Okay, who gets the napkin drawing? I have a really rough sketch in .PDF format.
I didn't think it would be appropriate to send it through the list so I dropped a copy here: http://www.beyond-earth.com/proteus/proteus_0_0_1.pdf Note: This is just what I saw in my mind when I read through all of the emails. It is chisled in ice and can be resculpted into anything you want. Warning it is 380 Kb and might take a few minutes to download (this is what happens when you use print quality settings). Joe Latrell Beyond-Earth Enterprises On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 08:48, Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC wrote: > Sorry that some of my replies seem to be "been there done that" replies. I'm > reading the posts in reverse order so if I repeat suggestions other have > made I'm sorry. The comment below suggests we are looking for an aluminum > shell. There is fairly thin walled aluminum irrigation pipe that might be > useful. I would think that inside the aluminum shell if some PVC material > (pipe mounted concentrically) might insulate the "working components". The > thinner the outer shell the less heat is needed to keep it warm and thus > more heat will be available to melt the ice. Are we looking at gravity > propelling the device downward or some sort of propulsion mechanism? Just > so we are looking at the same concepts is that napkin design available to be > put on the web so we can look at common ideas? Then we can make more > reasonable suggestions related to design. > > > > Mickey Schmidt > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:JHByrne@;aol.com] > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: PROJECT REFOCUSING > > > > > > > We're talking about a model that can slowly cut through 500' of ice -- > > that's all. So, warm water jets, creating an envelope of warm water > around > > the model as it works through the ice, should be sufficient without any > > significant danger of hydraulic pressure. So, we're decided: warm water > > jets are the motive force for the model. > > I see no point to this. What you have then is a "toy", not a prototype > for something that might tackle Europa. Witness: > > > Our probe represents the efforts of a group of space enthusiasts, > > to demonstrate the feasibility of a real 'Icepick'. > > > > So what??? If you look at the original rockets sent up by Goddard in 1927, > there are better kit models today than what he had then. > You have to start somewhere. Coming up with 1001 reasons why you can't do > something is not starting. > > > > > If you are going to demonstrate "feasibility", then you need to be > realistic about the Europan environment and limitations (i.e. no > solar power) and address them. > > > > That's why we're trying to promote this thing without an extension cord. > We're trying to make it somewhat self-sufficient, as we know a probe must > be. > Now, I do NOT think we need to mess around with 1) carrying a hydrobot, 2) > having a video camera, 3) going to Lake Vostok, etc. > This is simply a small aluminum shell, with an internal heat source, that > can go 500' through a hunk of ice, and leave a trail of 5 transponders > behind it. That's all. It is not rocket science. It IS doable, with > off-the-shelf parts. > > > > > Re: (responses to my comments): > > First, you're the expert on finding high energy sources for very small > things. > > Not really. I simply know what nanotechnology will enable. I am by no > means > an "expert" on what current technology allows. > > I a far from an expert. I could probably do the calculations on the energy > requirements if the size of the probe were specified. *But* it begs an > issue of how long you want the experiment to run. If NASA is content to > take a decade to reach a planet, then they may be content for half-a-decade > for a probe to melt through an icecap (or longer). That type of progress > isn't something that makes the evening news (if publicity is what you seek). > > > > We are not talking 5 year plans, here. We don't have NASA's budget, or > incentive to string out a project for 10 years. This has to be done within > 1 or 2 years. > It is no longer sufficient to simply sit back in an armchair and be an > untested expert. We all know that there's plenty of theory out there > already. What this project is about is taking a small, doable task, and > then doing it. > > > > > One can certainly find higher energy sources than Pu-238, but then one is > faced with two problems -- (a) the cost of purchasing enough of this > material; > (the DOE has allocated millions of $ to purchase the Pu-238 to fuel the > remaining RTGs) and (b) the environmental impact problems. > > I've devoted some thought to "fueled" alternatives and I just don't see > any way to do it that won't involve people laughing at it as a stunt > rather than a serious scientific feasibility demonstration. You will > have cartoons in the NY Times of somebody sitting on the surface of > the glacier riding a bicycle attached to a generator to produce the > electricity needed to power the cryobot (for 5 years). > > > > > > > > Can you help us figure out how to get sufficient power to provide > > heat for this model, without relying on a 500' extension cord? > > Very hot radioisotopes would do it. But I've mentioned the problems with > those. > > > Alternatively, can you help to make the model so efficient, > > that a limited power source (such as 3-4 batteries or a propane/gasoline > > heated engine) will be sufficient? > > Batteries definitely will *not* do it. You could do it with > propane/gasoline > but that is going to require (a) a fuel line; (b) an oxygen line; and > (c) a way to feed those fuel lines through the ice (that may be moving > and/or > refreezing). That probably means one needs strong, heat conductive fuel > lines (metal braid encasing plastic?) and a means on the surface to keep > the fuel lines above 0 deg. C. This doesn't sound like an off-the-shelf > item. > > > > Alright. Fine. I'm such an idiot, that I'm going to come up with an > alternative, in 2 minutes. See if you can beat me. > My suggestion? Thermite. Burns underwater, burns without oxygen. It is > simply aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide (rust). Thermite cuts through > steel. It will bloody well cut through 500' of ice. > Now, you can use thermite or some other chemical combination to provide heat > directly to a nose, or to indirectly heat water, that will then melt through > the glacier, thereby preventing a pristine glacier from being contaminated > with aluminum oxide, perish the thought. > > It doesn't matter that we don't have a radioisotope. We know that is what a > real probe requires. We are not out to make a Europa qualified probe. It's > simply a feasibility study, and a publicity demonstration. So, any > self-contained energy source will do. If you have to use a tiny oxygen tank > to feed to a gasoline source, so what? If you have to use thermite, or > simply manufacture rocket fuel from the local ice, so what? Just so long as > the job gets done, and demonstrates that with similar lateral thinking, the > other project of a probe on Europa can also get done. > > > > > > > It only has to travel 500' through terrestial ice -- it doesn't have to be > > a model that would actually work on Europa. > > Then I don't really see the point. Lots of people could see that we could > put a heated probe above Lake Vostok with a lot of propane attached to some > very long cables that could melt its way down to the lake. It wouldn't be > easy however. Europa is going to be a *lot* harder. > > > What we don't know is, can we model something similiar, simply to > demonstrate > > feasibility? > > That is the point precisely. There is a big difference between > demonstrating > "feasibility" of penetrating an Earthbound glacier and the feasibility of > penetrating a huge ice cover on a remote moon. > > Re: Environmental Impact statements > > Ok, at least we have a handle on it. > > Re: Other efforts > > I would generally agree that we need to know everything that others have > done in this area. It is silly to duplicate efforts and silly to > follow paths that others have shown to be unproductive. > > The first order of business, IMO, is for everyone to know what > has been done, what works and what doesn't. > > Robert > > > > Bruce attached a website for a similar project. I think ours is somewhat > different. One serious cost cutting factor is we are not planning to go to > Antarctica. There's plenty of local ice. > > > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
