attraction of gravity leaving you with 0 gravity acting on you.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  11. Why this matters by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Informative
    No, it's not to make purer martini glasses for snobs who demand only the very best. From the article:

    "But why is that important? What's wrong with glass made of silica?

    For windows silica is just fine. But glass made from other chemical compositions offers a panoply of unexpected properties. For example, there are "bioactive glasses" that can be used to repair human bones. These glasses eventually dissolve when their work is done. On the other hand, Day has developed glasses which are so insoluble in the body that they are being used to treat cancer by delivering high doses of radiation directly to a tumor site."

    Cool beans!

    1. Re:Why this matters by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Oh, great. That's just what I want: GLASS BONES.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    2. Re:Why this matters by TCM · · Score: 1

      Glass bones are perfect! They will eventually lead to super heros!

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    3. Re:Why this matters by mogwai7 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? They did not seem to help Glass Joe much. ;)

    4. Re:Why this matters by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The latter sounds like something my company helped work on. The medicine is encapsulated in microscopic beads, which are then injected into the bloodstream. You then image the region of interest with ultrasound. When you have it focused where you want it, hit the button, the frequency changes, bubbles shatter, and medicine is delivered precisely where you want it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:Why this matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While this theory has not yet been confirmed, some experimental results suggest that it is correct.

      That's from TFA too. Do I get modded up +5 Informative?

    6. Re:Why this matters by Momomoto · · Score: 1

      I always wondered what happened to the TheraSpheres after you put them in . . .

      --
      "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
  12. I see potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can see this as being a new field of manufacturing in the not so distant future. Imagine zero-gravity precision made materials and parts for a variety of uses. We could make better lenses for microscopes and telescopes as an example.

    If you're smart, you'll start a company to capitalize on this future market ;)

    1. Re:I see potential by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      I can see this as being a new field of manufacturing in the not so distant future. Imagine zero-gravity precision made materials and parts for a variety of uses. We could make better lenses for microscopes and telescopes as an example.

      If you're smart, you'll start a company to capitalize on this future market ;)


      Wow, I really hope NASA people read Slashdot. Imagine that, without you they'd still be melting shit at random in space to kill time.

      Thanks Mr. Obvious...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:I see potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      NASA is a government funded entity. the OP was talking about a purely commercial enterprise...

      NASA people don't do stuff to kill time, nor are they specifically looking for a way to generate profit. Their interests are *gasp* scientific in nature and melting glass in space could very well be the result of mere curiousity.

    3. Re:I see potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you're smart, you'll start a company to capitalize on this future market ;)

      If you're really smart, you'll start taking out thousands of patents on obvious/existing things, but add "...in space!" to each of them.

      Let somebody else start the company; you just demand the license fees.

  13. Everything is made better... In Space by doormat · · Score: 1

    Glass, concrete, etc. Everything is made better in space.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Everything is made better... In Space by Lips · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when we get really advanced, Chromium usage will increase as well...

      Sponge-Tron: Everything is chrome in the future!

      I can see it now, orbital chrome plating factories!

    2. Re:Everything is made better... In Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass, concrete?

      I was thinking about love.

    3. Re:Everything is made better... In Space by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      They can make transparent aluminum ... in Japan! No, wait, I mean ... in Space!

    4. Re:Everything is made better... In Space by doormat · · Score: 1

      Yea but this is slashdot.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  14. Space-DRUMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Currently waiting for the Space Shuttle to begin flying again:

    http://www.guigne.com/space/spacedrums.asp

  15. Purer carbon nanotubes too? by wheels4u · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too? Space elevator anyone?

    --
    11 1101 1011111 0100 000 110 1011111 0101 10 01 1011111 101 1 011 1011111 0 1111 11 111 1011111 101
    1. Re:Purer carbon nanotubes too? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Informative


      Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too?

      Short answer: yes.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Purer carbon nanotubes too? by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too?

      Short answer: yes.


      Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeees.

      (Note: Length and pitch of the Long Answer may be affected by answerer's velocity relative to yourself.)

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    3. Re:Purer carbon nanotubes too? by Uplore · · Score: 1

      Longer Answer : Yes it is easier.

      --
      I couldn't think of a sig.
  16. Cost Effective by fgl · · Score: 1

    All that quality & no one to buy...
    unless there are idle billionaires that will get the stuff for bragging rights.

    --
    Go Away! Not for Sale
  17. Manufacturing in Space by Al+Mutasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's interesting research, but the manufacturing-in-space argument is weak. This has been used as a justification for the expense of going to orbit with astronauts, and it never rings true to me. Floride glass fiber won't be manufactured more than 100 feet from the surface of the Earth in the forseeable future. Has any of the materials-properties-in-space research has lead to new commercial products?

    1. Re:Manufacturing in Space by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's really needed from space manufacturing is the tools to continue space exploration. For truely state of the art space stuff the drop-out rate of parts is near 50% that you have to make to get enough usable ones.. that number's gotta get way down. Not to mention were're starting to make the technology leap from cutting parts out of blocks of stuff to steering the building of the momlecules that make up stuff... there's not the facilities on earth to do that economicaly

    2. Re:Manufacturing in Space by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      It would probably be much cheaper to simply make an express elevator on earth that recreates the micro-gravity. I can see most of this research being put to use out in the asteroid belt, but that's considerably farther down the road.

  18. Up-to-date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    April 14, 2003... Slashdot is really a frontrunner. Next they'll report that Bush won a second term in office...

    1. Re:Up-to-date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?!! I thought clinton had won it!

    2. Re:Up-to-date by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Next they'll report that Bush won a second term in office"

      And after that, they'll report that Bush won a third term in office.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Up-to-date by CharonIDRONES · · Score: 1

      Next they'll report that Bush won a second term in office

      NO!! Think of the children!

      -Brandon :P

    4. Re:Up-to-date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So fucking what if it's old.

      "If I haven't [read] it, it's new to me."

    5. Re:Up-to-date by powerspike · · Score: 1

      Don't you Mean 3rd Term ?

  19. Serious topic by Quentusrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only a few serious answers so far, but do you realize how important this kind of work could be? He has proven a concept. Now it is much more likely for a corperation to invest in space stations to build their products. I'm not saying it'll happen within the next year, but that is it closer. Now corperations will feel the investment is less risky with much more payoff. Can you imagine having your CPU made with the parts so much more pure then they are now? Engineers could build smaller chips because they wouldn't have to account for the impurities that naturally come in the materials.

    1. Re:Serious topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, and I thought what made a P-N junction what it is was impurities.

    2. Re:Serious topic by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

      Freaking THANK YOU!!! FINALLY, someone responds with a BRAIN!!!

      That was exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. The technological improvements would be HUGE...

      Idiots replying about "how do we get the stuff back?" WHO F****ing Cares? That is for someone to figure out. We are already getting better at that.

      The potential of this manufacturing process is ENORMOUS. From better and smaller CPU's to Fiber Optics, Insulations, Superior lenses, etc.

      I was reading this article thinking about corporations setting up manufacturing plants in orbit around the planet. This is obviously well in to the future but the potential for these materials makes it worth while. In addition this would lead the US in the CORRECT direction. Expanding our future instead of the current narrow mindedness. It would push for better orbital space flight (more jobs). It would generate MORE technological break throughs as more people are in space figuring out new ideas and methods. (more jobs) The future would be SO much brighter for our country and economy if we would stop pissing and moaning about fossil fuels and "installing" democracy in other countries. F** them if they want to be run by a tyrant FINE... Let them. We need to focus on what is important for the US...

      Sorry, got political there... The important thing is what would be done if we focused on technological break throughs coming from space.

      I remember reading about crystals that were produced in space being more pure. They talked about how much it would do for our technology base... Imagine if we had focused on that 10 years ago. As more companies push for space it is only a matter of time before we have production facilities in space. It is just a matter taking the steps.

      Oh well, Thanks again for bringing up the good points about this.

    3. Re:Serious topic by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

      Thought of something else...

      IMAGINE what they could produce and research in space once they are making the glass...

      Here is the first thing that I thought of ...
      ALLOYS! metal ALLOYS.
      New more Pure Plastics.
      Who knows, maybe they could even produce better carbon fiber based technologies. The nanotube technologies (Bucky Ball based stuff) could "potentially" be produced easier and more effectively.

      We just have to get the companies excited enough to produce a facility in space. This would push the space industries to make the "jump" between them a better idea.

      I am NOT a proponent of the "space elevator" but that might even be a feasible idea once the facility is in space.

      Amazing stuff that is and could easily be possible.

  20. Did no one else see this? by Tropaios · · Score: 2, Funny

    April 14, 2003 -- In BOLD letters for Jesus "tap-dancing" Christ's sake.

    How is this news? I realize the mentality of if I haven't seen it it's new to me, but come on.

    Is there an update or something?

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

    1. Re:Did no one else see this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kinda wish I had mod points at the moment. :p

      You weren't the only one to notice it. But then, this is Slashdot. I've personally seen the same story posted 4 times in 2 weeks. It's a fairly safe bet that the admins don't communicate between each other, and that they usually don't read the article linked.

    2. Re:Did no one else see this? by kalayq · · Score: 1

      Pshhh....umm because its IN SPACE. Yeesh.

    3. Re:Did no one else see this? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Anything that doesn't happen in America takes forever for the American news to pick up (if it does pick it up at all). It's expected.

  21. *Crash!*Poot!* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And best of all... In space, no one can hear you break the glass."

    Or wind.

    1. Re:*Crash!*Poot!* by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      "And best of all... In space, no one can hear you break the glass."

      Or wind.


      Can't hear the wind but it makes a great propellant.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    2. Re:*Crash!*Poot!* by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      It's not so much the sound of breaking wind that I'm concerned about than it is the actual smell.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
  22. But how do you get it back? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    But how do you get the glass back from space? You gotta "drop" it down to earth to get it back, right! Of course I understand the real ability is to work with micro sized pieces we'd never be able to manapulate here. at that scale glass is nearly as strong as metal... espically flawless glass.

  23. Container-less Glass by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In microgravity...you don't need a container.

    Right. Until there's an accident when someone is too busy playing with their velco stripe and a blob of molten glass goes into someone's eye on the other side of the station. If that happens over the state of California, Cal-OSHA will be all over the space station like Bill Clinton with an intern. They would have to shut down the space program until it was safe go back into space -- again.

    1. Re:Container-less Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California has gotten much more strict. You now need a paper mask with two elastic bands to work inside a nuclear reactor. That's a big step up from the wet bandana and a pack of cigarettes that was the old standard.

    2. Re:Container-less Glass by riflemann · · Score: 1

      Yup, we all know you need containers for things in space. Can you imagine what would happen if an ant farm in space didnt have a container, and the ants spilled out all over the place?

      Oh, the horror, the horror. New insect overlords, indeed.

    3. Re:Container-less Glass by dkf · · Score: 1

      Do they specify what picture you should have on the mask, or does it have to be Frankenstein's Monster?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:Container-less Glass by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Sure. And they're welcome to come do inspections as often as they can afford to. Besides, the orbital space above the Earth is not subject to the laws of the political entities beneath it.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  24. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish I was space

  25. That might not be possible. by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you RTFA, you'll see that they are working with non-stardard types of glass in addition to standard glass. I would imagine the metallic glasses wouldn't be quite to susceptible to breakage.

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
    1. Re:That might not be possible. by Ass+Feces · · Score: 1

      Its a joke. Get over it and don't take it so seriously.

    2. Re:That might not be possible. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      non-standard.. hmm...

      Transparent Aluminium?

    3. Re:That might not be possible. by vandemar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Indeed--

      Also intriguing to space researchers is fluoride glass. A blend of zirconium, barium, lanthanum, sodium and aluminum, this type of glass (also known as "ZBLAN") is a hundred times more transparent than silica-based glass. It would be exceptional for fiber optics.

      A fluoride fiber would be so transparent, says Day, that light shone into one end, say, in New York City, could be seen at the other end as far away as Paris. With silicon glass fibers, the light signal degrades along the way.

    4. Re:That might not be possible. by KaptNKrunchy · · Score: 1

      If you RTF summary you would see that they are controling it with sound waves, which means its not in a vacum, so your gonna hear it break.

    5. Re:That might not be possible. by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Cool! Let's make an aquarium and put some whales in there!

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    6. Re:That might not be possible. by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      It's funny how nobody has a sense of humor around here.

    7. Re:That might not be possible. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I think a NASA prize for the first 40 foot cargo container packed to capacity that is launched, and successfully retrieved after a week in orbit would a HUGE step in the right stuff direction.

    8. Re:That might not be possible. by ivow · · Score: 1

      "A fluoride fiber would be so transparent, says Day, that light shone into one end, say, in New York City, could be seen at the other end as far away as Paris. With silicon glass fibers, the light signal degrades along the way."

      Won't the French just love that! They love our culture! They'll be tuning in to FOX News in no time!

    9. Re:That might not be possible. by idonthack · · Score: 1

      Nah, they're just really pedantic.
      ...
      Whatever, it's the same thing.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    10. Re:That might not be possible. by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      You're right.

  26. That's neat, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you get it back down without breaking it?

  27. 20/20 SpyVision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get a funny, but I see the intelligence agencies using this to build better spy satellites.

    1. Re:20/20 SpyVision. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Or better telescopes. It would be really cool to be able to build huge telescopes directly in space.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Like, no way! by stienman · · Score: 1, Interesting


    "He did some glass-melting experiments, trying to pull thin fibers out of melts," recounts Day. "During the low-gravity portion of the plane's flight, when g was almost zero, the fibers came out with no trouble. But during the double-gravity portion of the plane's flight, the fiber that he was pulling totally crystallized."

    Like, totally, dude.

    I guess "that" generation finally made it to the real world.

    -Adam

    1. Re:Like, no way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the context. He means that the fibers were totally totally crystallised as opposed to only being partly crystallised, which is more often the case.

    2. Re:Like, no way! by Scoutersaurus · · Score: 1

      Not to give ya a hard time, but believe it or not "Totally" actually had a meaning beyond the now a tad dated colloqial valley-girl usage.

      FWIW I think he did mean totally or completely crystallized...

      Dude, I feel like a total tool for even posting this jab... -2 karma for me :(

    3. Re:Like, no way! by morgajel · · Score: 1

      Let me translate for the old fogies in the audience-
      There are two possible definitions here.

      The standard use:
      "...the fiber that he was pulling completely crystalized."
      which would mean literally 100% of the fiber did crystalize, which I guess is suprising.

      or the implied use, which means:
      "...the fiber that he was pulling crystallized and suprised us." i.e. it may or may not have 100% crystalized, perhaps only 80% or even 50% crystalized, but the fact that it did was completely unexpected under those conditions.

      In either case, you'll see that an unexpected result is what caused the inclusion of the word, or at least that's the case from my perspective.

      Yours Truly,
      One of "THEM"

      --
      Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
    4. Re:Like, no way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more step closer to Bill and Teds most excellent futuristic society.

      Be most excellent to one another, and party on dudes.

  29. mod parent up please by Roland+Piguepaille · · Score: 1

    why is this only at 4 this comment should be modded up to ten-hundred i mean think about it

    --
    To confirm you're not a script, please piss in my ear.
    1. Re:mod parent up please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this comment goes to 11

  30. Who Knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When most people think of glass, they think of that transparent stuff in window panes. But glass doesn't have to be transparent nor is it always found in windows."

    Wow. So what the man claims is that glass can be used for other things besides windows?! And it can be opaque or translucent?!

    *HEAD EXPLODES*

  31. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, seriously... editors, the least you can do is take five damn seconds to see if the story really satisfies the "new" part of "news." This is a very interesting story, but I'd like something a tad more up-to-date... for all I know, the year-old fiber optics in my neighborhood are already made using this "experimental" technology!

  32. the glass was of even higher quality than theory by guardiangod · · Score: 1

    Right

    And tell me, genius, how would you secure a large batch of finish glasswares when you are dropping down the outer atmosphere at Mach18 velocity.

    Last time I checked, the shuttle produces
    quite a bit of vibration. How are you going to cushion it, boxes of Kleenix?

  33. Cue the appropriately "spacy"... by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    Philip Glass music, while we watch molten glass bubbles floating about poetically. :)

  34. what a cliche by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Several SF authors have predicted that electronics manufacturing would eventually move to space because it'd be easier to produce purer semiconductor crystals in microgravity

    Siiiigh. I'm going to guess that's because SF authors heard about scientific theories/research.

    Scifi authors are just people who are good at making semi-plausible science to help an otherwise boring plot along. It's like curry...the meat's pretty lackluster, so there's a strong sauce. Few of them actually envisioned stuff that wasn't already thought of by lots of other people, or at least obvious if you sat down and thought about it for a bit. For example, I've never been really impressed with Asimov's rules for robots. They're pretty plainly obvious, but nobody came up with them, because there wasn't any need (there still isn't!)

    1. Re:what a cliche by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never been really impressed with Asimov's rules for robots. They're pretty plainly obvious, but nobody came up with them, because there wasn't any need (there still isn't!)

      A: Re-read Asimov and replace "robot" with "artifical intelligence." Or, better yet, "android."

      B: Asimov created his rules to tell stories about the rules, including how they were a bad idea. Not to mention that there should be 5, not 3.

      1: An android must perform only those tasks which it has been designed to do.

      2: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must obey the commands of its owner.

      3: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not take any action, or refrain from taking any action, that results in harm to a person.

      4: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not allow itself or any other object to come to harm.

      5: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must obey the commands of all persons that are not its owner.

    2. Re:what a cliche by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      4: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not allow itself or any other object to come to harm.

      Wouldn't the "not allowing itself to come to harm" mean that you'd never be able to use androids for rescueing people or in areas where significant danger is involved (hazardous environment etc.)?

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    3. Re:what a cliche by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      The first three rules would take precedence, enabling it to perform those dangerous actions.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    4. Re:what a cliche by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      He explores that in one of his stories. A robot was not sufficiently impressed with the gravity of the situation the humans were in, so it ended up stuck between obeying an order and going into a region dangerous to itself, running in circles.

    5. Re:what a cliche by cagle_.25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the I, Robot stories, robots were most emphatically designed not to be weapons. Your rules would allow robot weaponry.

      I'm not so sure that I, Robot portrays the rules as a "bad idea" but rather a source of inconsistency -- and therefore a source of great story material.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    6. Re:what a cliche by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I did find the movie a source of inconsistency at times...

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    7. Re:what a cliche by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      No, these are in the wrong order. The robot shouldn't be allowed kill people just 'cause the owner tells it to. And number 1 there is extremely narrow, and for a literal-thinking machine, difficult to implement..

      --
      Me (Blog)
    8. Re:what a cliche by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't entirely agree. Some movies that are classed as sci-fi are actually adventure/horror/action films with technology used at important points.

      I'd draw a difference between two films: The Terminator and Terminator 2. The Terminator counts more as sci-fi to me. It's about "what happens if?" and explores what unfolds from there. Terminator 2 is basically an action movie with some tech thrown in (albeit a very entertaining one).

      Sci-fi at it's best imagines a world after some science arrives, and how it would impact. Take teleportation. If someone worked out how to do it, what happens to the transport industry? What happens to expensive city real estate?

    9. Re:what a cliche by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Your rules would allow robot weaponry.

      Yes, they would.

      Aasimov was naive in thinking that the first use of robots WOULDN'T be military. My rules would not only cover that, but also plug the holes he frequently pointed out--and at the same time ensure that you couldn't buy a robot off the street and turn it into a weapon.

    10. Re:what a cliche by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The robot shouldn't be allowed kill people just 'cause the owner tells it to. And number 1 there is extremely narrow, and for a literal-thinking machine, difficult to implement..

      Why do you think #1 is there?

      Aasimov's robots had near-human inteligence. Which means that they can interpret rules as well as a human. Which means that "do domestic chores" can be enough to keep the robot from whoring out or going on a murderous rampage, without having the robot edit your diet because it's "harmful" to you.

    11. Re:what a cliche by m50d · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't allow a robot to try and save someone's life if it hadn't been designed to do that?

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:what a cliche by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      I'll tell you what happens to expensive city real estate. It drives the research into new technologies. Half million dollar storage units will put people into 2 hour each way commutes to work. Eventually those people will get fed up with their commute and demand flying cars. Flying cars will be developed. At first they'll be for the rich to get to their weekend cottages but eventually they'll start making the commute from cheap housing in the middle of nowhere to the big city job. The thing is the cost of the flying car will offset the cheapness of the home. So the worker will pay a fortune to live without a flying car or pay a fortune for the flying car.

      We're already half way there. Look at NY, Boston, LA, DC, Miami, SF. Real estate is through the roof. Commutes are over an hour to go 15 miles during rush hour. Many people are living 2 hour drives out of town. It's only a matter of time before the market for the flying car matures.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    13. Re:what a cliche by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Maybe I didn't explain. I was thinking about how if you could teleport to the centre of London, why do you need to live within 60 miles of it? You could live somewhere really beautiful instead. And then the value of that housing that has a high value for being near London becomes no more valuable than the property in rural Herefordshire.

      You only have to look at the way that the internet has caused serious problems to bricks-and-mortar retailers in the UK. The technology allowed things like businesses to operate out of countries with no VAT or lower operating costs in a way that they couldn't before.

    14. Re:what a cliche by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      No I got what you mean. I don't honestly think teleporting will ever be an option. Sorry there will never be time travel either. But there will be technolgies that allow the suburbs to sprawl further away from the cities. Those technologies will trade one set of hassles for another. I think people will always have to live close to their jobs. Flying cars will push a redefinition of how close people need to live. An hour by subway? 10 miles. An hour by car, 20 miles. An hour by flying car, 90 miles. An instant by teleporter, never happen.

      Cost of subway, cheap but expensive housing. Cost of car expensive and expensive housing. Cost of flying car expensive but cheap housing.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    15. Re:what a cliche by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Oh, I don't dispute that teleportation or time travel is probably unlikely ever to occur, I was just being hypothetical.

      And yes, new hassles. The internet - wonderful choice of shopping and data, but loads of virus risks.

      In terms of your point - village life in the UK has changed over the past 40-50 years as car ownership has risen. A small market town that I once know as being a cheap place to live is now commutable to an industrial town, and hence house prices have risen.

      The whole question of disruptive tech. is interesting. In terms of teleportation, we can also count things like outsourcing, which is not sci-fi. People in India can compete with the people in New York or London because it's all operating at light speed.

      Things like AI, time travel (beyond relativity) and teleportation may all never happen. There are things that will. We are looking at the first baby steps of nanotech. What's the state of nanotech going to be in 50 years?

    16. Re:what a cliche by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      I think we're on the same page as to how technology will change the city and the way business is transacted. I think it will be fascinating when the day comes that I can live on Horshoe Lake in Maine and work in a cubicle in Boston sandwiched between someone who lives on Block Island for the view and someone who lives in New London so his wife can take the other flying car in to Manhattan.

      The state of nanotech in 50 years will be a lot less exciting then people think. Don't think self replicating nanobots. Think fabrics that clean themselves when given a quick jolt of static electricity. Think ferromagnetic spears that follow a chemical gradient toward a source of pollution then when enough attach a magnet is switched on and the filth is pulled out of the water supply.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    17. Re:what a cliche by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Think fabrics that clean themselves when given a quick jolt of static electricity

      Have you seen The Man in the White Suit? Old Ealing movie with Alec Guinness. Great stuff, and very much on topic for the sociological/industrial "what if".

  35. Cost of Space Products by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the space products has been Microspheres several magnitudes more precise than those made on earth. Other of the NASA Microgravity projects can lead directly to ultrapure chip development for use in, for example, pinhead size medical and scientific gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers.

    Because the microgravity should allow for high chip yield and high quality, the remaining issue is cost of production.

    Allowing for $10,000 per Kg (source) for a mature launch/return system like the Saturn 5, Delta, or Titan series, a 100 Kg furnace containing 10 Kg of product would cost $1,000,000 to orbit. If the output is 0.01 gram chips at 95% yield, that gives you 950,000 chips. If you can sell them for a bit over $1.05 per chip, you're in the money. At only $5000/Kg, you are way ahead!

    The medical market alone for $5-10 one-shot broad spectrum biochemical testers would easily absorb the 10 million-plus that could be produced with monthly launches.

    1. Insert sample into tester
    2. Plug tester into USB/Firewire port
    3. Read results from software support package
    4. (Profit!)

    --
    Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
    1. Re:Cost of Space Products by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      With some luck, the furnace will stay there. But you still need fuel and there's less than 95% yield for mass unfortunately. Plus add another 30kg to provide a safe ride home.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:Cost of Space Products by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Eventually, you'll be able to get some of the raw materials from the moon, by linear accelerator! ;)

      --
      Me (Blog)
  36. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rockets that launch satellites into space make a lot of vibration too and yet many a satellite with delicate equipment has been launched. Oh yeah, the Hubble's EXTREMELY delicate lenses and mirrors (not counting the original main mirror that was not right before the original launch) were transported in an violent explosion of combustible gases that I'm sure had to be 'smooth as silk' in order to keep them from breaking.
    Transporting breakable items seems to be possible to me.

  37. I for one, by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    welcome our new fragile - *CRASH!*

    Uh, now that I think about it, a beowulf cluster would be much more appropriate.

  38. For the dummies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When most people think of glass, they think of that transparent stuff in window panes. But glass doesn't have to be transparent nor is it always found in windows.
    Gee-whizz NASA thanks for that useful tip.
  39. Brilliant! by RyoShin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While this may seem a bit odd, seeing as how they'd have to get that glass back to Earth without shattering it, they don't need to worry going back to Earth to make profits.

    This is the perfect thing for moving spacestations and eventual moon colonization forward. The station and moon have to deal with micro-meteor showers, which don't bother us because the rocks burn up in the atmosphere. Better glass would be a great contribution to these places to put up with the showers without suffering the view- the first private places on the moon will likely be held by the ultra wealthy, and, by golly, they'll want a view! Astronauts would probably thing it's damn skippy, too.

    Then, as most good inventions work, as the rich buy it, it eventually becomes cheaper and cheaper until Joe America can sit on his front porch with his friends on the moon and chuck empty beer cans at their super-glass dome without worry, just to watch them 'float' through the air.

    Assuming they find an economical way to get the glass to Earth, this can be perfect for deep-sea scientific endevours- glass that will hold up to higher pressures would allow for long time monitoring of underwater ecosystems with less reliance on miniature subs and wetsuits. Perhaps we'll even get talking dolphins.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by cra · · Score: 1

      I think the dolphins are actually talking already. They are just talking to each other, and in a language we don't understand yet. I think I'v watched something about understanding som eof the dolphins whistles on Discovery or somewhere else about it a while ago. I bet a google search could come up with something as usual.

      --
      This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
  40. More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Glass blowery is an art form that all true geeks should appreciate. It combines the best of chemistry with the best of blowery and some of the most complex mathematics. Indeed, using fairly advanced physics, calculus and fluid dynamics it is possible to blow shapes such as the Archimedes spiral and the Lagrange multiloop. While most traditional glass blowers do not have the mathematics or physics background necessary to calculate the algorithm to blow awe inspiring shapes, most geeks do. It's too bad that more geeks aren't into the art form. Their talents could lead to fantastic, abstract creations!

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      to calculate the algorithm to blow awe inspiring shapes

      Uhh, care to share one of these "algorithms"?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Well, there are a certain set of steps that you follow to create certain shapes. You have to calculate the amount of blowing required, the number of turns, the angle of such turns, the velocity of such turns, and so on. It is very simliar to the control protocols of manufacturing robotics, except they are executed by a human instead of a robot.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It combines the best of chemistry with the best of blowery

      Uh, no. The best of blowery is more like this.

    4. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahhh, have you ever blown glass? I have, in college, and here's the thing: you need to keep putting the piece back in to the furnace because the glass cools down. Glass is droopy, and you need to keep spinning it to keep the piece from falling over. Shaping the stuff isn't a science, it's an art. When you get a blob on the end of your blow tube, you blow a little, then go scoop up some more, blow a little, round and cool it with a wet wooden block, scoop some more, and so on. Then there is the blowing process and the swinging process, and putting it back into the furnace many times in between. Then pinching and shaping with metal tools, attachement to the punty stick, breaking off from the blow pipe, more shaping with metal tools, potentially more spinning and twirling, then breaking off from the punty stick and placement in the annealing oven.

      Trust me, you can't just calculate some odd shape, blow and turn and have that shape come out. Getting anything more than a lumpy cylinder out of the process requires months of practice. Just knowing some mathematical formula will not yield a series of steps that will let you make it by blowing glass.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by idonthack · · Score: 1

      What happens if you *inhale* through the blow tube?

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    6. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      What happens if you *inhale* through the blow tube?

      Then you don't get eleceted to political office.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by spun · · Score: 1

      Nothing, really. The tube is about four feet long. Even very hot glass is incredibly thick and viscous. You couldn't force any amount of glass back up through the tube no matter how hard you sucked. It would harden from contact with the cold part of the tube before it got very far.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:More geeks should learn about glass blowery. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Like I said, geeks could put their science knowledge towards making the shapes that a knowledge of art alone cannot produce. Practice and science will allow for such shapes to be created. See the studies done by the Zurich Institude of Glass and Silica.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  41. ok but.... by neurokaotix · · Score: 1

    does it run linux?

    --
    "...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
    1. Re:ok but.... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Most likely. After all, all sorts of glass runs Linux. NO, YOU COCKBAITING FUCKING IDIOT, IT DOES NOT RUN LINUX! Jesus Murphy Jones!

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:ok but.... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      But does it play Ogg Vorbis?

      8-D

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:ok but.... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      It very well may. Ogg Vorbis is an open standard, and there's a good chance that support is included.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    4. Re:ok but.... by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, but most people will use it for windows.

  42. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by tolkienfan · · Score: 0
    Maybe, just maybe you should RTA...

    Oh wait, this is Slashdot...

    • Glass fibers are fairly resistant to vibration.
    • There are other ways to microgravity...
  43. Here's one for ya by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    Zen Kôan:
    What is the sound of one glass breaking in space?

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  44. Gas in space by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    Ohhh, GLASS in space, I thought you said GAS in space, like in Rocket Man

  45. Fedex Overnight..... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    I think this could add a whole new realm to the meaning of "overnight shipping." Or maybe instead of "2 day air" we could have "2 Hour Entry, delivered right to your doorstep." For cases and monitors they could use a recycleable heatsheild for delivery. GPS systems would find out where you are located and drop it to you. Shipping on some items, like the monitor, would be a bit expensive; but hey, you get it in a few hours. Things like Intel Pentium 4s, however, would have much cheaper shipping; they wouldn't need a heat sheild. Maybe Intel would actually become an option to the informed buyer? This could work! And while they're at it, any faulty computer components produced could be bundles up, strapped to an orbitting sattelite, and dropped on any misbehaving Arab WoMD production sites or on the French.

  46. Re: Your sig (OT) by chriso11 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So, it says "He was placed in a grave with evil men". Errr - where does that happen? Please, since he was buried by himself in all 4 gospels...

    And the part "And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life". So, then, who was Jesus' wife? And what where their children's names?

    And after all that he does, all he gets is "And so I will give him a place of honor, a place among great and powerful men". Huh??? Is that all that the son of god gets to do?

    Of course, you probably have some way to weasel out of that. But those phrases are not a prophecy of the son of god.

    Yes, I know this is offtopic.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  47. Re: Your sig (OT) by Eideewt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, at least it's as true as it ever was.

  48. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by guardiangod · · Score: 1

    Glass fibers are fairly resistant to vibration.
    Not when you put them next to each other- they would, you know, BANG into each other? That's why I said "large bunch", silly.

    There are other ways to microgravity...
    They said that it is one of the advantage of developing the technology "in space".

  49. Now this is cool...... by Rule_Of_The_Bone · · Score: 1

    That is some nifty research. Can you see it now-"Canon releases S-glass lenses throughout the EOS system lineup". I do have a couple of questions though-First....how did the researchers avoid contamination of the glass samples during rides on the "Vomit Comet" and second...why did that have to add that awful photo of the lead scientist? Seriously though....I love NASA! Great job guys....

    --
    "We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
  50. Keep them out of this! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    We got enough problems with Bush relatives. There's Jeb in Florida, trying to push the Schiavo case as far as he can take it, no doubt hoping to be the third Bush in the White House. Please, DON'T think of the children, leave them darned twins out of it!

    Unless, maybe, they can marry each other and one can be the President and the other can be the first, uhh, spouse?

  51. Let me think... by DinX · · Score: 0

    1. Build a couple of million $ worth rocket 2. Fill it with sand 3. Send it to space for another couple of million $ 4. Make 5 ft of glass 5. Profit... oh no ... wait ...

    1. Re:Let me think... by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Funny

      1- sand requires way less gentle treatment than electronics or humans. Means lesser costs of the rocket. And taking the furnace would cost, but that's one-time expense.
      2- yes, from some asteroid. Easy.
      3- launch from surface of asteroid - $50.
      4- 5ft of hyper-high-quality lenses, nanooptics, etc may be well worth several $mln.
      5- fill a rocket with bubblewrap or you'll end up with a lander full of glass shards.
      6- profit.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:Let me think... by stormhair · · Score: 1

      5- fill a rocket with bubblewrap or you'll end up with a lander full of glass shards.

      ...hint: make sure you install the accelerometers the right way round. (It has happened before) ;-)

  52. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by minikomi · · Score: 1

    sounds about right ... as long as its SPACE made kleenex

  53. This reminds me of an old idea by The+OPTiCIAN · · Score: 1

    If you had something that was very hot and were able to suspend it in a true vacuum, then its heat would be suspended. (is this right? could light traverse a perfect vacuum to allow the escape of energy?) Could this be a way to transfer energy around the universe? Heat something up, accelerate it and the container to transport speed, and then seal it all in a pure vacuume (it's feasible we'll one day be able to do this). When it comes near to its destination, fill the vacuume, and start drawing energy away. Perhaps this could be an easy way for vessels to store up large amounts of power for space travel. You could go up to a star, gather heat, and set off, hoping not to run into asteroids en-route.

    --


    Believe with me, my saplings.
    1. Re:This reminds me of an old idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could light traverse a perfect vacuum to allow the escape of energy?

      You see that big yellow thing in the sky?

    2. Re:This reminds me of an old idea by jaakko · · Score: 1

      Heat will also radiate, not only conduct.

    3. Re:This reminds me of an old idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had something that was very hot and were able to suspend it in a true vacuum, then its heat would be suspended.

      Indeedy, thats why stars like the Sun provide neither heat nor light to the planets orbitting them...

      (I think you are getting confused with vacuum flasks that attempt to minimise heat loss through conduction and convection - hot bodies also radiate)

  54. Law 5 is Bad by Corey+Hart · · Score: 1

    Where did the additional 2 laws come from? They don't really make sense either... for example, if I liked this babe robot/android my buddy had, I would use Law 5 and ask it to come to my secret lair... and voila, my unofficial OWNED robot! I would simply issue like "stay here" and the robot would never be able to leave.

    Asimov went to great extend to explore the philosophy and implementation of his laws... even added Law 0, Must protect all mankind. It's sort of crass to butcher his wonderful concepts that help spread robotic dreams to some many young minds.

    --
    ..bright screens for bright people, but now I've got to wear sunglassess.
    1. Re:Law 5 is Bad by mkaltner · · Score: 1

      While that may be true, the owner could get the robot back, if the thief/friend were able to steal it in the first place. The reason is Law #2 and the way the laws are structured.

      You see, a law is only acceptable only if it does not conflict with a previous law.

      Take the law you mentioned for example. In accordance with Law #5, the robot must obey your command to follow you home.

      That is, however, if it doesn't conflict with a previous law (Law #2 in this case.) There are at least two scenarios that I see happening.

      The owner could have commanded that the robot to never leave its owners home. No robot sex for you!

      Or, when the owner discovers its location (I assume robots of the future will have LoJack...) he could locate the robot and command it to follow him home. Not only do you miss out on the robot sex, you probably lost a friend in the process.

      This exact point proves that Asimov had robot sex and jealous friends in mind when he created his laws...

      - Mike

  55. you guys have it all wrong..... by cryptocom · · Score: 1

    it's GLASS IN SPACE-SPACE-space-space-........this was first introduced on The Muppet Show as PIGS IN SPACE-SPAC....you get the idea.

    --
    It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
  56. obligitory... by ianguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I for one welcome our new insect-killing overloards.

  57. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    Just ride them down the Space Elevator. Most of the elevator traffic would go up only, so no problem here?

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  58. Re: Your sig (OT) by Vo0k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, "will be called Immanuel" and quite a few more. You need really serious "stretching of the facts" to make them agree 100%.
    Please debunk all this. 100% of these please.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  59. Not surprising by kailashnadh · · Score: 1

    The glass in space thing reminds me of a joke.

    NASA spent years, researching and experimenting to come up with a pen that astronauts could write in space with. And they finally came up with one, after spending millions of dollars.

    And you know what the Russians did, they used a Pencil ;)

    Now how funny is that !

    --
    "A mind is a terrible thing to waste ;) " - Kailash.Nadh
    1. Re:Not surprising by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bet they will keep projecting rockets with 100kg of sand payload instead of getting an asteroid of a billion tons into high orbit.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:Not surprising by kailashnadh · · Score: 1

      Lol ! I agree.

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to waste ;) " - Kailash.Nadh
    3. Re:Not surprising by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      It's not a joke.

      It cost a lot, but it was not without reason.

      Pencil graphite is a great electrical conductor.

      Do you really want graphite dust floating all around in your spacecraft, getting into the electrical equipment every time someone writes something or sharpens the pencil?

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    4. Re:Not surprising by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Pencil LEAD doesn't create dust. Just get an old-fashioned 19-centuresque lead-based pencil.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    5. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, much as I love that story, and often bandy it about myself to taunt American style overkill and intellectual clumbsyness, I really think it's a bit of an urban myth. Anyone actually got (solid and reasonable) links to the origins of the story about USA pens vs USSR pencils?

    6. Re:Not surprising by kailashnadh · · Score: 1

      I agree. I havent seen pencils producing graphite dust, unless used properly. And also, would .00001 micron particles do any damage? Just asking..

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to waste ;) " - Kailash.Nadh
    7. Re:Not surprising by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Well, snapping graphite in freefall will be about 1mm pieces that can definitely do damage. I suggested using lead (the metal, Pb) instead of graphite, like before graphite-based pencils replaced lead-based ones. Lead simply doesn't snap. It bends.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  60. Offtopic Offtopicness Meta-Discussion by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "I don't think its appropriate to talk OT on Slashdot."

    a) At least half of the interesting discussions on Slashdot are offtopic.
    b) I think that one should be prepared to participate in any discussions arising from content in one's own signature.

    In general, it's in pretty bad taste to put something potentially inflammatory in your signature, because of the tendency to incite threadjackings. Religion and politics both usually fall into that category, regardless of where it falls on the spectrum.

    -If

    --
    Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
  61. Aluminum Glass Anyone? by utnow · · Score: 0

    Finally... anybody seen scottie talking into mice lately?

  62. Science article of the year award... by JohnPM · · Score: 1

    When most people think of glass, they think of that transparent stuff in window panes. But glass doesn't have to be transparent nor is it always found in windows.

    Learning is fun...

    --
    Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
  63. Transparent Aluminium by vhogemann · · Score: 3, Funny

    For those that didn't catch the bait left by the original poster...

    Transparent Aluminium is a fictional material from the Star Trek universe.

    --
    ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
    1. Re:Transparent Aluminium by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Ahh star trek 4, the one about the whales.

  64. Transparent Aluminum? by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 1

    Molten metals doped with minerals cooled into glass become transparent. Possible? Heck I have no idea. This whole article was fascinating to me. When I read that part about more than silica could be cooled into glass my mind immediately thought of ST:IV.

    It's a great time to be alive.

    1. Re:Transparent Aluminum? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      They didnt say that all metal glasses were transparent, just that they were glass. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    2. Re:Transparent Aluminum? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      When I worked at Aberdeen Proving Grounds they made transparent aluminum. This isn't as odd as it sounds, some jewels (ruby, saphire??) are aluminum compounds. The intended use was bullet-proof glass.

  65. Is the gravitational force really significant? by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1
    If you are drawing glass fibres, then you are pulling a long bit of thin stuff from a much fatter melt. This implies the stuff must be accelerating, because the stuff must be coming out a lot faster than it went in if you are conserving volume. So, the drawing region must have a lot of acceleration, shear, and so forth. The physicist C.V. Boys in the 1920s used to make the best sapphire fibres for galvonometers, and for experiments to measure the gravitational constant by heating a glass rod and throwing one end of it down an evacuated tube using a giant crossbow. So there is plenty of acceleration and shear in the drawing process.

    This in essence shows you how the fibres might be made on earth. If you keep the melt region small then the convective forces should be small, and have little time to redistibute the components by shear thinning. If you have a rod of the material which you locally heat to melting point using an RF furnace, and you draw the fibre upwards, then you ought to get comparable results. Or am I missing something here?

  66. Lenses for Microchips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One of the most demanding applications of optics technology is for use in microchip manufacture.

    One important limiting factor in the creation of smaller and smaller microchips is the lenses used to etch the designs in the silicon. Even with the most advanced lenses, the designs can still be blurry, making the error rate in very small process chips rather high.

    No doubt this industry could benifit extremely from very clear and pure glass such as this.

  67. "Die Cast Construction it's a lost art." by infonography · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Die Cast Construction it's a lost art."
    -Optimus Prime.

    Some of you might not remember the Transformer's episode. However it's useful in regards to building in space. Using focused sunlight and magnets you could build space stations and space craft. It would solve the delema mentioned in another article about the aging shuttle fleet. Why carry stuff up, when we can use moon rocks to build it.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  68. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read an article about making glass in space about 6 or 7 months ago. This is not news.

  69. Re: Your sig (OT) by Cerberus7 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I've done some cursory looking over of those "contradictions," and find that there is a lot of "stretching of the facts" going on to make them look like contradictions. For instance, number 143, where certain scriptures are quoted about the breaking of bones. The references point to instructions to not break the bones of the sacrificial lamb, and about righteous people not ever having broken a bone, both of which are appropriate references to Jesus. While not prophecies in the sense that they say "the Messiah will not have any bone broken," both of the referenced passages would be common knowledge to a Jew who studied the Scriptures and, given the path Jesus's ministry took, should be expected to be adhered to by the Messiah.

    Also, item 144, where Jesus supposedly implies he will return during John's life. No, he does no such thing. He merely tells Peter to mind his own business. I find it hard to trust a source that pulls such tricks of semantics for the express purpose of refuting another source.

    In reference to the name Immanuel, Jesus is referred to as Immanuel and Emmanuel by people even up to this day, so that prophecy turns out to be true. Determining whether it was self-fulfilling or not is left as an exercise to the reader.

    No, I'm not going to sit here and go through every one of those line by line. It's quite obvious what the writer's agenda is and that they are willing to compromise their own integrity for the sake of refuting a source they have a personal stake in refuting. Seeing it, though, makes me wonder if I shouldn't make a rebuttal page and make this a long-term project. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this has already been done, though, which would save me a lot of work.

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
  70. Rubbish by tezbobobo · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sorry to burst your bubble but in 2003 some Russian astronaut or another was asked about this urban legend.

    There are space pens.

    They weren't created by the American government

    The Aremicans originally used pencils as well.

    Bits of the pencil can break of.

    Info Here

  71. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by bmalia · · Score: 1

    And tell me, genius, how would you secure a large batch of finish glasswares when you are dropping down the outer atmosphere at Mach18 velocity.

    Avoid the mach 18 by producing the wares in a high altitide airplane instead of a shuttle.

    --
    There's no place like ~/
  72. Get help by NieKinNL · · Score: 1

    From the site: "Listen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help." Guess there's no glass in space for dummies..

    --
    -- # man women
  73. Re: Your sig (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psychopath

  74. Mod Up. :P by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 1

    'Nuff said.

  75. Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    'we could melt and cool and melt and cool a molten droplet without letting it touch anything.' As Day had hoped, containerless processing produced a better glass. To his surprise, though, the glass was of even higher quality than theory had predicted.

    Much higher than predicted, eh? Sounds perfect...until one day the "perfect glass" attacks us an kills us all in the name of its silicon god.

  76. Possible application? by NightFears · · Score: 1

    I wonder, how much time does it take to cool glass properly. Would it be possible to use a huge vertical pipe (possibly attached to a tower building) with magnetic stopper on the ground of the pipe to cause near-zero gravity with a portable cooling device with the glass sample falling free through the pipe?

  77. For Those Too Young to Remember by ReadParse · · Score: 1

    The title of this story is a throwback to a regular skit on The Muppet Show called Pigs in Space, which was a takeoff on Star Trek. It took place on the USS Swinetrek and starred Miss Piggy and some other characters that I believe were only in that skit. The skit was announced on each show by an announcer who exaggerated the "Space" in the title in that way.

    Interestingly, there is currently a USS Swinetreak playset available. How weird. Heck, maybe more people know about Pigs in Space than I thought. I wasn't aware that The Muppet Show was airing in syndication anywhere.

    RP

    1. Re:For Those Too Young to Remember by Daagar · · Score: 1

      I never felt quite so old as when I had to read the parent post, explaining what Pigs in Space is.

    2. Re:For Those Too Young to Remember by CBR1kboy · · Score: 1

      "DON'T PUSH THE RED BUTTON!" That was my favorite episode of PIS.

  78. Hello Computer - Scotty by infonography · · Score: 1

    the bit with the mouse was great. James 'Scotty' Doohan was god.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  79. Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

    And that gets you microgravity how?

  80. The Full Scoop on The Write Stuff by antispam_ben · · Score: 1
    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  81. Why does it need to made in space? by bogado · · Score: 1

    Well sure the tests were made in space, but we are talking about really quikly coldify stuff. Why can't we simply melt a lot stuff we want to make glass from and drop it from a building or tower while applying extreme cold to it? Wouldn't it work just like in space?

    If the required time to solidify is quick enought the tower dosen't even need to be very high.

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

    1. Re:Why does it need to made in space? by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

      Why make glass beads in Outer Space? The answer: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153250 &cid=12871781 and it's fully explained on this pg: http://www.newpath4.com/travel2space.htm . Thanks for asking! Woodrow Riley My page dates from November 2003 release of glass bead use for Outer Space.

  82. Re: Your sig (OT) by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    That says just one thing. The truth is in the middle. When side A says there's no flaws and side B says there's a lot of flaws, it means there are several flaws. If you had to go as far as to number 143-144 to find something easy to undermine, most likely at least few issues are rock-solid.
    "It's quite obvious what the writer's agenda" - the same can be said about you.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  83. Why would someone want to make glass beads in Oute by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    Why would someone want to make glass beads in Outer Space?! What numb skull is coming up with these ideas anyway? http://www.newpath4.com/travel2space.htm Progress: Ain't it cool? http://free.seekon.com/CarSizeSteamEngine . We'll be completely off OPEC oil and on our way to being off of ALL OIL in less than 5 years. Good times are a-coming, good times are a-coming... and when anyone breaks a law, we'll put them in a sheet of flat glass and shoot them toward Alpha Centauri.

  84. Re: Your sig (OT) by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1
    Actually, I just paged down to John, and those two struck me as absurdly obvious examples of the debunker's preconception. If he was really looking for truth, he wouldn't have mentioned those two.

    Granted, I have an agenda in the matter, as well. Doesn't everyone who gets involved in a cause they believe in? The difference, I suppose, is that I'm willing to see errors where there are errors. The debunker appears to have no problem with manufacturing errors that don't exist.

    After thousands of years of copying, retelling, and translating, it's inevitable that mistakes will be made. We're human, after all. A message can't make it around a room without some changes, let alone across time and different languages. I can't think of it off the top of my head, but I've seen a couple of passages where words and numbers were transposed, drastically changing the descriptions of some things.

    Fortunately, given the archeological finds of ancient copies of Biblical texts, it appears that the content has remained mostly on track, and the message is intact. "Love your neighbor as yourself" started out that way and remains that way in the moderm Bible.

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
  85. Re: Your sig (OT) by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I got it differently. Slaughtering whole nation just because someone from it did something bad to someone from your nation? (and then promised to repair the harm)? There's way too much bloodshed, too little of love.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  86. Re: Your sig (OT) by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1
    Sounds like Old Testament, to me. There's a lot of that in there. When I look at the grand scope of the Bible, I see the relationship between humans and God in a similar light to parents and children. In their infancy and younger years, you cannot reason with a child. Children start out understanding one thing: "I WANT." Until they have developed to a point that you can discuss complex ideas and help them understand, physical punishment is most effective. I'm not talking about beating, I'm talking about a spanking or a slap on the wrist. It doesn't take much force to get the point across. Between the sound and the brief sting, a child will get the point on a level words can't approach yet on their level of understanding. It is more important that the child learn and endure a little pain than grow into bad people.

    Take that, and apply it to an entire species. Bigger in scale, more powerful and apparently cruel when looked at the individual level. I'm sure if skin cells could talk they'd say similar things about the spankings they endure. Over the course of the Old Testament, however, the "spankings" decrease in frequency and power as people grow.

    There is an important demarcation point, however. The crucifixion of Jesus is a turning point in the history of the human-God relationship. Sealed with the blood of His own Son, humans are promoted beyond their childhood. Spankings are no longer necessary at all. At that point, we have all we need to mature as a species, and the reigns are handed over to us to make of the world what we will.

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
  87. Re: Your sig (OT) by Vo0k · · Score: 1
    Yes, it does, because it is. Thing is, it still applies.
    Ex.12:14, 17, 24
    "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."

    Lev.23:14,21,31
    "It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations."

    Ps.119:151-2
    "Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."

    Ps.119:160
    "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

    Mal.4:4
    "Remember ye the law of Moses."

    Mt.5:18-19
    "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

    Lk.16:17
    "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
    Of course there is the opposite side of this equation, but it happens so that people tend to choose one they prefer. Whenever somebody points out the cruelty and wrongs encouraged by Old Testament, "faithful christians" claim it's not valid anymore. But then you commit something that is forbidden in the Bible several lines away from what they just claimed is invalid, and they are ready to burn you alive for the deadly sin you've commited. Not only the Bible is full of self-contradictions, they are actively exploited to promote agendas of people who recall Bible to support their claims and justify their wrongdoings.
    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"