What do you want to bet that Electric Ink (or somebody somewhere down the line) will name a book made from their product "A Young Ladies Illustrated Primer"?
OK. After he wrote Snow Crash, the ultimate cyberpunk novel, Neil Stephenson wrote The Diamond Age. Its key plot device was nanotechnology. The funny thing is that these guys are on the verge of making this technology a reality...
True true true. So what? Xerox PARC isn't a sci-fi book and the nanotech aspect of Diamond Age isn't a real technology yet. This slashdot topic is about sci-fi books and real inventions. That's what I posted.
After he wrote Snow Crash, the ultimate cyberpunk novel, Neil Stephenson wrote The Diamond Age. Its key plot device was a book with leaves of paper that were computer controlled and displayed whatever the person wanted to read at the moment. Thus a single volume was the equivalent of the entire internet or library of congress or whatever. This differed from using a laptop computer because his society was "neo-Victorian" and everybody wanted to be seen with books, not computers, as a kind of status thing. The funny thing is that Electric Ink is on the verge of making this a reality and has already got posters up in department stores...
OK, let me say it again - it's not about ice, its about oxygen and hydrogen. The most efficent chemical rocket engine humans currently know how to make uses liquid oxygen (LOX) for oxidizer and liquid hydrogen for fuel. The specific impulse (measurement of efficiency) for such an engine is in the 480-500 second range, which trust me, is really really good and probably represents the practical engineering limit on what is going to be built. Going beyond this would require using something like using extremely corrosive liquid florine or chlorine and that ain't gonna happen. The space shuttle main engine (SSME) is the best rocket engine in this class and probably a derivative of the SSME is what would be used on a chemically-fueled manned Mars mission. (If you go with a nuclear rocket for a Mars mission, liquid hydrogen is still the best choice as the working propellant, tho you'd need a lot less of it due to the fact a nuclear reactor could heat it much hotter than chemically combusting it with LOX in a SSME).
Ice from Earth's South Pole would work fine as a source of hydrogen and oxygen to fill the tanks of a Mars ship, except for one little detail - YOU'VE GOT TO GET THE ice/oxygen/hydrogen FROM EARTH'S SOUTH POLE TO THE ORBITING MARS SHIP. This means fighting 1G gravity PLUS a thick atmosphere to get every pound of Mars fuel in orbit. Move the ice/oxygen/hydrogen from the MOON'S south pole and you ony have to fight 0.18 G gravity and no atmosphere to get it to the orbiting Mars ship.
The energy required to do these two tasks doesn't scale linearly - it isn't six times easier to lift off from the moon because it has one-sixth the gravity of Earth. It is a LOT more than 6 times easier to get a pound off the moon than a pound off of the Earth. That's why a Saturn 5 was 365 feet tall and a lunar module was only 20 feet tall. (Well, yeah, I know the Saturn 5 had to lift more weight than the LM, but I'm going for mental illustration here. There is no such thing as a 20 foot high rocket that can lift ANY amount of weight from Earth to orbit, not even a few ounces...)
So the final point remains, if you're going to mine something from the moon, your best bet is not to bring it to Earth but to take it to some orbiting launch site and use it to go somewhere else like Mars. Being on the moon puts something a lot closer to being available for use in space than being on Earth does.
Oxygen is very abundant on the moon as various oxides including silicon oxide (plain old quartz or sand). Hydrogen (and carbon too), on the other hand, is VERY rare on the moon which is why ice at the poles, if true, is a very big deal. You are correct to say there are sone things that can be made without hydrogen using lunar resources (such as glass) but without hydrogen and carbon, the amount of industrially feasable chemistry which can be performed on the moon is quite limited. No plastics, no combustion....
Actually, in high school before becoming the technogeek and ex-Boeing employee I am today, I was a dishwasher and busboy, and there were one hell of a lot of dirty dishes whatever the phase of the moon was. I wish I could have worked on the production end of food service instead of the cleanup end, so I could have made discoveries about lunar effects on bread like yours....
There are a whole lot of people like me that can say "I USED to work for Boeing". Boeing is a layoff machine...particularly for things like advanced space missions. Once the study money from the early-1990s SEI (Space Exploration Inititive) con job that Dubya's dad started was gone, so were we...
The answer is yes, but. The "but" is that you've got to get the infrastructure set up on the moon to process the materials you intend to use. For processing ice, this is pretty simple - a bulldozer, a solar panel, some tanks to hold liquids and gases. For smelting and processing metals, it's a whole level up in complexity - ore separators and furnaces and rolling mills and presses and machine tools and people to run them all...For metals, most people think it would be easier to divert an asteroid into orbit around the Earth than to even pull metals up from the moon, anyway...
Ice in the lnar poles is UNBELIEVABLY cold, just a few degrees above absolute zero, and sublimation just doesn't happen at that temperature. So much about space is counterintuitive because it is in an environment that is totally contrary to our everyday experiences...
Well, if we wait for a portable fusion reactor and helium mining on the Moon before we mount a Mars mission, we aren't going to Mars for a long, long time. Plus, from an "ore" standpoint, lunar polar ice is thousands of times more concentrated than solar-wind depositied helium-3 and will be MUCH easier to get at. Plus, setting up an ice mining station is effectively setting up a moonbase, which isn't a waste of money in my book. Sending up Mars mission propellant on the Shuttle WOULD be a waste of money and I only meant that as an illustration of how hard it is to get stuff off Earth compared to off the Moon. That will still be true even with some sort of "big dumb cheap" booster. Although propellant is an ideal payload for some sort of "space gun" like you mention...
Re:I can't believe I'm replying, but
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You don't need the hydrogen and oxygen as an energy source - you need it as mass to throw out the back of your rocket to get your rocket to move forward. You can have a great source of power - solar or nuclear or whatever - and if you ain't got mass to throw out the back, you ain't going nowhere. Using electricity to split the water into gases is merely to prepare them to be a mass moving in the direction you want as a jet of steam.
The Real Treasure Of The Moon...
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only thing worth mining on the moon is ice, if it really truly exists at the poles. The reason it is worth mining ice is that it can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis and then you've got fuel and oxidizer for a Mars mission located at the bottom of a shallow gravity well. It's been a while since I ran the numbers (I used to work for Boeing in an advanced projects group) but running a Mars mission with lunar fuel and oxidizer makes a BIG BIG BIG difference in the feasibility of it. Say you have a Mars ship in Earth or lunar orbit with empty tanks you've got to fill. From Earth you use the Shuttle, and it takes a full external tank and hundreds of millions of $$$ to get a Shuttle-cargo-bay-sized slug of liquids into your Mars ship tanks - many many shuttle missions and $$$ to fill them. It takes a LOT fewer pounds of fuel to lift the same hydrogen / oxygen from the surface of the moon to fill those same Mars ship tanks. It's the same as running a war - everybody wants to be on the tank that rolls into liberate the city, but in reality the war was won months before by the logistics and supply lines that made that final push possible. So remember, boys and girls - forget platinum group metals, the real lunar riches are its ICE...
The most amazing thing about the Harry Potter phenomenon to me is the burst of censorship associated with it. This thing is just a plain good old children's fantasy and the fundamentalist Christians down South where I live have just gone rabid about it. If you believe in the First Amendment, then you've got to fight for kids to have the right to see / read Harry Potter. Check out this website for more on the Harry / censorship angle...
There are three instruments on Odyssey. One is a gamma spectrometer that will be able to map the presence of permafrost and subsurface ice - obviously important. A second is an infrared spectrometer - not only will it be able to make a geological survey map of the minerals on the surface, it will be able to locate "hot spots" on the surface where there might still be liquid water and perhaps even life. The third instrument is a radiation monitor that was supposed to measure the dose an astronaut would receiv on a Mars mission. It appears to be broken, one hopes not from excesive radiation exposure.....
Here's a question I've always wondered about regarding BECs. Say you make one out of a cloud of radioactive atoms. You hold the cloud together long enough to where if it were NOT a BEC, some of the atoms would decay. What happens? Does the waveform of the whole cloud change? When the cloud warms up, how does it decide which atoms not to reconstitute because they are "gone"?
Actually, I am very aware that Pakistan has nukes and I actually believe that is one of the reasons we might use one in Afghanistan. India has had nukes since 1974 and recently tested one that was in a militarily deliverable form. This goaded the Pakistanis into testing their own (first) nuke shortly thereafter in the late 1990s. Now the Indian subcontinent is probably the closest to the brink of anywhere. Except for very isolated Chinese and French tests, nobody has tested observable above-ground nuclear tests since 1962. We have all forgotten just how horrible and powerful these things are - all we do is talk about them. If we use one three hundred miles from Pakistan in Kandahar, the Pakistanis will be the first on the scene to see what happened - and it won't be lost on them that India could do the exact same thing to Karachi if the two of them don't stop bickering about Kashmir. The psychological impact of a US nuke warshot will be intended to send a message to many others besides the Afgans, and the Pakistanis may well be at the top of that list.
This is actually the same kind of twisted logic many people believe was the real reason we dropped a second nuke on Nagasaki - that it wasn't a message to the Japanese, it was a message to the Russians. No, Hiroshima wasn't one-of-a-kind so don't gamble with invading a shattered western Europe to see whether or not we have still more...
Plus, up intil now Dubya's sole foreign policy initiative has been the Missile Defense Shield, which his administration has ranted about endlessly to the exclusion of all else. We've flat out told the Russians we're backing out of the ABM treaty and have already started bulldozing trees in Alaska for the first interceptor site. Now, if Dubya blasts a crater in Kandahar, the world becomes a much more dangerous place for nukes - so it becomes harder to argue against the need for a Missile Defense Shield Dubya has been pushing for all along.
Plus, it's just plain old PR. We can't just shoot off more cruise missiles - been there, done that, so what. We can't have an extended ground presence in any of these warzones - we'd get eaten alive just like the Soviets. So Dubya's got to do something SPECTACULAR, something TOUGH, something PRESIDENTIAL, just to look good...
Militarily, nuke use doesn't make sense - Afganistan just isn't a worthy target and it would destabilize the worldwide nuke situation. My point is that I think nuke use will be used for POLITICAL purposes, not military ones... and that's the scariest reason of all.
I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
*** BEGIN DRUDGE REPORT
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
*** END DRUDGE REPORT
I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".
The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet. That's a damn shame, because somehow it IS the key to solving this mess once and for all....
Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first....
I agree with what you are saying and I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".
The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet.
Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first.
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
I followed with interest your various responses to your "full metal jacket" post elsewhere and thought you might be interested in the quotes below...I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. This comes from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com), I've posted it elsewhere if you want to join the discussion again in another thread:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think "My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
"My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think nukes are on the way in this mess....check this out from www.drudgereport.com:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
Slashdot Mirror
Or more likely, "A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer".
What do you want to bet that Electric Ink (or somebody somewhere down the line) will name a book made from their product "A Young Ladies Illustrated Primer"?
OK. After he wrote Snow Crash, the ultimate cyberpunk novel, Neil Stephenson wrote The Diamond Age. Its key plot device was nanotechnology. The funny thing is that these guys are on the verge of making this technology a reality...
True true true. So what? Xerox PARC isn't a sci-fi book and the nanotech aspect of Diamond Age isn't a real technology yet. This slashdot topic is about sci-fi books and real inventions. That's what I posted.
After he wrote Snow Crash, the ultimate cyberpunk novel, Neil Stephenson wrote The Diamond Age. Its key plot device was a book with leaves of paper that were computer controlled and displayed whatever the person wanted to read at the moment. Thus a single volume was the equivalent of the entire internet or library of congress or whatever. This differed from using a laptop computer because his society was "neo-Victorian" and everybody wanted to be seen with books, not computers, as a kind of status thing. The funny thing is that Electric Ink is on the verge of making this a reality and has already got posters up in department stores...
OK, let me say it again - it's not about ice, its about oxygen and hydrogen. The most efficent chemical rocket engine humans currently know how to make uses liquid oxygen (LOX) for oxidizer and liquid hydrogen for fuel. The specific impulse (measurement of efficiency) for such an engine is in the 480-500 second range, which trust me, is really really good and probably represents the practical engineering limit on what is going to be built. Going beyond this would require using something like using extremely corrosive liquid florine or chlorine and that ain't gonna happen. The space shuttle main engine (SSME) is the best rocket engine in this class and probably a derivative of the SSME is what would be used on a chemically-fueled manned Mars mission. (If you go with a nuclear rocket for a Mars mission, liquid hydrogen is still the best choice as the working propellant, tho you'd need a lot less of it due to the fact a nuclear reactor could heat it much hotter than chemically combusting it with LOX in a SSME).
Ice from Earth's South Pole would work fine as a source of hydrogen and oxygen to fill the tanks of a Mars ship, except for one little detail - YOU'VE GOT TO GET THE ice/oxygen/hydrogen FROM EARTH'S SOUTH POLE TO THE ORBITING MARS SHIP. This means fighting 1G gravity PLUS a thick atmosphere to get every pound of Mars fuel in orbit. Move the ice/oxygen/hydrogen from the MOON'S south pole and you ony have to fight 0.18 G gravity and no atmosphere to get it to the orbiting Mars ship.
The energy required to do these two tasks doesn't scale linearly - it isn't six times easier to lift off from the moon because it has one-sixth the gravity of Earth. It is a LOT more than 6 times easier to get a pound off the moon than a pound off of the Earth. That's why a Saturn 5 was 365 feet tall and a lunar module was only 20 feet tall. (Well, yeah, I know the Saturn 5 had to lift more weight than the LM, but I'm going for mental illustration here. There is no such thing as a 20 foot high rocket that can lift ANY amount of weight from Earth to orbit, not even a few ounces...)
So the final point remains, if you're going to mine something from the moon, your best bet is not to bring it to Earth but to take it to some orbiting launch site and use it to go somewhere else like Mars. Being on the moon puts something a lot closer to being available for use in space than being on Earth does.
Oxygen is very abundant on the moon as various oxides including silicon oxide (plain old quartz or sand). Hydrogen (and carbon too), on the other hand, is VERY rare on the moon which is why ice at the poles, if true, is a very big deal. You are correct to say there are sone things that can be made without hydrogen using lunar resources (such as glass) but without hydrogen and carbon, the amount of industrially feasable chemistry which can be performed on the moon is quite limited. No plastics, no combustion....
Actually, in high school before becoming the technogeek and ex-Boeing employee I am today, I was a dishwasher and busboy, and there were one hell of a lot of dirty dishes whatever the phase of the moon was. I wish I could have worked on the production end of food service instead of the cleanup end, so I could have made discoveries about lunar effects on bread like yours....
There are a whole lot of people like me that can say "I USED to work for Boeing". Boeing is a layoff machine...particularly for things like advanced space missions. Once the study money from the early-1990s SEI (Space Exploration Inititive) con job that Dubya's dad started was gone, so were we...
The answer is yes, but. The "but" is that you've got to get the infrastructure set up on the moon to process the materials you intend to use. For processing ice, this is pretty simple - a bulldozer, a solar panel, some tanks to hold liquids and gases. For smelting and processing metals, it's a whole level up in complexity - ore separators and furnaces and rolling mills and presses and machine tools and people to run them all...For metals, most people think it would be easier to divert an asteroid into orbit around the Earth than to even pull metals up from the moon, anyway...
Ice in the lnar poles is UNBELIEVABLY cold, just a few degrees above absolute zero, and sublimation just doesn't happen at that temperature. So much about space is counterintuitive because it is in an environment that is totally contrary to our everyday experiences...
Well, if we wait for a portable fusion reactor and helium mining on the Moon before we mount a Mars mission, we aren't going to Mars for a long, long time. Plus, from an "ore" standpoint, lunar polar ice is thousands of times more concentrated than solar-wind depositied helium-3 and will be MUCH easier to get at. Plus, setting up an ice mining station is effectively setting up a moonbase, which isn't a waste of money in my book. Sending up Mars mission propellant on the Shuttle WOULD be a waste of money and I only meant that as an illustration of how hard it is to get stuff off Earth compared to off the Moon. That will still be true even with some sort of "big dumb cheap" booster. Although propellant is an ideal payload for some sort of "space gun" like you mention...
You don't need the hydrogen and oxygen as an energy source - you need it as mass to throw out the back of your rocket to get your rocket to move forward. You can have a great source of power - solar or nuclear or whatever - and if you ain't got mass to throw out the back, you ain't going nowhere. Using electricity to split the water into gases is merely to prepare them to be a mass moving in the direction you want as a jet of steam.
The only thing worth mining on the moon is ice, if it really truly exists at the poles. The reason it is worth mining ice is that it can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis and then you've got fuel and oxidizer for a Mars mission located at the bottom of a shallow gravity well. It's been a while since I ran the numbers (I used to work for Boeing in an advanced projects group) but running a Mars mission with lunar fuel and oxidizer makes a BIG BIG BIG difference in the feasibility of it. Say you have a Mars ship in Earth or lunar orbit with empty tanks you've got to fill. From Earth you use the Shuttle, and it takes a full external tank and hundreds of millions of $$$ to get a Shuttle-cargo-bay-sized slug of liquids into your Mars ship tanks - many many shuttle missions and $$$ to fill them. It takes a LOT fewer pounds of fuel to lift the same hydrogen / oxygen from the surface of the moon to fill those same Mars ship tanks. It's the same as running a war - everybody wants to be on the tank that rolls into liberate the city, but in reality the war was won months before by the logistics and supply lines that made that final push possible. So remember, boys and girls - forget platinum group metals, the real lunar riches are its ICE...
The most amazing thing about the Harry Potter phenomenon to me is the burst of censorship associated with it. This thing is just a plain good old children's fantasy and the fundamentalist Christians down South where I live have just gone rabid about it. If you believe in the First Amendment, then you've got to fight for kids to have the right to see / read Harry Potter. Check out this website for more on the Harry / censorship angle...
There are three instruments on Odyssey. One is a gamma spectrometer that will be able to map the presence of permafrost and subsurface ice - obviously important. A second is an infrared spectrometer - not only will it be able to make a geological survey map of the minerals on the surface, it will be able to locate "hot spots" on the surface where there might still be liquid water and perhaps even life. The third instrument is a radiation monitor that was supposed to measure the dose an astronaut would receiv on a Mars mission. It appears to be broken, one hopes not from excesive radiation exposure.....
Here's a question I've always wondered about regarding BECs. Say you make one out of a cloud of radioactive atoms. You hold the cloud together long enough to where if it were NOT a BEC, some of the atoms would decay. What happens? Does the waveform of the whole cloud change? When the cloud warms up, how does it decide which atoms not to reconstitute because they are "gone"?
Actually, I am very aware that Pakistan has nukes and I actually believe that is one of the reasons we might use one in Afghanistan. India has had nukes since 1974 and recently tested one that was in a militarily deliverable form. This goaded the Pakistanis into testing their own (first) nuke shortly thereafter in the late 1990s. Now the Indian subcontinent is probably the closest to the brink of anywhere. Except for very isolated Chinese and French tests, nobody has tested observable above-ground nuclear tests since 1962. We have all forgotten just how horrible and powerful these things are - all we do is talk about them. If we use one three hundred miles from Pakistan in Kandahar, the Pakistanis will be the first on the scene to see what happened - and it won't be lost on them that India could do the exact same thing to Karachi if the two of them don't stop bickering about Kashmir. The psychological impact of a US nuke warshot will be intended to send a message to many others besides the Afgans, and the Pakistanis may well be at the top of that list.
... and that's the scariest reason of all.
This is actually the same kind of twisted logic many people believe was the real reason we dropped a second nuke on Nagasaki - that it wasn't a message to the Japanese, it was a message to the Russians. No, Hiroshima wasn't one-of-a-kind so don't gamble with invading a shattered western Europe to see whether or not we have still more...
Plus, up intil now Dubya's sole foreign policy initiative has been the Missile Defense Shield, which his administration has ranted about endlessly to the exclusion of all else. We've flat out told the Russians we're backing out of the ABM treaty and have already started bulldozing trees in Alaska for the first interceptor site. Now, if Dubya blasts a crater in Kandahar, the world becomes a much more dangerous place for nukes - so it becomes harder to argue against the need for a Missile Defense Shield Dubya has been pushing for all along.
Plus, it's just plain old PR. We can't just shoot off more cruise missiles - been there, done that, so what. We can't have an extended ground presence in any of these warzones - we'd get eaten alive just like the Soviets. So Dubya's got to do something SPECTACULAR, something TOUGH, something PRESIDENTIAL, just to look good...
Militarily, nuke use doesn't make sense - Afganistan just isn't a worthy target and it would destabilize the worldwide nuke situation. My point is that I think nuke use will be used for POLITICAL purposes, not military ones
I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
*** BEGIN DRUDGE REPORT
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
*** END DRUDGE REPORT
I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".
The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet. That's a damn shame, because somehow it IS the key to solving this mess once and for all....
Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first....
I agree with what you are saying and I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".
The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet.
Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first.
I followed with interest your various responses to your "full metal jacket" post elsewhere and thought you might be interested in the quotes below...I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. This comes from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com), I've posted it elsewhere if you want to join the discussion again in another thread:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think "My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
"My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think nukes are on the way in this mess....check this out from www.drudgereport.com:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.