Re: On/Off Topic
Here's a proposition to get you all thinking: What are the technical problems inherent in sending a zeppelin probe to Europa? Here's the proposition: The probe that eventually goes to Europa will have a significant fuel limit, and a nearly limitless amount of terrain to explore prior to choosing a site for dropping a submersible, if any. Why not send a small probe which uses a nuclear isotope to kick-start a process, wherein water ice is electrolyzed into constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen provides fuel, and the hydrogen is shunted into a gas bag of sufficient size to make the probe a zeppelin style survey probe. This creates a dual use craft. One, it would be able to land, and refuel. Two, it would potentially be able to shuttle between an actual orbital craft and the surface. Of course, it would also be able to relay transmissions well, and the reflective surface of the gas bag itself would make it easy to bounce signals off of, and be a large surface for receiving them as well (in essence, the entire surface of the bag is the antenna). What are the problems inherent in such a scheme? Well, someone will likely suggest that a zeppelin won't work, for one reason or another. Sure, it's vulnerable to flying micro-asteroids and the like. Explosions? Not in the nearly airless atmosphere of Europa. This ain't the Hindenburg. With a compartmentalized bag, and the capacity to simply pop another bag out, a zeppelin style probe could last for years, certainly long enough to do the work necessary. Of course, the bag could also be deflated during 'down periods', and reinflated at a later date. Oh, and did I mention that despite the lack of sexy glamour that everyone attributes to rockets, a zeppelin concept is CHEAP? Okay, gang, get back to your drawing boards. -- John Harlow Byrne (still crazy after all these years) == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Keep this on Europa Icepick
In a message dated 2/12/2003 5:11:56 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a question of bandwidth. It's a question of mindwidth. There is an astounding lack of scientific and inquiring minds out there, a public which insists that Britney Spears is a cultural icon. Sure, coming up with Icepick style probes is a grand idea. But, we've already proven that the capacity to do so does not exist on this website. Ergo, the alternative is to open the discussion floor a bit, and allow the website to host discussions RELATING to space exploration and Europa in general. It's amazing, how a little discussion in one area can have positive benefits in applying to concepts in other areas. -- JHB There are plenty of places on the net to discuss all sorts of space topics. I want this list to remain one devoted to exploring Europa, especially with the idea of the Icepick probe. With all the bandwidth out there, I don't think it is too much to ask that one list remain focused on one topic, and an important one in planetary exploration at that.
Re: Where is the Icepick List Now?
In a message dated 1/11/2003 5:47:00 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The silence is due to a lack of push by the enthusiasts. While the Europa website is filled with any number of persons skilled in all sorts of scientific and engineering abilities, there are simply too many naysayers -- 'it can't be done' theorists. For myself, I was not able to participate for 2 weeks, while working on completing my application to become a legal liaison for the USCG. After I returned, I was dismayed to discover that the project had apparently died, in favor of such esoterica as exobiota theories. This is not to say that the dream of an 'Icepick' working model ice-submersible is a dead one. I profoundly believe that such a thing IS possible, and that it WILL be achieved in a few short years, naysayers be damned. When my career transition situation settles down somewhat, I will again work on promoting the project. In the meantime, I will likely terminate my AOL account sometime in the near future, as I may be moving out of my present location, to an undetermined one, depending on many circumstances. Good luck with the Europa website. -- John Harlow Byrne The holidays are over, so I am just wondering where the various efforts I saw blooming all over last year regarding Icepick are standing now? The silence is concerning. Thank you. Larry
Re: Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 11/2/2002 6:29:38 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The last I heard, the team designing the possible 2007 "CryoScout" Mars Scout mission to penetrate a hundred meters or so through Mars' north polar icecap were still undecided about whether its Cryobot would use a very small supply of onboard Pu-238, or electricity supplied from the surface lander. It's time I talked to them again, to see what they're willing to tell me (although that may not be much, since the competition to pick the four finalists from the 20 Mars Scout proposals offered isn't scheduled to be settled until December 4 and the teams are all very close-mouthed until then). Bruce, if you can contact any of these guys, and get a few hints from them, that would be very valuable. I'd hate to have to supply this thing with a power cable out the back. The essence of it is that it is self-contained. -- John
Re: Power Source
In a message dated 11/3/2002 8:18:34 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about a snowcone machine type of design? Shave the ice and move the shavings from bottom to top. It would take some power, but it could be done. The nice thing is that the tools do not have to be that sharp. My wife and I bought a hawaiian icemaker that uses human power to shave through a 2" block of 5" diameter ice in a few minutes. Joe Latrell What about rocks?? -- John
Re: Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 11/1/2002 6:33:52 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was thinking that we could enhance the vehicle's ability to negotiate changes in direction by giving it a head that swiveled. The ability to bend in the middle would also be helpful. I keep imagining that the Europa Icepick could ultimately take on a snake-like form. The head would do the driving and the tail would follow along. The trouble is steering. Sure, we can all imagine that a worm-like form would be great, but how to we get something like that to steer? We don't have the capacity to make section 1 go one way, while maintaining course for another. We have to keep it simple, or it won't work. In like manner, I'm now thinking we may have to drop the 'spin' concept, as I don't see how we can get a spinning submersible to be steerable, since vanes or backfiring jets would not consistently keep position long enough to give guidance. -- JHB
Re: Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 11/1/2002 8:04:34 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would information regarding MIT's Robopike (a robot that imitates the behavior of a fish) be of use to Icepick? Relevant URL: http://web.mit.edu/towtank/www/pike/ Larry Yes, I think so, particularly considering that so far, we haven't come up with a good means of steering this beast. I have considerable concerns that if/when a terrestial Icepick is developed (let along a Europa/Mars version), it could be completely blocked by a rock the size of a fist. If we could figure out some way to wiggle past such obstacles, we would have done a huge leap forward for this project. Bruce Moomaw's article, suggesting, as Robt. Bradbury pointed out, that we need AT LEAST a kW of power also concerns me, and suggests that we are going to have to come up with some heating source from chemical interaction (thermite/thermate/magnesium, etc), instead of merely relying on electricity from a battery. It's also interesting that the probe developed in the 1960s did have considerable trouble with meltwater, so much that they went to the trouble of pumping it back out of the hole. Read Moomaw's first extract on that test. -- JHB
Re: Program Management
In a message dated 11/1/2002 8:35:06 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A. Project Management Does anyone out there have project management software? I think we're at a point where we'll need some scheduling, like a PERT or GANTT chart. We're not designing the Polaris submarine or the Titan IV, but if we don't get some sort of scheduling we'll lose track of where we are and what needs to be done next. Examples: 1. What is it? (Ex: Aluminum tube 3' long x 8" diameter) 2. Where do we get it? 3. Who gets it? 4. How much does it cost? (or, where does the $$ come from?) 5. How do we install it? (Ex. Battery; guidance system) 6. When do we need it? And so on. I don't know if we need actual software for this, as Dennis seems to be pretty organized already. But, if that's what you and Dennis decide, that's what we do. B. Money This is going to cost something. Joe Latrell has indicated he might be able to invest a few bucks, and maybe the rest of us could do the same. Proposal: I set up a bank account for a different purpose that has now been finished. I could re-name the account, or open a new one with Wells Fargo Bank just for this project. If 10 of us could put in $50, that would give us $500 to work with and no one would have to cough up much. If you can't do $50, then any amount (or more!) would work. If anyone buys anything for the project, tell me how much you spent and I'll send you a check drawn on our account. I can keep the books to insure proper accounting. Might be proper to have 2 signatures, but that's up to the group--that would slow reimbursement down some, but some might feel more secure knowing that I don't have sole access to the account. Let me know if this is OK. I thought of something like that myself. Attorneys often set up 'escrow' accounts to hold client monies in similar fashion. However, I'm in Alaska, and the main group is in the central US, so it's probably best to base it there. If you need my help, signatures, etc, let me know. Wells Fargo is a major bank in the US, so it should be alright for our purposes. If it is not too much trouble, perhaps we could arrange it so that any contributor can look at the balance at any time, simply by making a request with Wells Fargo. That is, we would have 2 codes on the account: a withdrawl code, that Gail holds, and a 'check account' code, that any contributor the account would have. First order of business for that account: we should reimburse Joe Latrell for his $20 invested in the first prototype. I'd also like to kick back at least a little money to Jeff Foust, who runs the Icepick site out of his own pocket. C. Commercial Application One of the strongest arguments for the space program has always been the benefits to society via commercial applications of innovation. Duct tape is a good example, along with scratch resistent sun glasses and non-invasive heart monitoring. One suggestion has been that ice fishermen might like to have one of our probes to make getting thru the ice easier. With a business plan, we might even be able to get backing for a company to make and sell Icepick II. Any ideas on this? I sent you a 'crazy concept' for another application of an Icepick, that is, creation of liquid hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks carved directly in the ice of the south pole of the Moon (trace water there), Mars, or Europa. More to Earth, Bruce Moomaw's Extract #1 mentioned several possible uses for an ice submersible, including glacial studies, and noncontaminating surveys of Lake Vostok. It may be possible that oil companies would have use for such a thing, at some point in the future. Jack Reeve might have some ideas on this. A concern I have in this regard is military applications. Frankly, I'd prefer that we never become interesting as a military application, as it is just a headache that no one needs. -- JHB Please let me know ASAP about Items A and B. Thanks Gail
Re: Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 11/1/2002 9:27:57 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Something has really been nagging me and I wanted to throw it out to the group. The assumption up to this point is that ther would be debris to navigate around. Why? Unless physics has changed, ice floats. Why would ice pick up bolders and other various sized rocks if the entire iceflow is sitting on an ocean? I can see small items getting carried away but anything bigger than a pebble is gonna be hard pressed to hang around for the upward journey. On Europa, it's not upwelling of rocks, but asteroids and chondrites that would fill the role of 'raisins' in the pudding. Additionally, Europa orbits in the path of sulphur particles emanating from Io -- I don't know what impact sulphur mixed with water ice would have, but presumeably, it would impact its melting properties. -- JHB
Re: Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 11/1/2002 9:51:25 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Good point. I guess I pictured in my mind a glacier, where sand, rocks and boulders had been pushed and collected over time. In the ice fields of Earth's North and South poles, is there debris like we're talking about? There is no ice field on Earth's north pole. It's pack ice there, and sometimes, particularly of late, that pack ice melts all the way through to open water. In recent years, it has literally been possible to sail a boat right to the North Pole. Ice in the North is generally collected on Greenland, the major islands in Northern Canada, and Alaska. Antarctica is a different tale. There, the ice is about 1 1/2 miles thick in some places. This is a key factor why I was pushing for using the Harding Ice Field. It is a giant 'bowl' valley, filled with OLD ice, that is, snow distributed over 12,000 years, that has compressed to ice. In other words, no rocks, such as you find in a glacier, which typically grinds up dirt, rocks, trees, and anything else in its path as it works its way over the land. For now, our initial test site is likely to be a couple of conduits bolted together, or later, a 50' depth drop into a Colorado glacier. For a deep, rock-free dive, we would need a significant ice field, such as in Alaska, Greenland, or Antarctica. -- JHB Maybe the only thing that would be present on Europa's poles is anything that may have fallen from the sky.
Re: Data Collection
In a message dated 11/1/2002 12:42:08 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Moomaw 2953 Oakleaf Dr. Cameron Park, CA 95682 Phone: (530) 677-8353 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Specialties: None, really. (I have no actual formal degree in any of the physical sciences, but I do have whatever expertise I've picked up through four decades of fanatical personal study of space exploration and the associated engineering and scientific questions.) Bruce is no fool. He's one of our true experts on the site, and extremely astute in so many aspects of space. The more he participates, the better. Bruce is also apparently the guy who helped to re-kick start the Pluto Express mission, via an article he wrote in a space magazine. Bruce remarkably demonstrates that sometimes, simply having an utter fascination, and focus in a subject, is more than enough to make up for lack of a credential. That's really what this terrestial ice submersible project is all about. -- John
Re: Data Collection
In a message dated 11/1/2002 2:21:15 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hibai Unzueta, 21 years old. Bilbao. Basque Country (spain) Telecommunications (electrical) Engineering student at EHU/UPV University of the Basque Country. Performing 4th year of a five year degree. Doing lab work on the TCN international standar for a realisation of a train communication network. Isn't it amazing, the great range of ages and backgrounds we have here? Gail is 68. Hibai is perhaps our youngest, at 21. What a fantastic set of skills we have, simply from daring to put them together in a soup. -- John
Re: Integration
We'll be looking forward to hearing what you come up with, Jack. I guess your prototype would be Icepick ii, to distinguish it from Joe's Icepick i? Damn. Now I'm going to have to figure out how to get something like this going myself... someone mentioned an aluminum cigar tube for a tiny prototype. I think I'll look into that myself. Tell you what: if we have any workable prototypes developed for a cigar tube, I'll see if I can scrounge up a dozen such tubes, and send them to people who DON'T have a handy metal lathe in their garage, so they can tinker with concepts as well. -- John Harlow Byrne In a message dated 10/31/2002 6:35:04 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just took delivery of a new metal lathe/milling/drilling machine, and have set it up in a well-lit corner of my garage. Once I figure out how to make it go, building a prototype to satisfy a number of my own curiosities about melting one's way through ice will sit atop the project list. Then, on one of my numerous trips to Calgary, I'll sneak off to a handy glacier (there are dozens within a 3 hour drive and see what happens. Jack
Re: Antimatter Power: Reaching for Deep Space
In a message dated 10/31/2002 6:50:48 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Antimatter Power: Reaching for Deep Space http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/antimatter_sail_021029.html To Steve Howe, a trip to Pluto is small potatoes. That most distant planet orbits about 40 times further from the Sun than the Earth. But that's not even half as far as Howe dreams of traveling. Chalk it up to Gail Leatherwood's file on 'unobtainium'. Oh well. At least it gives us perspective. -- JHB
Re: What about a Slam Dunk approach to Icepick?
I now see a major problem with naming the terrestial model 'Icepick'. Larry is talking about proposals for an actual Europa probe, employing a kinetic penetrator, for sometime in 2015 or beyond. The terrestial model involves proposals for a model constructed from off-the-shelf parts, and is only capable of tunneling in terrestial glaciers. It is of critical importance that the two projects be distinguished. The suggested name 'Proteus' for the terrestial model was nixed, for good reason. However, unless and until we get a separate website going, we're going to keep running into this problem of distinguishing the theoretical Europa bound 'Icepick' from the more practical, terrestial bound 'Icepick'. Solutions? -- John Harlow Byrne In a message dated 10/31/2002 7:11:33 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember the plans for the CRAF probe over a decade ago that was going to send a spike-shaped probe into a comet to penetrate its surface and study the interior of an ancient iceball? Would it be possible to design something similar for Icepick? If we find a relatively thin area of Europa's crust, perhaps one of the cracks or those upwellings just in the news, we could literally use a hardened protective cone to smash through the ice and deposit the Icepick Hydroobot into the liquid ocean. Or at the least slam it deep into the ice so we would not have to melt/drill/dig so far? My hope for this is to reduce the amount of power and such to get through the ice crust so we can focus more resources on the Hydrobot. Could the Hydrobot be designed to survive such an impact?
Plans for Website
Alright, everybody, we are making rapid progress on getting a website set up. Dennis Frye and Gail Leatherwood are working on getting a series of organized files together, to help focus our efforts. The files shall likely be 'chapters' or sections within the new website, www.europa-icepick.org. Dennis recommends that these be the following: Participants - location, skills, etc. Icepick sponsors, contacts, references Icepick website Icepick overall design Sub. heating unit Sub. power source Sub. experiment results Sub. transponders and delivery system Sub. Control Sub. reference material on design Icepick test location and method Europa information relevant to future Icepick design Astrobiology info (a folder for reasons why we're doing this) As of now, the website name is to be www.europa-icepick.org, courtesy of Joe Latrell. Gail Leatherwood and Dennis Frye will help with the organization there. Organization is a key factor. Here on the klx website, we've had to make to with a big 'common room' approach, and a rough headings system. Now, we'll have subject headings to help organize the emails and efforts... however, we'll need to make sure to use those headers. Try to avoid spam, and keep focused. If your email is about a heating element, try to keep it closely related to the heating element, and not a philosophical discourse on space ecology or whatnot. Dennis has also suggested that people with particular interests in Europa, such as biologists, be able to post relevant articles there. We all agree. If you've got something of interest, we'll give it a home. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: The Model
In a message dated 10/31/2002 9:13:11 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have an idea for a small scale model. I am not real knowledgable about aquarium fish, but I do know there is a small glass encased electric heater for the tanks. Anyone want to do the actual construction and test? Test 4: Build a self contained model. Power source and circulation pump, plumbing etc. Does anyone know of very small pumps? I will try to draw "napkin drawing #2" and forward it later.. Mickey D. Schmidt, Dir. USAF Academy Planetarium Center for Educational Multimedia USAF Academy, CO 80840 Mickey, I think it's a good idea. How about using one of those cigar tubes someone was talking about? Joe has one protoype going, Icepick i. Jack Reeve is Icepick ii. I suppose your model will be Icepick iii, with variations A, B, C, and D? Since these are all prototypes, we'll stick with lower case 'i' for now, and the actual model will have an uppercase 'I' series to designate variations. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Data Collection
John Harlow Byrne 1500 Norene Street Anchorage, AK 99508 (907) 279-3459 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Attorney, licensed in AK, WA, Fed Ct system Experience with: Legal advocacy International Trade, Russian Sector Networking Russian language Local Liaison for Coleville River dinosaur excavation project in NW Alaska
Re: Web Site
In a message dated 10/30/2002 3:40:41 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We need a web site, but "Icepick" is already taken. Check it out at www.icepick.com. Has nothing to do with Jupiter's moon. Larry, how did this happen? I have some ideas about the graphics, but we need to find a suitable domain name. Several of us have indicated interest in web page design, so what can we come up with that will capture the imagination? Unfortunately, "klx.com" doesn't seem to be descriptive enough IMHO. Gail (the guy) Leatherwood Hmmm... well, Larry's IcePIC website was the original. Can we either: 1) make a subchapter within the klx website, or 2) make a website with a link directly to the project site? For a website name, I have a tendency to come up with names drawn from classical works, just as the original astronomers did. However, these sort of names are typically already used by some other website. I don't think the website name is that important, if alternatives 1) or 2) are used, but if we need a catchy website name, well, the deadline for that is November 8. So, group, if you have a catchy name that you think would be appropriate for a website dedicated to creating a working ice submersible, send it to Gail. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Piezocone
In a message dated 10/30/2002 11:31:20 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The penetrometer with piezocone is a device pushed into the soil to collect data: http://www.tecnotest.it/Products/Soil%20Penetrometers/piezocone_description.htm This device may or may not be helpful in working out some potential design issues. Is real time data as the probe explores beneath the ice absolutely necessary? Or rather, could the information be stored in the device then later shot back through the ice after exploration then transmitted from the surface? Leonardo DiFrancesco, M.S., P.E. I looked up the piezocone. It is a bronze cone, which is attached to a sort of drill. The piezocone measures pressure in a hole, as well as the relative density of in-ground obstacles, by an electronic feedback, which is readable on a laptop computer. It IS an interesting concept, and WOULD be a great thing to attach to the front of an ice submersible. Trouble is, the website is from an Italian company, and somewhat difficult to follow. I don't know the price of a piezocone. I don't know if it is really necessary, to simply cut a hole through ice: sure, we're likely to run into rocks and gravel, but for Icepick iA, we shouldn't get sidetracked on including all sorts of gadgets on the probe that will only complicate matters. Leonard, can you make a more complete pitch for the piezocone? -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Napkin Drawing
In a message dated 10/30/2002 8:37:22 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My idea of bolting culverts together was assuming we'd use less than 100' of ice. The thick galvanized culverts attach end to end with a broad steel band with matching corrugations (or they used to many years ago.) I would imagine that the "tower of culverts would have to be attached to the side of a building for the height you want, then filled with material for the test. I think it would be wise to support the culverts, against a building or a tower. We should leave a space beneath the bottom culvert to extract the ICEPICK or construct a "door" or access hole in the side of the bottom culvert. Maybe we could work with a corporate sponsor, who has a tall building and a shaded north side of a building we could assemble our ice tower. Being a north side would keep it out of the sun light. Maybe a college instructor with graduate assistants could be coerced into helping. Do we have a College Professor/Instructor in the group? Mickey D. Schmidt, Dir. USAF Academy Planetarium Center for Educational Multimedia USAF Academy, CO 80840 You know, Mickey, you may be on to something here. I do know of a local construction project here in Anchorage that might be willing to participate, with a little prod here or there. It is an old 14 story apartment building that is being revamped. Trouble is, again, it's in Anchorage, Alaska, and most of you are down in the lower 48, or like Hibai, way out in Spain. But, the concept remains the same: find a friendly construction site, and persuade the contractor into allowing a series of corrugated tubes to be temporarily bolted to the side of the building. Ideally, perhaps one or more of these tube sections could be made of clear plastic, or have a window cut into it, both for access, and observation. Alternatively, perhaps a steep hillside slope would work? -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Bruce Moomaw, wet blanket
In a message dated 10/30/2002 7:11:00 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A hot-water-heater heating element is extremely attainable. But can very likely be improved upon. Needs to have someway to keep corrosion off the copper. Salty water is great for turning orange copper green. Not in the time we'd be using it for. We just need to go 500'. We don't have the capacity to come up with a copper alloy that won't rust in salt, or a chemical that will protect it. Our task is to simply demonstrate feasiblity, cheaply, and then let the boys with the big dollars build the actual probe.
Re: Power requirements
In a message dated 10/30/2002 6:36:04 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As much as I want to test out some thermate, I think the water jets idea is definitely going work. Needs a rotating head with a bit on the tip, so either an electric motor, or have its spinning motion powered by the water pump (which would last a lot longer), which sucks the water back in, heats it up, and spits it back out. A sticking point here is to create a rotary head that won't clog up with silt, dirt, rocks, and so forth. That's why we might need to design this without a rotary head at all, or have it internalized, that is, just enough to suck a little water in, where it is heated, and then forced out through jets again to continue the process. A gallon of antifreeze would probably go a really long way. Is there such a thing as non-toxic anti-freeze? How about road salt? Road salt is a somewhat different chemical than ordinary table salt, and melts ice down to about -15 faranheit. Heating the water on Europa will need a radioactive power source, but we can probably get away with batteries here. So you could probably get the thing to the point that all you would have to do is switch out the power source (and upgrade to rad hardened) and it would be ready to ship to Europa. Now that, my friend, is a LONG way off. Still, 2015 is a long way off, and a lot of things can happen in 12 years. Who knows, but that something we come up with here, faced with the obstacles we are facing, won't actually be useful on Europa, in 2015? -- JHB The biggest problem I can foresee is jets getting clogged. Which can probably mostly be solved by coating the inside of the hoses with RainX and adding a couple ounces of RedLine Water Wetter to the anti-freeze to break down the water tension. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823
Re: Project Name
In a message dated 10/30/2002 9:20:08 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I made that suggestion earlier, that as we come up with new ones we add roman numerals to the end of the name. All upgrades and such will be just noted as revision levels. We haven’t actually made one yet, so this first one would simply be known as IcePIC. The starting assembly drawing would be IcePIC rev0. Typically you change the rev level everytime anything is changed on the print, even if it is a single letter or added dimension information. This keeps people from getting two separate drawings of the same revision – which can be extremely confusing. Then at some point if we make a real major change, like use a different casing or get a hold of a nuclear battery, we go to IcePIC II rev0. Or at least that’s the general idea. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 Robert, Julie and I discussed this one a bit. She points out that the correct title is 'Icepick' not IcePIC, as I was calling it. For versions, however, we probably ought to avoid anything too complex. For now, we're titling it as follows: 1) Icepick I = the actual working model of an ice submersible. This is the proposed 3' model, with the ability to dive 200'+ into ice, and drop transponders. 2) Icepick iA = this is the Joe Latrell prototype, made from a cardboard tube wrapped in wire and powered with batteries. If someone else comes up with an alternative in addition to Joe's, that would be Icepick iB. We won't be ready for Icepick I (capitalized 'I') until we've worked through a series of lower-case iii's. The lowercase i we can use to simply denote limited experiment prototypes, such as Joe Latrell's initial model. In a strictly technical sense, you're right: Icepick rev 0, Icepick II rev 0 is more correct. However, we have to remember that we don't have a lab full of engineers privy to the same technical drawings. We have to keep the titles short and easily recognized, so that a person can jump back into the project again, with a minimum of confusion, if s/he leaves for awhile. -- John Harlow Byrne
Guidance System for Icepick I, and Cryobot thoughts
In a message dated 10/30/2002 5:46:32 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed it is -- the water-filled tunnel that the Cryobot melts in the ice freezes solid again less than a meter above its rear end (and the sheer pressure of the ice just a few hundred meters down would quickly squeeze the tunnel shut even if this didn't happen). The only way to get any vehicle back up to the surface is to have it melt its way all the way back up just as it melted its way down, using some kind of hooked propulsive system to grip the walls of the melt space and heave itself upward into the bargain -- and while Honeybee Robotics is working on the design of an "Inchworm" subsurface tunneler that could do just that, they readily admit that it's a project for considerably more distant in the future than the one-way Cryobot we're talking about. Well group, I may have a contact here that can help. I've made a contact with Dean David Woodall, at the University of Fairbanks. Dean Woodall is promoting a study to research micro-sensors, tiny control devices, and radio transmission through dense matter, such as ice. I'll keep working on this, and see if I can gain a little interest here. As to the actual, Europa bound cryobot... why in the world would you want to hook your way back up a tunnel, when presumeably, the probe could: 1) reverse course or switch head to tail, and backtrack, along the same tunnel, 2) using a hydrogen filled balloon, it could presumeably float back to the surface. The hydrogen bag might presumeably be stored in the front of the Europa cryobot. Once the cryobot is prepared to reverse course, the bag might be filled with hydrogen electolyzed from the local ice. 3) At that point, the cryobot tail heats up to become the nose, and the model cuts through the ice, and floats back to the surface, slowly but surely, on a bag of hydrogen below it. Just a thought. -- JHB
Re: Bruce Moomaw, wet blanket
In a message dated 10/28/2002 11:07:49 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After reading the exchanges here on the test project, I have to say that virtually all of you are WAY too optimistic about our ability to do anything that hasn't already been done, or won't be done very soon, vastly better by NASA. Then you didn't read my replies to Robert Bradbury. We don't care if NASA can do it better. We simply want to prove it can be done, that the public can participate, that ordinary people can do something besides read newspaper articles or write emails. Preliminary tests have already been started, on a Norwegian glacier, of the JPL Cryobot which uses warm-water jets (there was an asbtract on this at an AGU meeting last year, which I'll track down). Yes, I saw that article. I know that the Norwegians are fooling around with glacier science, etc. So what? This ain't Norway. Norway is not going to put a probe on Europa. America is, IF the public gets involved. The JPL Cryobot team is already actively testing a cryobot of exactly the sort we're talking about for the proposed 2007 "Cryoscout" Mars Scout mission, which would melt 100 meters or so down through Mars' polar cap using a Cryobot powered through a cable connected to the surface lander. This, as I say, would be the very first tentative step towad the far more ambitious autonomous, transponder-equipped, nuclear-heated full-scale Europa cryobot. In short, our discussions so far remind me of that mountain hermit Alexander King swore he'd met who single-handedly reinvented the typewriter in the 1930s. Well, we all know that the QWERTY typewriter layout could have been vastly improved, had it been invented with people in mind, rather than the difficulties encountered with 1890s typewriter keys sticking. Is it already done? About to be done better? Alright. The Pluto survey is / was reachable as well. Funding got cut, and it's not going to happen. Why? Because not enough people out of the science community cared about it, or even knew about it to care about it. We're not out to reinvent the wheel. We're out to build public support. We can't build it with a spate of emails, or a quiet little lab project somewhere. We need a loud, obnoxious experiment, done by a group of ordinary people using off the shelf parts. Taking my analogy another step: I can tell you that in paleontology, at least, discoveries have to be made, and remade every 30 years or so. Why? Because some high level scientist comes up with a theory that squashes out the competing theories, those theories are shelved, and then rediscovered again 30 years later. Happens quite often in paleontology, largely because the field is so limited to a small group of interested people. Spread the field out, increase the participation base, and space exploration MIGHT happen. Experiments might not be forgotten. Concepts might not get shelved... simply because there are too many people who remember that, way back in 2002, a group of space enthusiasts got together on a website, and came up with an ice submersible, without having to beg NASA for it, or rely on someone else's crib notes. Also, some of the discussions about both energy sources and connecting cables are straight out of the Twilight Zone. Robert Bradbury has provided a needed reality check on the former. Robert Bradbury hit plutonium again and again, which is not very realistic, in my view. For one thing, we don't have it. For another thing, we can't use it on Earth. I do not accept that plutonium is the only way to cut through 500' of terrestial ice. I cannot accept that 40 scientists and technicians on this site cannot come up with an alternative, that gets the job done... perhaps not as efficiently, but that still accomplishes the task of cutting an 8" diameter hole in a block of ice, 500' long. Nothing short of a nose made of some extremely intense radioisotope can possibly provide a full-scale Europa Cryobot with the power it needs -- We're not out to build a Europa scale probe. We're out to build a model, to demonstrate feasibility here on Earth, and to get public participation and generate enthusiasm for such a project, and thereby help ensure that the Europa exploration project doesn't get shelved in the budget cutting administration of 2015. the JPL design calls for a meter-long Cryobot which generates one full kilowatt of heat using Pu-238 in its nose to melt down about 1 km every 6 months (also converting a small fraction of that heat into its electrical power). Earlier designs called for several kilowatts. Well then, we've stumbled across the exact parameters we need. We're shooting for a 3' long, 8" diameter torpedo, with water jets, guided by radio control. Sounds simple enough. The hard part is not the project itself, it is public inertia. To melt down through Europa's ice using any kind of chemical heat source, you would need -- at a minimum -- hundreds of tons of chemicals. We're not
Re: Test beds of ice
In a message dated 10/29/2002 11:31:00 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That could be really cool. Bunch of ice sculptures here and there, and this one big cylindrical chunk of ice with the cryobot happily chewing its way down the inside. I bet there's somewhere you could order a big block of ice, or get it from the same people who make their sculptures. Um... at risk of bringing up 'Alaska' yet again, I have to say that Fairbanks, Alaska hosts an annual ice sculpture contest, on the level of the one thrown in Hokkaido. An old family friend of my dad, Tony O'Grady, lives in Fairbanks -- his job is to provide crystal clear ice for these sculptures every year. -- JHB
Napkin Drawing
Joe Latrell came up with a napkin drawing for a carboard prototype, of the sort that could be tested in a couple of blocks of ice. This initial prototype (let's call it IcePIC i) has a wire coil internally: is this to play out behind to respresent the transponders, or to help control the model? Really, we could simply use something like an electric hair curler for this demonstration of our prototype. I do have a question about the ice-filled culvert route: how do we add sections to the pipe? A 20' culvert filled with ice and gravel is far too heavy to lift and put another section under it. Funny, that after all this, we're back to calling it IcePIC... however, there's still the issue that Julie raised: do we need to distinguish this working model, from concepts more directly related to the Europa probe? -- John == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
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,
Re: Some more thoughts on Proteus/IcePIC
In a message dated 10/28/2002 11:52:17 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, there is no "Russian section" (or "American section", either) in Antarctica. Under terms of the Antarctic treaty, it's been an international regime reserved for scientific exploration. Under the terms of the treaty, each nation is responsible for regulating its own citizens doing research down there, subject to overall approval from the international "Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR)". If most of us are Americans, that means we'd have to get approval from the National Science Foundation. But your point about our chances being remote is well taken. It might actually have been easier to get approval from the Russians. - John in Cambridge We are NOT going to Antarctica, or to Lake Vostok. At best, we'll try this thing out on a large Ice Field. Apparently, Mt. Rainier's glacier is too mobile for us. That throws us back on the Harding Ice Field, in South Alaska, a little south of Anchorage. The Harding Ice Field is about 30-50 miles across, and about 1/2 mile thick. It features old ice, deposited over the past 12,000 years or so, and is very static. It doesn't shift or have large lateral fractures in it, except at the edges where it calves new glaciers. The Harding Ice Field is NOT a glacier. It is the parent of glaciers, and superior to Lake Vostok in that the ice is more stable, and a whole lot more reachable. IF this project ever does see fruition, however, and succeeds at the Harding Ice Field, or another big piece of 'local' ice, then sure, we can approach the Russians or whomever. Ya govorju po russkij, i tak eto nye budyet bolshaya problema. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: No power sources available
In a message dated 10/28/2002 12:59:45 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, that should work nicely. Let's see... drop grenade on ice. Wait 30-45 minutes. Drop grenade #2 down the hole. Wait a few minutes before it gets to the bottom. Wait another 30-45 minutes. Drop grenade #3... this might take a little while. Now we need to figure out how to get down the 10-mile shaft. Ah, deposit copper oxide down shaft just in case. Then figure out how to get down. Ice skates with brakes. I think we have a plan. Good idea. Wish I'd thought of it. We are not going 10 miles, or 1 mile, or 1 kilometer. Just 500'. That's all. If thermite, or phosphorous, or some other chemical combination does the trick, so be it. I see no reason why we can't use a chemical reactant to heat a little water, and use that water to provide the drill. Respooling along a wire won't work. For one thing, we don't need a video transmission. We're not out to take pictures of the bottom of an ice field. Refocus. We're just trying to demonstrate that 1) a small torpedo shaped model can slowly navigate through an ice field (with incrementally small changes in heading). It is not going to be fast, or filled with bells and whistles. It is simply a prototype, semi-autonomous ice submersible, radio controlled. 2) the only payload on this will be 3-5 transponders. These may be simple, off-the-shelf animal transponders, such as are attached to wildlife, or if these won't work, then something that will generate a low frequency noise, to take advantage of the sonic transmission capacities of solid ice. Once again, it doesn't matter if they're not Europa proof. They simply have to transpond a readable signal through a few hundred feet of terrestial ice. The signal need be nothing more than sufficient to get a rough fix on where the transponder is located. That's all. NASA, or the Russians, or ESA, can certainly provide a corvette to trump our model-T. That's not the point. Of course, NASA gets to use radioisotopes, and has million dollar transponders. We don't. We have off-the-shelf parts. Let's keep this project within the realm of the possible, and payable. If something like what we are proposing actually gets done, it can be upgraded by more financed groups later. The point is to actually do something now. Think 'X-Prize' on a glacier. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: No power sources available
In a message dated 10/28/2002 2:03:22 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course the fuel does not have to be White Phosphorus. Maybe hypergolic fuels would be better suited. It would be safer to store for such a long trip. I just thought WP would be a good example because it will burn anywhere, even in water. Scott, I think you're planning for an actual probe. That's not what this is about. This is for a terrestial bound model. We do not have the capacity to put up a Europa bound probe, so we have to think locally, and cheap. Robert Bradbury suggests that there's not enough heat capacity to get through 500 feet of ice. I don't buy it. I came up with thermite, you suggested white phosphorous. We all know that warm water WILL cut through ice. We are not moving the ark through ice, just a 3' metal tube, sprayed with teflon, and enveloped in a pocket of water that is slightly warmer than the surrounding ice. It does not have to be a jet. It simply has to slowly move, without reference to an extension cord out the back. I still think we can come up with a means of internally heating meltwater, and use that meltwater to provide most of the motive force, or at least most of the drilling. If the powersource is batteries, fine. 1) How much power can 4 motorcycle batteries, linked to an electrical coil surrounding an insulated reservoir produce? Is it enough to heat up enough water to cut a hole in ice? If batteries can heat up a pot of coffee, why can't more and bigger batteries heat up a gallon of warm water? 2) If gasoline / propane requires air to do the same trick, then why not simply put in a scuba tank filled with compressed air, to provide that boost? We don't care if we run out of air... we only have to go 500'. We don't care that this is not a direct correlation with a NASA project, or that such a project will use radioisotopes rather than a gasoline motor and a scuba tank. That project will likely have other bells and whistles that will take up just as much proportionate mass as our make-do heating device will, on the model. 3) If gasoline/propane won't work, then a device that slowly feeds out a chemical mixture of thermite or white phosphorous might -- either to directly heat the ice, or to indirectly heat water for a water drill. We can adjust the effficiency of the burn, to make it cool enough to work with -- that is, instead of an optimum mix of aluminum and iron oxide, the model's mix has a more neutral reactant, to slow the burn time down. Fireworks specialists have all sorts of knowledge on how to make chemicals burn more or less slowly. We can also contain a chemical burner in a ceramic vessel. Excess heat would simply provide additional impetus to the model. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: No power sources available
In a message dated 10/28/2002 2:22:52 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see what the point is of the IcePIC group attempting to drop a probe 500' when NASA has already gone much further (though they drilled the holes with non-probe machinery). The point is to do it, without putting a hand out for NASA's crib notes. Here, we're talking about a semi-autonomous ice submersible, without an extension cord out the back. NASA's probe was really just a drill with a camera attached to the front of it. This is more akin to a submarine. Also, if you want a probe design the simplest way to get one is to file an FOI request with NASA to cough up the complete details, blueprints, specs, etc. for their probe. If you ask nicely, Dr. Behar might just turn them over without the legal overhead. If you ask very nicely Dr. Behar might even let you use their probe! What's the point of that? At the very least, we are trying to motivate people HERE to participate in the space program, to provide what they themselves can provide. Sure, we'd like to hear about ice melting parameters of the Behar probe. But, we're simply trying to cut 500' through ice, not 1200 meters. We're not going straight down. We're going at an angle. We'd like to be able to slightly turn the heading of the model, by sending it a radio command. Another point to going through 500'? It hasn't been done before. This isn't because it is impossible. It simply hasn't been attempted yet. -- John Robert
Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING
In a message dated 10/28/2002 3:34:43 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are 25 glaciers on Rainier. Carbon, the thickest glacier on Rainier is 700', Nisqually is 400' thick. Carbon is much longer hike and would require some technical climbing. Nisqually is flat, close and easy. What is the minimum thickness for testing? Leonardo DiFrancesco, M.S., P.E. About 250' thick should be minimum, considering that at the lower depths, the ice will be fractured, and contaminated with boulders and tree trunks. It must have at least 250' of pristine or semi-pristine ice. Rainier is the best hope, as it is reachable by just about everyone. Note that even though the model is projected for a 500' test run, it can't go straight down. It's not a drill, it's a self-contained ice submersible, capable of semi-lateral movement. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Testing Location
In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:02:26 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not stack blocks of ice? It would be a lot simpler than hauling our gear out to some ice-bound wasteland. Funny you should mention that. Joe Latrell, our newest victim here on the website, may have a working proposal for a battery heated submodel, with enough juice to go through a couple of blocks of ice. A little cardboard mockup, with a few batteries to heat a wire coil wrapped around the body of the model, will probably go through ice just fine. Once that is done, we've demonstrated the feasibility of a Proteus model (or Icepick). So, it looks like we WILL be using simple blocks of ice, initially. There's no point in putting forth a bunch of effort, and then seeing failure at the Ice Field. -- JHB
The Picture Worth 1000 Words
It's established. Rainier won't cut it. We don't need big chunks of ice tearing down the mountan, as we're trudging up with a 100 pound model. This is what we're looking for. If not this actual place, then something quite similar. http://www.escobosa.com/image.asp?CollectionID=7ImageID=57 30 miles, by 50 miles, 1/2 mile deep, solid ice. No need to bother with a hike. Rent a helicopter for $75, and get up there from Seward in 20 minutes. Problem solved. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Testing Location
In a message dated 10/26/2002 7:48:28 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The safest, most accessible (easy hike from a road that is open for much of the year) and thickest glacier in the lower 48 states is on Mt. Rainier, less than 3 hours from downtown seattle. Hmm... that's a good idea. Does Rainier have thick, unmoving ice on it? I used to live in Seattle and Tacoma, but I never actually spent any time on or near Rainier. Can you get us some facts and figures on Rainier? -- John
Re: Discovery Channel
In a message dated 10/26/2002 10:58:54 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, regarding some of the suggestions being floated around by this
group's members: the current plan is to indeed give the Cryobot some ability
to veer slowly to the side to avoid obstacles detected by radar and/or sonar
below it, using several different jets of hot water (NOT steam) pumped down
through different spots spaced around the nose. (Pumped jets of hot water
have also turned out to be far more efficient at melting through ice than
simply heating the Cryobot's metal nose is; they're now part of the standard
design.)
Isn't it funny, that we've somehow stumbled across the same answers to our dilemma, and we're not getting paid 6 figures a year for it?
Also, there will have to be some peripheral small jets of hot
water on the Cryobot's sides to keep the meltwater layer from refreezing
around them before the Cryobot has slid all the way down through.
Yes. I'm thinking the following: what we're shooting for is for our little torpedo to grease its way through the borehole. This can be accomplished by 2 things:
1) spray teflon on the sides of the model. It's cheap, and the damned stuff will work. And, it's heat resistant.
2) we need to have the sides wet, in a sense, floating the model in a layer of its own meltwater as it slides down and along. I suspect that the model should therefore have a jet in its nose, and 4 jets in its tail. A jet at the nose bores a small hole. The 4 jets at the rear propel the model, and through gravity, provide water to the sides. The water doesn't have to be hot, just warmer than the ice.
If the rear jets can be timed correctly, the entire model may have a spin imparted to it, which will reduce friction even more, and assist the model to literally drill its way through the ice... I'm thinking that we can stamp spiraled grooves deeply into the sides of the model, and attach a heavy bit to the front.
Consider: any ice field on Earth, or on Europa, is liable to have rocks and boulders (or asteroids, in the case of Europa) scattered throughout like raisins in pudding. This model has got to move, therefore... and, it's got to be able to kick past gravel... so a drill shaped exterior may be a necessity.
I did some more thinking about the 'steam issue'. I agree, steam is not necessary, considering that if/when this thing gets ice frozen over it, it will generate hydraulic pressure. So, the model has got to be very sturdy, and very streamlined.
Speed is not the issue, and too much heat would possibly be counterproductive, as the model might hit a rock, stop, and then be so damned hot that a cavity is created around it before it can get around the rock, thereby stranding the model in a water bubble under 50' of ice.
It's got to move, but it's got to move SLOW. Temperature of the model should probably be about 30 degrees faranheit warmer than the ice.
As for those radio transponders, J. Michael Parenti is right: the plan is to
have each one, on release from the Cryobot's rear, automatically extend
several spring-loaded prongs to anchor itself to the walls of the ice tunnel
(which is bound to freeze solid again just a fraction of a meter behind the
Cryobot). But they will have to be very low frequency to transmit through
ice -- so LF that I doubt they're available commercially.
We don't need the world. We just need some animal transponders, such as they attach to the ears of wildlife. There have got to be some radio hobbyists out there who can tell us how to make them low frequency.
Although a standard transponder would probably work in 100-200' of ice, such as we are likely to work with, we also would like to demonstrate workability on Europa... so we should shoot for as close to the real demands as possible.
Spring-prong anchors hmm... I was thinking that if they were shot or rocketed into the slush at the rear, that the slush itself would be enough anchor, particularly if they were roped to one another:
0--0--0--0-//-{==
Here, the // marks represent a slush and ice core refreezing behind the model.
Can the transponders relay a signal? Would it help if they were wired together with a thin filament?
A pity the Icepick site doesn't have a file vault to store files sent to it
by the readers: I'd love to read out and store that IEEE Aerospace piece by
Zimmerman et al, which is an extremely detailed and up to date description
of how NASA's own Cryobot design is evolving. See his JPL Technical Paper,
though, as a partial substitute.
Talk to Gail and Hibai about that. We REALLY need a file vault for technical proposals. I'd also love to see your Europa websites list become part of the Icepick website, as a sort of 'library' category.
-- John Harlow Byrne
Working Model Points Addressed
Okay, group, we're making good progress so far. A lot of members have put in some very good points about the possibilities and limitations of an actual working model. Here is an address to those various points: There's a VERY serious misconception developing here -- every Cryobot design ever developed simply melts the ice beneath its nose, and then uses gravity to descend. Rear steam-jet propulsion would be incredibly inefficient in providing a very small amount of additional downward motive force, given the amount of energy needed to boil ice (fully 8 times more than is needed to melt it) -- you'd do infinitely better just to use any heat source powerful enough to do that to just melt the ice below the Cryobot's nose faster instead. (By the way, the Cryobot does NOT generate "hydraulic pressure" when it melts ice -- quite apart from the fact that any such pressure would be in every direction anyway, remember that water ice is one of the very few substances that SHRINKS when it melts.) -- Robert Bradbury Marcus, and later Bruce, addressed this point as well. I think we can all agree at this point that hydraulic pressure won't be a serious issue on our working model, for the reasons that Robert suggests. Sure, it might be a limited factor on Europa, but we're working on a much smaller scale, and won't have the problems of supercold ice and 20 kilometers of ice to contend with. 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. Next issue. Hi All, Is there really any need to come up with a new name? If you go to the current website's main page http://klx.com/europa/, you will see that our group is really called IcePIC (Ice Penetrator Internet Committee) and the probe is called Icepick. This was voted on in the early days when it was changed from the original name that Larry Klaes had proposed when he first started this group, and I see no reason to change it now. :-) Thanks, Julie Edwards Julie's recommendation for keeping the Icepick name is on point. So far, we have three names (name deadline is Tuesday night). Those names are 'Hot Nose' (probably not this name, as Gail Leatherwood himself agrees), 'Proteus' (my suggestion, to represent a 'water god, that can transform into something much greater than originally seen', and Julie's recommendation to simply keep with 'Icepick'. The only problem I have with Icepick is that I don't want to step on Larry Klae's toes, or interfere with the day to day activities of his site, which is really about creating a Europa bound probe. Our working model is a feasibility study, and not a working Europa probe, which would cost millions and the support of NASA. Our probe represents the efforts of a group of space enthusiasts, to demonstrate the feasibility of a real 'Icepick'. Really, the whole purpose of a name for the project is twofold -- to allow categorization of our efforts outside! of the central tenet of the IcePick site, and to focus our minds, by actualizing the concept. Give a project a name, and you breath a little life into it. John, I have to disagree. As Bruce I think mentioned, it was determined long ago that the only way to get through the Europa icecap was with a radioactive power source. We don't *have* sufficient radioactive power sources (RTGs) to do Pluto, a Europa orbiter and the Icepick mission. Further, given our lack of ability to produce Pu-238 currently any mission is going to be very expensive because we have to purchase the Pu-238 from the Russians (and they aren't making it available cheaply). Last time I checked there weren't electrical power lines running up to glaciers in Alaska or Mt. Ranier. Precisely *how* do you plan to get through the ice? Are you going to run a couple of plastic hoses from the probe to the surface so you can keep pouring gasoline and pumping oxygen down to some 2-cycle model airplane engine to generate heat? That doesn't sound like a realistic scenario to get people interested in a "real" Europa mission. It sounds like a stunt by a bunch of space enthusiasts. Go do the research on what is available (most of the info is on the web under "RTG"s, AMTEC, "advanced radioisotope power systems", etc.). NASA and the DOE are working on improved power sources, but their last attempt (the AMTEC [alkali-metal-thermal-to-electric conversion] project) has to my knowledge been defunded [Note 1]. Robert also: There are some serious calculations that need to be done before I'll take this idea
Re: Working Model
In a message dated 10/27/2002 6:05:55 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, that is why I would like to do the prints for all the parts. And on the assembly page, the first page, is usually where you have your bill of materials. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 Robert, you mentioned that Precision Fabricators might be willing to participate, in exchange for publicity. That is exactly what we are all about. If Precision would be willing to assist with the construction of the model, it would be clearly the advantage of IcePick to give them as much credit as we can. We want to encourage the participation of civilians and civilian industries as much as possible in the space technology game. If we all wind up, one year from now, standing on a glacier with a 3' aluminum working model, all of us wearing jackets with Precision Fabricator logos in the manner of race car pit crews, well, that's the point of our project, isn't it? The same goes for AIEVEOS, or any other industrial group that is willing to assist to make this model project a reality. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Working Model
I seem to have volunteered to help organize and circulate the ideas we've come up with. I'll start working on a data base since I don't have anything else to do but sit around drinking beer and watching TV (yeah, right!) I suggest we call the project "Hot Nose," since that's what the design seems to be suggesting. (No, no! Not "Snot Nose!" Good grief!) Hot Nose is fine, but the deadline for names is still Tuesday night. Any other suggestions? I suggest 'Proteus', as it has a sufficiently sci-tech sound to it, and represents the creation of greater things from something small. I suggest that anyone with any ideas or other contributions simply keep posting them on this discussion group. I will capture them and begin organizing them into the various components like "Vessel," "Guidance System," "Electronics," "Communication," etc., depending on what we come up with. Then we can begin identifying sources of hardware/software and start hunting for what we need. Perfect. Hibai, could you help Gail organize this into a website presentable format? Perhaps we can make a subcategory for this project on the Icepick website, so that the project won't interfere with the various other goings on and raw science presented here. John's note about the model submarine hobbyist web site is excellent--I've added it to my "Favorites" list. It has a ton of info on who's making and selling parts for model submarines. Check it out. I also suggest someone get in touch with Nat'l Geographic, Smithsonian, and The Discovery Channel (another Byrne idea, not mine) to see if anyone would be interested in following the project. As soon as we get a little more tangibility to this project, that is, some sort of diagram and list of people, then we have something to present to a potential benefactor. I'll see what I can come up with for suggestions, and clear it with all of you. If we get a target list of benefactors, I guess the most valid thing I can contribute would be to write up an official grant proposal. We might also check with the educational system to identify school science competitions. Each of us can check with our local high schools to see if any of them would be interested. I've thought about this one a little. One thing we have to be careful about is this: the project won't work with just any HS kids. We need a dedicated class of people, with some techical and math skills. We don't want to waste our time holding hands. Look up Hyman Rickover's website, the center for excellence in education. These are the sort of kids we need -- boy/girl geniuses, not typical teenagers who will grow quickly bored with the long development process that this thing will require. I'll try to keep up with the documentation of the project, for I think that will be critical for both our own developmental use and possible publicity. Absolutely. We must have tangible documentation. Emails just won't cut it. Oh, a couple pesky questions: In whose garage will we build Hot Nose? And if we're scattered all over the US and other countries (like Hibai Unzueta in Spain) how are we going to get enough of us together to actually handle the assembly? That's a key question. If/when we can somehow gather together $5000, we need someone we can entrust that money to, and someone with enough time to put into the project. It should also be someone with some technical capacity, sufficient to actually perform some work on the physical item(s), or get them to people who CAN do the work. That excludes me. While I can find the people we need, I'm not a technician, and lack tools. Gail is retired, and has time, but is also not a technician. So, that leaves Robert Crawley... who happens to have a lot of the tools we're going to need, and a great background. I therefore nominate Robert Crawley as our 'garage'. Any seconds? Anyone else who can do the job that Robert can? Not insurmountable, but getting to Alaska might be like the gold rushers converging on the Chilkoot Pass. Agreed. Alaska is too far for most of you. If/when this project is complete, however, we're going to have to test it. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable alternative to the Harding Ice Field, that's going to have to remain the target test site. Any alternative has to be: 1) reachable by most, and 2) feature a big piece of solid ice, at least 700' thick, preferably old ice, packed over thousands of years, not a simple aggregate of glacial pieces clumped together. OK, your turn. Gail PS: Thanks, Bruce for your encyclopedic reference on Icepick related works. I envy your library! Bruce is definitely the man in the know here. Bruce, you usually have excellent insights, but I haven't heard your input on this latest wild scheme. Do you have any ideas to contribute? -- John Harlow Byrne GBL
Re: Working Model
In a message dated 10/26/2002 11:44:50 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don’t know if it helps or not, but I have access to CAD/CAM software I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I don't know what CAD/CAM software is. Is it for creating diagrams? Robert, would you also be able to come up with something to help create a model control device software package? and make professional drawings, and if needed make parts from sheet metal, Lexan, or about anything else originally flat. Wow. That's exactly what we need. We're going to have to hammer this thing out on paper / conceptualization first, but once we do, we are going to absolutely require a diagram. I'd like to hear more feedback about whether the rest of you think that a steam-driven model would work. If so, we're still going to need some serious sheet metal work. One thing I was thinking is to hammer the exterior skin with barbershop pole flutings along the sides, so that the entire model resembles a drill, with the drill bit itself being the nose of the model. The model would then potentially 'screw' itself into the ice, propelled by a steam blast out the back. Slightly altering the angle of the tail exhaust would then allow the model to slowly steer, as it screwed through the ice. Will it work? (Also have access to a brake press to make bends.) If I can figure out how to convert drawing files into something everyone can use, like PDF files, then it’ll be just like one big engineering firm. Wouldn't a $100 photo to digital formatter do that? Where is Elite Precision Fabricators located? Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823
Re: Wild Concept #1
On consideration, I've come up with the following. 1) Odds are very long on coming up with such a model. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. At the very least, by working on conceptualizing such a working model, we would have some new material for the Icepick website. 2) It is not necessarily a bad thing that most of those of us who are interested in creating such a working model are non-scientists / non-engineers. This may be because we don't know the true obstacles, etc. However, IF a working model can be developed, by non-scientists / interested laymen, then it makes the case that much stronger for an actual NASA developed prototype. 3) Gail Leatherwood has had some finance background. I hereby appoint Gail the records keeper, if Gail will accept the position. We will need to figure out several things, right off the bat. a) first, we need a very rough sketch, sufficient to break the project down into parts. Then, assign 2-3 persons to each part. b) we are going to need a small team to search around, and see if we can get anyone to underwrite such a project. For instance, I know that Natl. Geographic typically underwrites science projects... but they prefer to underwrite big projects, not grand scale models. Still, they have a grant application process, that could teach us a lot about how to apply to others. We would need about $3000 to start with. c) We need timetables. This website has a tendency to talk things to death, and then move on to other subjects. In that regard, here's timetable one: by November 15, we should have not less than 7-10 persons who are willing to participate some time, and possibly money. From that group, 3 or 4 will be directors, in charge of coordinating efforts or 2 or 3 others. If there is no such group of 7-10 by November 15, we can pretty much assume that interest just is not sufficient to generate 'critical mass', and let the model concept go the way of most bold schemes. Finally, as Gail alludes, simple is best. We don't really need to demonstrate anything other than: 1) an 'ice submarine' can be developed, cheaply. 2) it can drop a string of weak transponders behind it. (Note that one way to ensure the transponders pull out is to string them together). That's all it has to do. It doesn't have to be pretty, complex, or artfully constructed. It should not be technical. Think radio controlled torpedo, with a hot nose. I have another suggestion. The Bay Area of California hosts an annual 'robot war' or somesuch, where radio controlled automatons beat the crap out of each other. Do you suppose that various people involved in that would know a few things about how to find parts, and how to design a thing such as a cryobot? The Bay Area also hosts silicon valley. Now, as a parting shot: to start a project right, and actualize it in people's heads, it needs a project title, or at least a name for the proposed model. Deadline for a project title or name for the model is Tuesday night. Suggestions? -- John Harlow Byrne Wow! This is really producing some great--and possibly workable--ideas. My only concern would be that the more things we include, the more complicated the machine will get, and the more difficult it will be to design, build, and find parts for. Not that that should discourage any of these ideas--rather, as you say, each idea may spark others even better. That's the nature of brainstorming. I suggest that a small "design team" be formed to capture all these ideas and begin forming them into a working design that could be put on paper (real or electronic) and a parts list started. I'm sure some of us know about model building, and may be familiar with sources of things like the old torpedo guidance systems. I get a catalog once in a while of all kinds of surplus items that can be used by the home hobbyist or school science teacher projects, so I know they're out there. Even here in Elko, NV we have a military surplus store that has all kinds of goodies that might be worth looking at. What do you think, Europans? Want to serve on such a team? Seems like we have lots of electronic space for such a thing. Am I volunteering? I'd be glad to contribute something so long as its not high level scientific or engineering knowldege, of which I have very little--any math above long division scares me to death! Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, October 25, 2002 09:47:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wild Concept #1 A working model is just what is needed to convince Congress of the merit of this project. If a simple design built from off-the-shelf parts can perform, than it will show how much better a NASA-funded design can work. A question: Could the transponders be anchored to the ice behind the probe somehow to let the probe continue on unhindered? I was thinking of a spring-loaded device that would "grab" the walls of the tunnel behind the probe, allowing the ice to
Working Model Concept
Okay, group, here's what I've tinkered with today. I wrote a letter of introduction to a website produced by Hyman Rickover's foundation for science and education. Admiral Hyman Rickover was the founder of the US Navy's nuclear submarine development effort. I figure that his program might be willing to assist us, or at least have some leads. At any rate, it doesn't hurt to ask. Another lead is a more esoteric one. I read a science fiction short story, written by Adam Roberts, called 'Ice Submarine'. For those interested, you can find it at: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/icesub.htm That story hit me between the eyes with another wild idea: any ice submarine, such as we propose, has one major stumbling block -- HOW do you navigate the damned thing? We don't just want a hot pot of coals that will sink straight down into a sheet of ice. We want something that has some limited navigational abilities. Adam's story gave me an idea: instead of screwing around with complicated drill and pump mechanisms, and all the moving parts and opportunity for clogging and break-down, why not simply use STEAM to propel the model? Here's the idea: the model shell, a 3' aluminum casing, has an internal power source -- linked batteries, if those are sufficient, or gasoline/propane if necessary. Using electrical heating coils, the power source heats the nose and length of the model, enabling it to melt through ice. The skin of the model should be sprayed with teflon, such as you can find in a cooking supply store (spray teflon is sold, to apply on frying pans for a non-stick surface). A non-stick surface is necessary, to prevent ice buildup from freezing the model in place. It must slip through the borehole with a minimum of friction. To navigate, instead of using a drill, the model heats meltwater to steam, and then jets it out. The steam has three functions. First, it dumps the meltwater. Second, it propels the model, much as early WW2 torpedoes were propelled, using steam to rocket a torpedo through the water. Finally, the steam can be used to create a cavity, in the direction you want to navigate the model. The advantage of this proposal is that it reduces the need for moving parts. The difficulty is that it requires a whole new concept, perhaps the creation of a new type of device, unless one can be adapted directly from a WW2 torpedo. A question of course is this: if you create a cavity in one direction, is the model compelled to lurch in the opposite direction, or can you somehow time the blasts of steam to first melt a cavity, and then nudge the model over into that cavity, with a steam blast on the opposite side? Finally, we must figure out a way to get enough heat to this model to both melt ice, and to generate steam. The powersource is a key factor. How much power will we need? Can 3 or 4 motorcycle batteries generate electrical power, or is a gasoline/propane heater required? To my knowledge, this concept has never been developed before, and it is presumeably, a new 'invention' using old technology. Let's consider this in the grand scheme of an actual Europa surveyor. Why wouldn't steam work on the actual surveyor, just as I have proposed? A jet of steam works well in a vacuum, so a working model employing steam could actually be a push along a new concept path for the actual Europa probe. My question to you all is: is this a workable concept? Ideas? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Working Model Concept
Link to high quality submarine model kit makers: http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/m_index.html Note that the 'Albacore' model features an internal gasoline engine. Also note that there are quite a few experts on this site, with a bit of knowledge on HOW to put together such a thing, in a small package. Is it such a stretch, to take some of that technical capacity, and apply it to a proposed ice-drilling submarine? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Wild Concept #1
Thanks to everyone for the response, which have been pretty positive. Who knows, but we may actually be able to get at least a little more actually done, than just another 6 months worth of email archives. One email mentioned where we can find an icy environment, much like Europa. Again, I'd have to recommend the Harding Ice Sheet, in Southcentral Alaska. It is an enormous area of land, covered with a mile thick sheet of ice, that completely stretches from one chain of mountains to another. This 'bowl' of ice is so large that it continually spawns glaciers in that part of Alaska. The Ice Sheet is about 200 miles south of where I live, and is a nice drive to get there, from Anchorage. Of course, Anchorage is a world class airport, and is a central location to most other cities in the northern hemisphere -- which makes it the cargo hub for a great deal of international air shipping. The only other glaciers in the US I know of are in Montana or Colorado. I don't know the quality or size of these glaciers, but I DO think that we would have to know that the ice was fairly solid and unmoving. Glaciers, by their nature, are constantly moving and cracking... so they are not really big blocks of ice, but more like a huge pile of crushed ice, with building sized chunks in it. This won't work. We need a solid piece of ice, much like we might find on Europa. The reason I suggested using model rocket engines is that I'm not sure a buoyant tracker would work. I think it's necessary to get the tracker well away from the model, or risk having the trackers simply sticking to the tail of the model. If you 'shoot' them into a tunnel behind the model, presumeably they'll freeze there. What do the rest of you think? Would it be enough to simply have the trackers 'float' away? I know nothing about the fancy hardware. So, rad hardened chips hadn't even entered my mind. Sure, it would be relevant to have both a working model, and a parallel proposal for an actual prototype, with all the nice hardware attached to it. As for me, I'd be happy just to get something material done, and don't really care if it is impressive looking or not. If a $5 model train chip will do the trick, that works for me. On a corollary issue: yesterday, I was thinking that what we are really talking about is analogous to a torpedo, although a torpedo that is only about 3-4' long. Would it be possible, therefore, to put an outdated torpedo control device in it? As you know, there have been such things as programmable torpedo control devices since 1943 or so. Of course, an outdated torpedo might also have a good battery, or other technologies for figuring out how to put together such a thing as a small, iceboring submarine. (Of course, outdated is the key, since the parts must be cheap, accessible, and not be part of anyone's secret military design arsenal. Off the shelf is the watchword). -- John Harlow Byrne I presume all these rad hardened chips they're coming out with will be useful for this project? If not for the project use, then a list of the substitute parts that would actually be used in the real mission with appropriate funding.
Wild Concept #1
Objective: come up with a radio controlled working model, that can bore 500' into an ice sheet, and leave a trail of 5 transponders at intervals of 100' feet. The principle purpose is not to develop new technology, but to use extremely cheap, off the shelf parts to make a publicity boost for the Europa project. The launch and boring would be recorded on video camera to present to Natl. Geographic, Science, NASA, newspapers, government, and any other interested group, in conjunction with a strong written presentation of what would be possible with a true icepick, on Europa. Concept: A 3-4' aluminum tube, with a radio control device cannibalized from a good quality model submarine kit. The radio receiver would have to be substantially upgraded to be able to receive a signal through several hundred feet of ice. Additionally, it might be possible to have a limited set of preprogrammed instructions hardwired into the model. The model would also come equipped with a heat source. Is a motorcycle battery(s) enough voltage to provide enough power to a heating coil? There would also have to be a rotating drill/pump on the front, to move water and ice slurry through the model, and exhaust it at the tail, where the slurry can refreeze behind the model. If the axial tunnel concept is not feasible, perhaps the ice slurry could simply stream along side flutings worked into the shell of the model. While the ice slurry is still plastic, the model should also be able to shoot a transponder into it. Five small transponders, such as those which are commonly attached to wildlife, would be fitted with a model rocket engine, just enough to shoot the transponder about 1-2' behind the model, as it progresses through the ice. The controller would therefore have only a few small controls on the radio control device. These would be start and stop buttons, perhaps a very limited means of controlling the model in XYZ coordinates (such as by putting more heat on one side of the model, or slightly adjusting the internal drill/pump angle), and a transponder launch button. It is not necessary to recover the model. In a best case scenario, it would slowly drill down through the ice, over several hours, or even a full day. The model should be set at an angle, not straight down, to demonstrate that it has sufficient forward momentum, and is not progressing merely through gravity. The transponders only have to be 'loud' enough to be reasonably locatable by someone with a radio receiver standing on top of the ice. If the model is actually created, it would be tested at the Harding Ice Sheet, a 30' wide expanse of ice in SouthCentral Alaska. The ice there is nearly a mile thick, and more than sufficient to demonstrate ice drilling capacities. One advantage of the ice sheet is that unlike glaciers in Montana or Colorado, it is a static, unmoving sheet, and does not have significant fractures in the ice to disrupt the movement of the model. It is the closest thing I know of to the surface of Europa, within the continental U.S. Questions: 1) Could a motorcycle/snowmachine or other battery be used to power a heating coil, sufficient to sink a 3' model through the ice? 2) If there is not such a battery available, would it be possible to beg one from a major automobile manufacturer? Battery technology has greatly progressed the past few years, forced by various laws promoting electric powered automobiles. It may be possible that a Japanese car company, for instance, would be happy to lend a good battery, simply to demonstrate the technology. Ideally, such a battery would not necessarily be box shaped, as a standard motorcycle battery is, but donut shaped, to allow the battery to be aligned with the axis of the model, and reduce the diameter of the model. On a 3' model, perhaps 7 such batteries could be wired together to provide sufficient voltage to put out enough heat to slowly melt a tunnel. The batteries only need to last for 500' of drilling, so a heavy power drain may be put on them. 3) Could that same battery also power an internal rotating drill/pump, so that as the ice melts, it moves through the central axis of the model, to exhaust at the tail? Alternatively, could some other means be developed to shed the ice slurry at the nose of the model, to enable it to continue forward progress? 4) Would it be possible to control such a model through several hundred feet of ice, along XYZ coordinates? 5) Would it be possible to have a small onboard auto-control device, so that a limited set of preprogrammed instructions could be included with the model, in the event that the link was cut? 6) Would a tracking transponder (such as those attached to the ears of wildlife) be powerful enough to transmit a signal through ice? 7) What would be the final costs of such a working model? My projections include: a) costs of spare parts, and modifications to them:
New Grist for the Mill
Feeling Antigravity's Pull Can NASA stop the apple from falling on Newton's head? By Adam Rogers Posted Friday, October 18, 2002, at 8:30 AM PT "Don't call it antigravity research," Ron Koczor pleads. He's a physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., and he's talking about a project he's been working on for almost a decade. "Call it 'gravity modification.' 'Gravity anomalies.' Anything but antigravity. That's a red flag." When people find out that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has researchers working on sci-fi stuff like antigravity—or rather, "gravity modification"—the red flags do indeed start waving. Reputable scientists like Koczor earn polite disdain from colleagues (or worse, from funders of research). But truth's truth: NASA has been studying the manipulation of gravity for at least 10 years, as have nongovernment researchers. NASA began its work after a Russian physicist named Evgeny Podkletnov published an article in the peer-reviewed journal Physica C in 1992. Podkletnov claimed that a device built around a superconductor and a magnet could shield an object from gravity. The trick, he said, was to make a superconducting disc about a foot in diameter, chill it, levitate it over magnets—a nifty property of superconductors is that they repel magnetic fields—and set it revolving like a compact disc. Podkletnov said an object placed above that contraption lost 0.3 percent of its weight. The object itself didn't change. Rather, gravity's effect on it lessened. If that effect could be harnessed and strengthened, the aerospace industry would be upended. Vessels bound for space wouldn't have to ride atop massive, barely controlled explosions. All the energy human beings expend moving things around, from cargo to cars, could be reduced or eliminated. And post-Einsteinian physics would have to be rewritten to explain what the hell was going on. Podkletnov called the effect "gravitational force shielding," and even in the absence of a good theory to explain the phenomenon, other researchers took notice. "Because his experiment and results were published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, that gave it a level of credibility," Koczor says. After Podkletnov published his article, it took NASA until 1999 to figure out how to make a large, thin superconducting disc. Ceramic high-temperature superconductors are brittle as cheap china, and the discs kept shattering. Once they solved that problem, NASA paid Columbus, Ohio-based SCI Engineered Materials $650,000 to build the entire apparatus. But Podkletnov had called for a disc with two layers, one superconducting and one not, and SCI didn't solve that engineering challenge until last year. Then they hit another roadblock. The disc wouldn't spin. SCI engineers stuck a rotor through the disc's center to turn it mechanically, but Podkletnov specified 5,000 revolutions per minute. SCI's device barely pulls 30 rpm. Why not just ask Podkletnov how to build the thing? SCI brought him over to consult a couple of years ago, to little avail. "His excuse basically was that he was a ceramics physicist, not an electrical or mechanical engineer, and other people built the device for him," Koczor says. "Draw your own conclusions. All I know is, if I were a principal investigator on something like this, I would know the size and thread-depth of every screw in the damn thing. But you know, the Europeans and the Russians, they're different. They're much more, 'this is your job and this is my job.' So it's plausible that he didn't know the details." It might not matter. SCI's contract is ending, and Koczor's budget to explore "way-out physics" is spent. He hasn't got the money to actually test the device even if it did meet Podkletnov's specs. But researchers outside NASA are working on the problem, too. This summer Nick Cook, a writer for Jane's Defence Weekly, reported that aerospace giant Boeing was pursuing antigravity research. Boeing denied it. "We are aware of Podkletnov's work on 'anti-gravity' devices and would be interested in seeing further development work being done," said a company statement. "However, Boeing is not funding any activities in this area at this time." Note Boeing's use of the Clintonian present tense. They never contacted Jane's to ask for a correction, Cook says. Meanwhile, British aerospace company BAE Systems says it's keeping an eye on the research, and that it had once funded its own antigravity project, Greenglow. Unfortunately, Cook strains his own credibility somewhat. A couple of weeks after his Jane's piece appeared, Cook's book on antigravity research, The Hunt for Zero Point, came out. In it, he claims that the Nazis built an antigravity device during World War II. Its absence from present-day science, Cook says, implies a vast "black" world of secret antigravity aircraft that might explain the UFOs people see over Area 51. He's a careful investigative reporter, but once you
Re: [Spaceref-daily] The Mars Institute: A New Resource for a New Century of...
In a message dated 10/17/2002 11:05:32 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I shall rise to that challenge, Robert. I'm not a scientist per se, but I do like to tell myself that I am at times, rational. Dismantling Mars is not going to happen, ever. This is more a political question than a scientific one. 1) We do not have a robust nanotechnology, and likely, will not have one for another 20 years, at best. With the current rate of progress on frontier sciences such as nanotech and genetic technologies (and in particular, the strong public reluctance to develop such technologies, due to a general mistrust of genetic manipulation and by extension, nanotechnology) it could be even more time until such technologies are actually employed, even if they are developed. 2) Mars is more than just a big rock floating in the sky with a host of technical problems before it can be dismantled. It is not a resource -- it is a fundamental part of the human space mythos, the 'bright red star' that astronomers have been fascinated with for over 3000 years. People around the world have at the very least, a sentimental attachment to Mars far beyond its utilization for resources. 3) Lifting Mars out of its gravity well is not something I would ever, ever, ever recommend, robust nanotechnology or not. There are some things that it is just best not to mess with, and a 3000 diameter chunk of iron floating relatively close to planet Earth is one of them. Have you, for instance, truly considered what impact the loss of Mars' gravitational pull would do on Earth's orbital pattern? In a worst case scenario, of course, something would go wrong, and planet Mars could conceivably go flying off into high orbit, or intersect with Earth's orbit... goodbye Earth, and goodbye nanotech scientists. For those who suggest that such a thing is impossible, I only remind you of the following: 3 years ago, the Mars Explorer was lost because some technicians forgot to convert miles to meters, and the probe crashed... mistakes happen all the time in science and technology. 4) Theory is NOT enough to justify such a risk. Theoretical analysis also suggests that we could have colonies on the bottom of the ocean, or put solar stations on the Moon. They are not there... why is that? 5) I am very much in favor of sending a colony to Mars. I recognize that the first few colonists would have a very hard time of it. Some would likely die in the process. It would be an extremely difficult thing to do. But, it would not be any less of a problem than the colonization of the New World was for colonialists of 400 years ago... and I suspect, it would have very similar impacts on our world, in terms of exponential growth of human civilization and progress. To achieve this, however, you must have people literally walking on Mars. Probes won't cut it, and neither will trillions of little nanotechs. They lack romance, and romance is necessary to get public acceptance and support for such a concept. 6) Mars is far more useful as a way station, a jumping off point to the asteroid belt and Jovian satellites, than as a giant chunk of resources in any event. If you really need 1 trillion tons of iron, it's more economical to simply grab an asteroid, and a whole lot more conceivable. 7) Even if you did lift Mars from its gravity well, dismantle it into tidy little packages of silica and iron... what would you DO with it all? We humans are NOT at the point of even contemplating Dyson spheres, and won't be for several more centuries. Sorry, Robert... you're just a few centuries ahead of your time. -- John Harlow Byrne I'm *very* tired of this discussion. The exploration or colonization of Mars is a *stupid* idea. The correct approach is to wait until we have robust molecular nanotechnology and then analyze Mars while we dismantle it and lift it out of its gravity well. Theoretical analysis suggests this could be done in as little as *12 hours*. I'm throwing down the glove here -- I challenge anybody (with a rational thought process) to debate me on this topic. Mars should not be explored, it should not be colonized -- it should be dismantled (dismantling can involve a quite extensive exploration but that is a secondary effect).
Re: Life and SETI [was RE: Survival of the Flattest]
In a message dated 10/10/2002 2:35:29 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there happen to be any Dyson shells in the process of being built, they might be noticed by the FAME or Kepler missions (they would tend to appear to be long period variable stars). Robert It seems to me that a Dyson Sphere, large enough to envelope an entire star, with some internal room left over for safety purposes, would require truly tremendous amount of construction material. It's got to come from somewhere. Ergo, your Dyson Sphere might be surrounded by a 'desert' of stars, where physics and gravity suggest that there should be something there, and there is not, that might be a point to consider. I'd imagine that the thermal radiation from a Dyson Sphere would be very regular, as the heat would have a tendency to more evenly spread out along the interior surface of your sphere, and radiate more evenly as well... more evenly than a regular star, for instance, which has solar storms and the like putting up a splash of energy here or there. Of course, we don't have the resolution to be able to see that closely at stars yet... but, who is to say what 50 years more progress in telescope technology may bring? Still, call me a cynic, but I still cannot justify the rationale for building a Dyson Sphere. It just doesn't jibe with the character of intelligence. -- JHB
Re: Drake still sticking with estimate of 10K civs in MWG
In a message dated 10/10/2002 5:32:20 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have trouble with this part of the article and wonder if Drake was either misquoted by the media or if Drake knows something we do not? "By his calculations, he estimates one in every 10 million stars has a civilization. The search for these cultures is not quite as simple as the calculations. I'm not convinced the Drake Formula is complete. After all, presume that there are 100 billion stars in the galaxy. Not all of them will be positioned well. For instance, would a lifeform at the center of the galaxy be smothered out, simply by excess candlepower? "People would need to use a telescope with a five-mile diameter to see these civilizations from Earth, he said. And if they wanted to travel there with current technology, people would have to wait at least 30 million years." That's pretty safe of him, to make an immense claim, and then present an unrealizable set of test conditions for it. -- JHB
Re: Drake still sticking with estimate of 10K civs in MWG
Clearly true -- the estimates of nearby GRB (or other highly energetic events) probably place some significant contraints on the development of higher life forms. The Earth may simply have been very very lucky. Luck presupposes that someone was counting on the outcome. If it hadn't happened the way it did, we wouldn't be here pontificating. That's pretty safe of him (re: 5 mi diameter telescopes), to make an immense claim, and then present an unrealizable set of test conditions for it. One can easily take technological progress and project it. How? Could anyone living in 1950 have predicted the personal computer? Back in 1950, they were still working with room-sized computers. Now, I know that science fiction writers predicted lots of things, from Jules Verne forward. But, what you're talking about is something on an entirely different level than a submarine or a personal computer. E.g. The revolution in telescope aperture" by M. Mountain and F. Gillett Nature: V. 395: Supp: A23-A29 (1 Oct 1998). But I've done the calculations -- At 0.29% (i.e. 1%) of the mass available to a Dyson shell civilization, they can construct 10^11 (i.e. 100 billion) telescopes with a collecting area of ~10^13 m^2 (i.e. lunar diameter) (assuming a density of 1 kg/m^2 which is quite above the limits). The point was not whether a 'Dyson Sphere' civilization could construct all the giant telescopes that they want, but whether they could construct (or would construct) the sphere to begin with. The point then wandered over to, if such a civilization DID exist, one way to find it would be to look for the tell-tale signs of missing mass surrounding the dysonized star, for the sphere mass had to be constructed from (relatively local) materials. So you have to get this -- advanced civilizations can observe us at the level of reading license plates (or more!). We are supposed to be able to read a newspaper with current satellite technology. Tell me, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden? Why not just do a face search of everyone in Pakistan, if it's that easy? We are *so* puny compared to advanced (nanotechnology enabled) civilizations that it makes no sense at all for them to bother with us. We just *might* be first -- in which case it is worth studying these problems to understand how we might deal with those who come next. *OR* we may be on the mid-point of the development spectrum in which case it might be useful to consider how we should "engage" the more evolved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if we piss off a civilization a million years more advanced than we are that we are *BURNT TOAST*. A civilization 1 million years more advanced than we are would not be a problem. That's like saying that a band of chimpanzees could conceivably annoy a human civilization. Sure, the individual band might get wiped out if it steals too many bananas, but the chimp species wouldn't be threatened by the actions of that one band. I'd imagine our true problems would be the civilizations 50-10,000 years ahead of us, in a situation analogous to what the Aztecs faced with the Spanish. The real challenge then would be to learn how to catch up, fast, without alarming the superior civilization. Robert
Re: Saturn by 2020? How about Europa by 2015?
In a message dated 9/15/2002 1:16:37 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finally, that metal cover on the drill hole for an underground nuclear test Reynolds mentions that may well have unintentionally become the first object humanity ever launched to escape velocity -- in the summer of 1957 -- is described in a letter in one of my past issues of "Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine", which I'll try to dig up. If I remember correctly, the damn thing weighed over 800 pounds, and it didn't just hit Earth escape velocity -- it was almost certainly launched to Solar escape velocity! One of the strangest forgotten incidents of the early space program (although there are others). Dumb question: how did they know it was shot offworld, rather than just vaporizing? What makes you so sure it hit solar escape velocity? Presuming it DID do so... what a laugh that would be... 1000 years from now, when some crew of 'humans' is tooling through space, only to get knocked out of the void by a 'what the hell was that?'.
Re: Survival of the Flattest
In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:38:50 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But, that's not why I'm writing to you. In the collection is an article by Ian Crawford entitled "Where Are They?", subtitled "Maybe we are alone in the galaxy after all". I found this article thought provoking to say the least. Crawford uses the SETI results to date to suggest that we have already eliminated much of the Milky Way galaxy as a source of advanced civilizations beyond or equal to our own capabilities. I found this result shocking. I think this group already suspects that we will find single-celled life will be ubiquitous; multicellular life perhaps less so. The disturbing point, ala Stephan Gould, is how very contingent and unique our evolution may actually be, and the irony is that SETI, and not all the religions you may or may not subscribe to, may be bringing that point home. Examples: per Crawford, the Dinosaurs had about 150 million years to evolve, there were probably brainy ones, many had upright postures and free hands, but no tool makers (none found yet, anyway). Dolphins are smart, so are many whales, but no "civilizations" have evolved from them as we would define them. Pitching in my own 2 cents worth, I have to agree that life does seem to be fairly inevitable; whereever there is even a slight opportunity for it, basic chemicals tend to combine to form more complex chemicals, and eventually some form of reproductive capacity (at least, this has been the case on Earth, where life keeps popping up in deep sea trenches, miles underground, in boiling springs, radioactive fissures, and so forth -- to paraphrase Robert Bradbury, it finds a way around the blocks put in its way. Intelligence, too, seems to be a fairly common evolutionary scheme. We can all list a dozen different animals which seem to have far more brains than they would be expected to have, given the basic necessities of finding food, shelter, a mate, and avoiding being eaten. Perhaps surplus intelligence is a sort of robustness feature, which allows its carrier to rapidly exploit opportunities and avoid pitfalls, thereby allowing its carrier to alleviate small termination events (like the onset of winter) to great extinction events. The crux is intelligence, combined with a feed-back loop, to create supra-intelligence. Here, I diverge from Robert Bradbury. Genus Homo was, from the evolutionary record, a fluke many times over. Not only did Homo require brains, but also legs (to enable it to free up its hands, to start that feedback loop going). Homo also has certain features that Chimps do not: they're hyper-sexed as a species. Chimps only mate when in season. Antelopes only mate once a year. Genus Homo mates as a pure opportunist. Hyper-sex is a feedback loop in its own right -- just look at the vast efforts humans go to, to impress one another... and you'll see what I mean. If Homo weren't around, would even a close relative like the chimpanzees start a civilization? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we should focus attention on what has really made us different. My suspicions are that the rise of modern civilization has also been a contingent process. A little more pestilence here, a little less effort expended there, and you and I, dear friends, are not communicating via computers, let alone colonizing the galaxy. I doubt that. Homo Sapiens have found a way to trump evolution. Our forebrain enables us to see a few cycles of time beyond the immediate. This is a huge adaptation, that Neandertals apparently did not have. Current theories suggest that their foresight was likely only enough for a few days ahead, or just enough to make a spear, and plan a single hunt. Homo Sapiens, however, could plan to move an entire group of people, to intersect a herd of animals that by knowledge, they knew would be in a certain locale at a certain time. Homo Sapiens, therefore, was able to trump the migration patterns of herd animals, Neandertals apparently could not. Moving into the 21st century, presume that we know that in 1 week's time, a 50 mile asteroid is going to impact the Earth. Are humans gone? I doubt it. High level government types, and high level scientists, will likely get access to an underground bunker or two, there to sit out the catastrophe, and plan a revival, ala Asimov's Foundation series. What I am trying to present here is that humans, by a particular congruence of evolutionary factors, are a supremely robust species. If there is any niche at all possible, then someone among our 6 billion forebrains will come up with the answer to exploiting it. I still maintain that our present day failure to colonize this solar system is not a failure of ability or knowledge, but of will. If or when we get the need or greed sufficient to propel us there, there will be people there. True, they may not look exactly like you or I, but they'll be descendants... and will likely retain those factors of humanity which made them such
Re: Life and SETI [was RE: Survival of the Flattest]
In a message dated 10/9/2002 4:54:50 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My objections weren't as much to Crawford's ideas as they were to the Andrew LePage sidebar. The problem in general however still remains -- the significant majority of current "SETI" searches are directed towards finding something that is highly unlikely to exist. To see this clearly requires a moderately deep exploration of all of the SETI literature (something I've done). If you want to find advanced civilizations (the most likely kind of "life") then you have to be searching where stars are *not* visible (because their civilizations would have enshrouded them for power harvesting purposes) and you need to search in the far-IR regions of the spectrum (very hard to do from the surface of the Earth). I disagree with Robert here, but only on the same grounds he proposes for dumping the SETI search concept -- it's anthrocentric. He suggests that we can't find suns transmitting signals, because those suns are already cloaked, and pumping energy into vast 'ringworlds'. I'd have to ask: why would a civilization which has the capacity to create an entire sphere of material around a sun be satisfied to simply hang around that sun, and contemplate their navels (or extraterrestial version of navels)? In my own anthrocentricism, if I were the civilization capable of doing that little feat of wonder, I'd be sending out as many seed pods as possible... both for the possibility of discovering other life (and absorbing it, borg-like), or because of the frontier concept... if you send out numerous strands of the same species, and separate them across an entire galaxy and 10,000 years of time, then you would presumeably have more disparate minds considering the same subjects, and thereby increase your odds of coming up with an answer to your questions. Robert might suggest that, with a super computer, the superior civilization could simply create sim-universes to come up with their answers... and that an immense macro-computer could be so complex as to be able to come up with perfect sims to every question, thereby obviating the need to go forth and explore. I can only answer with this: we have just seen the 'simulated / virtual life' experiment. We all pretty much agreed -- it just can't match the real thing. Call it chaos theory, or what you will, you must have unexpected / unprogrammable data to be able to truly come up with your answers. There is no lab that will ever truly be able to model reality, because, frankly, we still don't have a 100% hang on what reality is. We can't even decide, for instance, what life would be like in a non-terran environment, because we've never experienced it. -- JHB
Re: So what should the first words on Europa be?
'Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink.' orhow about... 'Crap, 100 billion tons of ice, and no scotch for 10 billion miles!' -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Survival of the Flattest
Do you find it as ironically funny as I do, that humans seem to mirror alcohol yeasts, albeit about 5 'powers of 10' larger? After all, give a population of humans a few resources, and they'll breed like mad, fight any competitors (whilst justifying it with any number of noble reasons other than 'resource competition' -- we're fighting for peace and freedom, not oil!), pollute their environment willy-nilly, and have a tendency to implode under social pressures such as a runaway crime rate, mass hysteria, and so forth. Now, my question to you is, after we humans extinguish ourselves, who or what gets to enjoy the mead? -- JHB PS: say, Robert, send me a recipe, will ya? In a message dated 10/8/2002 8:25:29 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is kind of cross topic, but is seems relevant. I brew honey wine, otherwise known as mead, and I use a yeast (Saccharomyces baynus) to produce the alcohol. This yeast is very territorial, and reproduces like wild fire. In doing so it consumes its food supply and eventually becomes unable to sustain itself, but not due to a lack of food. Rather, it dies of alcohol poisoning – its own waste. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823
Re: : Survival of the Flattest
In a message dated 10/8/2002 1:04:37 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You're too late -- Kurt Vonnegut already beat you to that analogy in "Breakfast of Champions" (although he was referring to champagne yeast, not mead yeast). Oh great. So, you're telling me I have the analogies of a literary genius, only 30 years behind schedule. That's like being the second guy to invent fire... 'Hey everybody! Look, look! Og make fire... Og make... oh never mind'.
Re: First good data on diameters of the biggest Kuiper Belt objects
In a message dated 10/8/2002 2:46:51 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, judging from Quaoar and Varuna, the names of the KBOs are finally going to start honoring other human mythologies besides the Greek -- and about time, too. Hailing from a largely Nordic background, I move for tossing the Greeks, and installing Norse gods instead. After all, wouldn't you rather look up and see Valkyries in the sky, than a couple of musty, fusty Greco-Romans? We'll rename Venus as Freya, Mars as Thor, or perhaps Tiw. Earth I suppose we'll just call Midgard, and Jupiter of course shall be Odin. Quoar? Don't be ridiculous. Why would we have a Skraeling name for a planetary body? Anybody for a bit of Wagner, to go with their mead? -- John 'Wulfgar' Byrne
Re: NASA MOVES FORWARD ON HUMAN MISSIONS TO MOON, MARS AND ASTEROIDS
In a message dated 9/28/2002 5:06:05 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert, your enthusiasm is astounding. Where are the off-the-shelf microplate sapphire suits? Sorry, not here yet. We can't even assemble sapphire at the molecular level yet. But we do have a design for an internalized sapphire wet-suit: "Vasculoid: A Personal Nanomedical Appliance to Replace Human Blood" http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html I looked up the website. First, to counter those who might suggest that a vasculoid, or any other of Robert Bradbury's concepts, do not apply to a discussion of Europa, I must say: 1) this website draws its strength from breadth of ideas, not constriction, and 2) if a vasculoid COULD be developed, it would certainly find high utility in space applications. A vasculoid system is apparently a concept for the creation of billions of nanosized platelets, to cover the internal surfaces of every blood vessel in the human body, and increase the efficiency of blood, by replacing it with nanomachine transfer devices. Number one problem: it doesn't exist yet. The paper itself states that it is an entirely theoretical system -- NOT a working design. Problem number two: there is no one that I know who wants to be the first test subject. Animals might be 'recruited' to test it out, but that would require years and years of testing. In the end, you're going to have to have a real person test this thing, to give a true idea of whether it really improves on what we've already evolved over 300 billion years of evolution. Problem number three: presuming that a vasculoid system was created, and that you were able to successfully transfer it to a person... presuming it works entirely as designed... You STILL have the 'unforeseen circumstances' issue. That is, for all we know,the vasculoids could detach themselves from the walls of blood vessels, and form clots in the brain, or human tissues might develop an adverse reaction to sapphire, or an outside electrical charge could find that sapphire vasculoids make a surprisingly good conductor, or, or, or... I consider an externalized version of that to be a relatively minor derivative. A combination of these may also be necessary to solve the pressure problems one finds at great depths in Europa's oceans (I haven't seen any figures on this -- it would be interesting to compare them with diving in Earth's oceans). We discussed pressures at some length in prior rounds. Some feel that the pressure would be significantly higher than Earthside pressures, or no greater than one might find in the Marianna Trench, for instance. Others feel that the very light Europan gravity might play a factor in decreasing pressures. I don't see the pressure factor as a true problem. For one thing, we have no presence on Europa at all, so planning for diving expeditions there seems a moot point. In a best case scenario, we may have a tinker-toy robot on Europa by 2020 or so. You're planning for the year 2200, Robert, not 2003 or 2010. We need to go through the necessary middle steps, before we can start planning on how we're going to go on SCUBA dives there. Where can I pick up a six-pack of nanotech machines? Can't yet, unless you want to find a health food store that sells unpasturized yoghurt. But people are working on it. The U.S. political establishment is very aware that they are being outspent in this area around the world (Europe, the Asian tigers, China, etc.) so it seems unlikely that support for research in these areas will decrease in the future. Why is it that so many scientists and theoreticians demand that the government support their activities, when it seems that 1) we already have off-the-shelf technology that can be assembled to get the job done, eg, Clement's plan to use small commercial rockets to drop a probe on Toutatis, etc, and 2) private industry can provide plenty of support for research, IF there's money in it (and if there is not a profit in it, ie, incentive, then why would you want to develop it in the first place? The 'wonders of science' routine will only take you so far). Personally, I'm not that concerned that Singapore is going to get to Mars first. Nor am I really all that concerned about China, yet. Much of China is still working with water buffaloes in agriculture. As soon as they finish the Yangtze Dam, they may find that it is like the Aswan Dam: a great idea, at least for the first 20 years. After that, acccumulated deficits to the project may cause some to question the original project, by which time it will be too late. China is going to spend the next 30 years playing catch-up with the West. They're still working out the messy details of providing consumer goods to 1.5 billion people, at an equitable enough distribution rate to keep the lid on. Meanwhile, of course, they'll have to figure out what to do with the pollution produced by a billion cars, a billion refridgerators, and the instability created
Re: Message board?
In a message dated 9/15/2002 8:42:02 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adam, I went to your message board, and attempted to post something or other about the nature of expanding universe theories. Unfortunately, I was unable to. Every time I typed a letter in, I got a pop-up about a 'script error'. Perhaps this has something to do with those smileys that are sitting on top of the message board? Personally, I despise smileys, and would not mind one bit if they were entirely removed, at least from any messages that I might post. Best of luck with your new website. -- John Harlow Byrne I was thinking that someone should host a message board for people like you and i. I have just set one up today, i am still playing around with the colours and i am hoping to have a page to go along with it in the near future. If you want to start posting messages then go to
Re: Nuclear: safe? necessary for developement? sustainable?
In a message dated 9/23/2002 11:39:05 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First I must say that I am for all the international treaties, like the ABM treaty unillaterally broken by who had an important role in its creation (USA), that promote peace and reductions of weapons. I consider Bush an irresponsable person for destroying one by one, these treaties that have been the base of world peace for years and could one day be the base for working out our environmental problems (like going against the Kyoto protocol, another great "big-mistake" from the Bush administration). These, along with the "no trees no forestal fires" (George W. Bush) and many others state a great danger in the hands of somebody so powerful as the president of the US is. This may come as a shocker, but I'm a bit in agreement here. Not so much against the Bush presidency, as that was perhaps inevitable. The real issue here is the hegemony of the U.S. Hegemonies are often not good things. There is a reduction in alternatives that is anything but democratic. Some 15 years ago, the USSR collapsed. Now, that may or may not have been a good thing. Sure, it was a good thing for bringing down the Berlin Wall, etc, and for freeing millions of people who didn't think much of the communist model of society. On the other hand, Russia is now an unstable, destitute nation, unable to project the stabilizing influence it once had on world politics that it had. Remember, it was the USSR who built the Aswan Dam, and the USSR who kept an eye on China, who kept the Iraqis and Syrians in check, and who kept terrorism down throughout the middle east and central Asia. Robert Clements and I had many discussions about this very subject. Robert is more than a little suspicious of all things American -- but then, he comes from Australia, which is often on the ass-end of American policy in the Pacific Region. I don't think the danger is on China (they are on the path of Russia to gain human spaceflight capability -- and that path is not nuclear bombs as "propellant"). The danger is "at home". A few years ago, we would state that "Poject Orion" is simply not necessary and incredibly dangerous, and we would seek wiser and safer ways to conquer space. Now, we seems to be on the age of "everything can make it", we are back to the past. To the cold war era of worshiping something as silly and random, and unwise for its uncontrolability as an athomic bomb is. And folks, I just want to state my opinion. We are not on the right lane. That, Hibai, is why we have this little website. To discuss Europa? Sure, that is the official reason. However, the true strength of this site is that it is discussing cutting edge technologies and social movements on Earth, 2002, particularly as they relate to space development. Space development / exploration / exploitation is the next 'big thing'. Which of these shall it be? Development? McDonalds in space? Exploration? 50 more years of billion dollar science projects? Exploitation? Neocolonialism, with nuclear power to back it up? You always make a good pitch, Hibai, and you're a fine website designer. I'm sure you'll be around for the next 30 years, in one aspect or another, to state your case for which scheme you prefer. As for using space materials to build a "giant" antena instead to using devices that unfold, well, we don't have space manufacturing capabilities and we wont have them in years. And I can asure you that it will come after we are totally capable of unfolding any device, no matter its size. Are we forgetting about the brillint future of inflatable devices, and more efficient and reliable mechanics? Weren't we talking about "inflatable" a few months ago, before we run into this mad race to get things done real fast, just thinking that nuclear is the easy panacea, the easy way that solves every single problem of ours? Sure. Inflatable, in-situ manufacture, etc... who cares? I don't. I just want to see the job get done. Personally, I'm not interested in billion dollar elegant solutions. I'm interested in cheap, and efficient. My analogy is something like a war... deep space itself being the 'enemy'. We can continue to spend billions on expensive 'panzer' technology, or we can instead invest in cheap, easily replaceable parts technology, the soviet model. Remember, cheap and efficient won WW2, and I suspect it will be the same in deep space. -- JH Byrne No way. -- Hibai Unzueta
Re: Europa's ice thickness
In a message dated 5/30/2002 2:23:08 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to question 1- In our recently completed senior design project (head to expert.cc.purdue.edu/~precoda if you're interested), we in Purdue's Astronautical Engineering program found a melting time of about 9 months for 2 1/2 miles of ice, assuming all 4.3 kW of a typical RTG's thermal output went directly into the ice below. So for something melting through 12 miles with just 1 RTG, something on the order of 4 to 5 years would be expected. -Paul I'd imagine that you would want a much faster melt time, for a variety of reasons. Politically speaking, the public just would not stand for a 4-5 year lag time, after waiting 2 years+ simply for the probe to get on site. Technically speaking, I would think that such a probe would need to be submerged under several meters of ice as soon as possible, to avoid the problems of errant radiation storms and asteroids. Presumeably, the best course of action would be to park the shuttle in orbit around Europa while the planet is shadowed from Jupiter's radiation. The next step would be to rush the probe down to the surface, and submerge it under 10 meters+ of ice. All would have to be done in the course of less than 12 hours, or risk a billion dollar probe being fried by hard radiation. -- JH Byrne
Re: Europa's ice thickness
In a message dated 5/30/2002 10:53:56 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. How long would it take to melt through 12 miles of ice? 2. Is communication much more difficult? 3. Are there layers of ice flowing at different speeds that might make for a shear-zone or something? 4. Do the odds of finding obstructions increase, like layers of debris from meteorite ejecta? In reference to point 2, I'd imagine that the best way to deal with the communication gap (4 AU distance from Earth, at best, a 32 minute time lag between command and response) would be to have a probe that was largely autonomous. An autonomous probe might have an onboard computer with a 'library' of prepared command strings, with some level of artificial intelligence to override library commands when they do not fit the exact parameters experienced on Europa. Artificial Intelligence uses 'fuzzy logic algorithms' to make choices, based on degrees of closeness to a particular parameter. -- JH Byrne
Re: Europa's ice thickness
In a message dated 5/30/2002 7:50:24 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With Europa's 0.135 Earth gravity, and assuming the same 1.022 SG seawater density, excluding all other small variables, real pressure at 12 miles depth on Europa is equivalent to an Earth ocean depth of about 8550 feet, or 3790 Earth PSI, or around 23.8 Earth mPa. Jack We discussed this issue some time ago. I'm no scientist, but with 0.135 Gravity, I don't see how the water pressure could be the same, unless it is under great pressure from the ice above it. This raises the problem that if the water is under pressure, a boring submersible would cause a rupture... unless the submersible allowed the ice to refreeze behind it. At a depth of 12 miles, however, the ice would likely have a flow similar to Earthside glaciers, wherein ice at depth has a plasticity that allows them to flow down mountainsides, and across terrain. The question I'm more interested in was the one regarding the density of the ice itself. If the gravity of the planetary mass is so low, then presumeably, the ice would form under very low conditions, the exact reverse of pressure-frozen water. If this condition is so, then the 'ice' of Europa might have a crystalline structure which no Earthside computer models can emulate, and the 12 mile ice sheet might be surprisingly 'soft', thereby greatly increasing the efficiency of an ice-borer. -- JH Byrne
Re: Europa's ice thickness
In a message dated 5/30/2002 3:18:08 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a typical Pu RTG are not sufficient to melt through salt of some thickness threshold that an engineer familiar with the problem could calculate. My semi-educated guess is anything over 0.5 meter will be a problem. Therefore, a mechanical system, such as a rotary drill(s) will likely be necessary. The best idea I've heard is to first probe the crust's surface for clues to composition and life. This can be easily done with drill-equipped landers or penetrator probes. Of these, the penetrator probes are the most cost effective. Please refer to the JPL Galileo picture gallery. Due to the hard radiation problem discussed, any surface machinery would have to be heavily shielded. Perhaps it would be possible to search for an area recently impacted by an asteroid? This would then allow: 1) a possible fracture in the ice, to facilitate submersion, and 2) perhaps a few large chunks of ice or stone that any surface machinery could employ for shielding. It may be a sidestep on the march to the sea, but taking extra time and effort to protect against the radiation experienced by surface machinery would likely pay off, particularly considering that this is a mission which would require at least 2 years time to complete. -- JH Byrne
Re: Biological dark spots on Mars? (Part 2)
In a message dated 3/13/2002 8:17:34 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you aware that the presence of algae on ice is very common on Earth? And that that presence is clearly visible? In addition to within ice, algae are often found on the the ice-air and ice-seawater interfaces. I once read the book 'The ecology of algae' by Round. Cheers Anthonie Muller Here's my limited input: up here in Alaska, we have the legendary 'ice worms'. For years and years, these were thought to be a hoax. Funny thing is, they exist: they're porifera which have evolved to be very small (about 1/2 centimeter long) and are about the diameter of a thread. Ice worms live on glaciers, and only come out when it's very cold -- the warmth of a human hand or breath will kill them. Ice worms live on the limited nutrients on ice surfaces. Since they have no natural predators, who knows what they will become in 100 million years? Of course, Mars has all the time in the world. Down in Antarctica, I understand, there are also 'bloodless fish' which do no need blood platelets, as the oxygen level in the water is so high, that oxygen absorbs directly into the fish. Nature is a mad scientist. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Budget Redirection?
I have to be careful here not to wander too far off the base subject of 'things relating to an exploration of all things Europan'. Nevertheless, there is some connection, so I'll address it as follows... We are in agreement that commercial development of space (as opposed to purely military or scientific objective missions) are probably the catalyst to a prolonged presence. My reference to 'heroes' however, is simply that in order to capture the significant global interest necessary for space development, you need to have people up there, not robots or remotes. People require living space -- that means, a space station. Sure, the ISS will likely be a boondoggle for the next 20 years, at least for its primary mission. But, the spinoffs may be the payoff. The spinoff that I see is the drama dividend... the first time that there's an Apollo 13 crises up there, global attention will be captured, at least for a while. That can then be employed to further boost attention and later, development necessary to project long-term exploration of places such as Mars or Europa. Really, who cares about the practical realities of whether you build the infrastructure in dedicated orbital structures (the LEO facilities you describe) or make use of the existing ISS facilities? The struggle is not a technical one, but a political one, and an economic one. Once those are solved, the technical details solve themselves. -- JH Byrne I, for one, disagree. If you try to make a LEO space station into a waypoint, it is going to cost a huge amount of money, making the ISS look like peanuts. If humans are going to get off Earth through LEO infrastructure, it will have to be commercially driven (space hotels, not that I believe these are in the near future). There is nothing that says we have to build separate LEO infrastructure in order for humans to leave Earth orbit. It does not reduce the cost of leaving. If you assume space assembly of Earth departure systems is required, it is likely easier to base it on the initial assembly elements, rather than on a LEO station. So back to your other point, a human mission to the moon, asteroids, Mars, etc will have to stand on its own merit. That may, or may not, happen at some point in time. Scott In a message dated 2-26-02 12:31:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If humans are ever going to get off of Earth, it will have to be through some variant of the Space Station. Sending up science probes is not enough to capture the imagination of an entire populace: space exploration needs heroes. -- JH Byrne
Re: Budget Redirection?
In a message dated 2/26/2002 7:28:15 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear JHByrne,My apologies for accidently calling you Jane. What is your first name anyway? Best wishes in the future. Your posts are always excellent!!!
Rick L. Sterling
That's alright, Rick. Jane, John, it's all the same to us 'proto-scientists'. I'm actually a John in my other life -- lawyer, and dilitante. Thanks for the compliments, but I'm no space science expert, like some of the other people here, who are far more accomplished than I in the space sciences.
I simply have a great desire to see we humans accomplish that which is just beyond our grasp, if we only dare. I analogize our current situation in space to Isabella's dilemma, about 1491... shall we pawn the crown jewels and find a New World, or not? Politically and legally, I see the development of space as similar to the questions presented by De Groot in 1618 ('Mare Librum'): namely, should anyone be allowed to monopolize the seas (or space)?
-- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Revising my views on Europa exploration
In a message dated 2/12/2002 8:50:25 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cooper's argument against "fossil life" preservation on Europa is a fine example of "homogeneous thinking" which all/most of us do when confronted with few data. Whereas the processes stated may be true, among the assumptions being made are that both the tectonics and the surface oxidation are 100% efficient at destroying all traces of life in the ice/salt, irregardless of sizes that are of potentially microbial (cells) to molecular (biomarkers) dimension. Not bloody likely! Also, what is the estimated rate of overturn? Unless it is high relative to the ocean's lifetime, the above objections are even stronger. I see this same type of thinking with the Cryobot crowd that thinks the Europan crust is all pure water ice. Sorry, but it ain't, and you can't just melt through it. I had wondered that point about the strong Jovian radiation myself. However, there may be two rebuttals to this: 1) That Europan life forms, dissimilar to Earth-bound organisms (and therefore, evolved without a shielding atmosphere) might be radiation resistant. 2) If there is tectonic shifting, and underwellings are 'flash-frozen' and then fried with radiation, perhaps it DOES remove all traces of that biota... but, wouldn't future upwellings bring up additional samples? Even with continual tectonic shifting, if there is biota in sufficient quantities to matter, then perhaps some trace of it will still exist, at the site of fresh upwellings. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: The Scientist - Finish the Space Station, Head for Mars
In a message dated 2/3/2002 11:40:29 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting article, and interesting site. Since membership is free I joined. I sent a counter argument to them; hopefully it will be printed and you can read it there. G. B. Leatherwood Best point I saw in the article was the statement that as there is nothing 'bigger and better' waiting after completion of the ISS, there is therefore no incentive to finish on time or under budget. All the more reason to get as much private investment into space projects as possible. Private investors would never tolerate cheaters like Hughes Aircraft (of B-2 Bomber notoriety). -- JHByrne
Re: New NASA Origins Subcommittee report
In a message dated 12/24/2001 4:34:19 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All 4 of NASA's Office of Space Science subcommittees held their latest meetings this month at Cocoa Beach, and the Origins subcommittee has already put its report on the Web: http://spacescience.nasa.gov/adv/letters/OS0112.htm The biggest pieces of news are that: (1) FAME (the Full-sky Astrometric Mapping Explorer) has run into serious developmental difficulties that may cause a cost overrun serious enough to cancel it. (2) SIRTF has run into some kind of unspecified software problems that will significantly delay its launch. Now, I may be simple, and ignorant of a lot of the hard science involved... but it seems to me that, as a simple budgetary matter, it shouldn't be so damned hard to come up with some reasonable cost predictions and stick to them. No wonder people don't trust NASA. Sounds like another boondoggle to me. -- John
Re: Private Enterprise
In a message dated 12/10/2001 8:31:20 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why wait until a lunar/asteroid infrastructure is "reaping profits"? In view of the fact that entrepreneurs have already thoroughly overexploited one planet - Earth - let's levy the tax now. Let's see how far you get with THAT idea; is there any reason to assume that they would like it any better in the future than they would today? - John S. Yes, there is a reason: it's a new area, and due to political ramifications, every nation on Earth would want a regulatory hand in it. I don't think there would be another Comstock Act boondoggle there (reference: the 1876 Comstock Act allows American corporations to rent government land for exploitation at 1876 prices). -- John Byrne
Re: Private Enterprise
In a message dated 12/9/2001 12:55:36 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting story, but I'm afraid it's not correct because it were the Dutch who invaded Indonesia. The Belgian army has never left Europe except for some involvement in Kongo, Africa. So maybe Eugene Dubois was a Belgian doctor, but he certainly didn't join the Belgian army in order to get to Indonesia. It's possible he joined the Dutch army, but I doubt it. Right you are. I wrote that excerpt when I was tired, and not remembering that the Belgians stomped on the Congo, not Indonesia. That was a Dutch army post, but Dubois was Belgian, to my recollection. Sorry for the digression into paleontology. It's just that I've always found that story about the 'little punk with a bold idea' fascinating, since by tenacity and good guesswork, he (Dubois) DID get to turn the science world upside down. I'm not a space scientist like so many bright people here. The best I can do is cobble together my elements of history, analogy, and current affairs into an approach to the question 'how shall we humans colonize space?'. -- JHB
Re: Private Enterprise
In a message dated 12/6/2001 4:16:41 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is this really what people want? Coca Cola could pay to spraypaint its logo across the moon. A bio.com decides Mars or Europa's ocean is the perfect place to testbed its latest genetically modified bacteria, waiting a decade to find out if there is life wouldn't go over too well with the stockholders... I believe it is. As an American, I belong to the world's foremost consumer culture, a culture which has spread its influence to places it has not even heard of, and antagonized the local traditionalists in doing so. Big dollars are the ultimate inducement, far more so than noble purposes like altruism or pure science. Incidentally, there's an old French short story about a company writing its logo across the sky... written in 1876. The story is in a book called 'Cruel Tales', but I can't remember the name of the story offhand. There is nothing new under the sun, my friend. -- JHB
Re: Is it all for nothing?
In a message dated 11/30/2001 11:12:09 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, John, I love it when you admonish me for being a professional beggar. It's true, of course, that's the way we scientists have always been. Galileo was a government beggar, and look what they did to him! Seriously, I like the concept of privatization of space, and I think you and Gale have got a great vision of the future. So, whom do we trust to receive our $10 donations and get this enterprise started? Meanwhile, I'm still begging. Old habits die hard... Gary You know, Gary, I may be a bit of a dreamer like you, but if I ever get down to Kodiak (home of the US civilian launch program) from here in Anchorage, I'd like to look into such a thing as trying to figure out how to start a non-profit space shoot program, ala Robert Clements. I'd organize the damned thing, but I'd want Gale to be cheerleader non-pareil... she has such enthusiasm and spirit. But, you're right about Galileo and such. Even that ol' upstart Colombus had to start somewhere high up... -- JHB
Re: JFK International Manned Planetary Missions
In a message dated 11/21/2001 6:41:43 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Dr. Zubrin, The JFK memo I referred to in my earlier e-mail was from the book John F. Kennedy, Commander In Chief: A Profile in leadership. This fowarded e-mail contains a link to Amazon.Com where you can purchase a copy of the book. Thanks again. P. S. The memo I am refeering to was the one that JFK sent to Soviet Premier Kruschev in March,1962 in which he recommended joint US-USSR manned flight to the Moon, Mars Venus. He also recommended joint US-USSR unmanned lunar missions in the memo. We may be once again coming into a period when such joint Russian-American efforts may be feasible. I for one envision the US and Russia tossing aside the Cold War once and for all, and linking up efforts to bridge the Bering Sea with a suboceanic tunnel and bringing Russia into NATO, despite the misgivings of Poland et al. Of course, the Russians haven't been in top form in the space game lately, but I was personally very interested to see that the deal they had with that millionaire, to make him the first space tourist, was carried through. I think it was a great idea. Anyway, just my two kopecks worth. -- JHB
Re: Is it all for nothing?
In a message dated 11/28/2001 11:45:11 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, I've thought about our current "situation" (recall we may lose all near-future outer solar system projects), consulted with a few wise colleagues, and I think the best course of action is to support everything proposed. Yep, Pluto probes, Europa orbiters, and even the ISS. We're idiots to think the money saved by killing off our perceived lemons will somehow result in more money better spent on our favorites. The government will just use the savings elsewhere, like on a new highway, or more bombs for you-know-where. So, I support it all. And, I urge you to do the same, and soon. Write to your Congressional reps. and tell them that all these projects are the best ever, and you don't want to see any of them cancelled. Anything space-related is good (of course, some are more gooder than others, wink, wink). Quit being a damned beggar. You can't be the only person interested in space technology: I'd warrant there are millions out there. Now, with the internet, you can reach them. Start a non-profit. Collect a $10 donation from every space geek out there. When you have a nice pile of money, find some off-the-shelf technology and send up your own rocket. Hell, if Robert Clements can figure out how to do it, so can you. Understand: the government sent a man to the moon over THIRTY years ago. They've done nothing significant since, other than a few unmanned space probes. (Yes, yes, probes are more efficient, etc... but for mass support you gotta send up heroes). If you rely on the government to support space welfare, you'll still be going nowhere in 20 years time. We have the launch tech. We have the mass communication media necessary for funding. We have a global pool of technicians who could conceivably contribute. The question is, do we have the guts to go forward WITHOUT a government handout? -- JHB
Re: Is it all for nothing?
In a message dated 11/16/2001 6:20:32 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have any of you seen the disturbing stories popping up today about OMB threatening to cancel *all* Outer Planets Exploration in the next decade? Check out (www.nasawatch.com and www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-01h.html), which report that OMB is pretty much got their minds set on axing either the Pluto Kuiper Express mission or the Europa Orbiter mission (or both!) - Congress and the scientific community be damned. Please say it isn't so. If it is, it means our dreams of exploring the Outer Planets in our lifetimes are about to be number-crunched out of existence ... - John It's all about money, my friend. As long as governments control the space monopoly, they get to set the agenda... and that won't include science projects to the outer planets to fulfill your dreams. That's why I continue to advocate free entrepreneurship in space, backed by grant charters. Sure, it sounds pretty crazy, but then, in global capitalist society, you have to have bigger solutions... going to the government, hat in hand, and secretly praying that you'll find a JF Kennedy in the president's chair is a little silly. I mean, really, what does it cost to send a rocket into space? A few million... certainly not the billions that govts. routinely charge. I suppose that the price is artificially inflated in order to keep it in the realm of govt, not private initiative. Not just that, but, why are we still convinced that rockets are the only way to beat the gravity well? -- JHB
Re: More jolly Space Station news
In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:43:46 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, David M Harland wrote: There is no viable alternative to the Shuttle for human spaceflight. It is now running about as efficiently as it ever will. It is simply a costly business. Huh? Does anyone know what the costs are for the Russian missions? If they will take $20 M for 1/3 of a mission, then it seems that one can argue that their launch costs are less than $60 M/flight. Taking the high/low range for the shuttle ($1B vs. $400M) vs. $60 M and its clear that there *are* both viable and cheaper alternatives to the shuttle. I've often seen arguments that the cost of getting a human into orbit need not be more than the cost of a cross-country airplane flight (in terms of energy expenditure). So we return to the issue of whether or not it is a volume business (with occasional losses) or an exclusive monopoly for a select few. The "Mars Colony" approach begs issues such as whether real molecular nanotechnology, planetary dismantlement and the evolution of the human mind from its current hardware base onto a more robust platform are feasible. I've thought long and hard about the preservation of individuals and the species and it doesn't happen unless one embraces the ability to evolve and adapt. Building a Mars Colony in the Zubrin/Mars Society image is quite feasible but most likely pointless -- it might save humanity from an asteroid impacting Earth but it doesn't save us from meandering brown dwarfs disrupting the solar system or nearby supernovas that we will at some point probably encounter. Robert Robert, understand that I think that you, and the Aieveos project, are brilliant. But, I just don't see 'Ringworld' in our immediate future. What point discussing the possibilities of humans being impacted by Nemesis or the 'Brown Dwarf Du Jour', when we have yet to get off the Earth in a significant way, and most can't really fathom a world beyond the next 5 year horizon, let alone the 500 year one. -- JHB
Re: More jolly Space Station news
Yes, in the current world context it is completely accurate to say this. But from a moral perspective, one is required to ask *if* and *when* this will change? Never, never, never. At least since the time of Aristotle, people have been asking such questions, as 'when will the philosopher kings bring us to harmony'? 2300 years, and millions of dead later, we're not any closer. If anything, we're closer to oblivion, as the means to wipe out masses of people has become more and more available to individuals. Statistically speaking, some of those individuals are bound to be irresponsible. As the world population density increases, so too does the value of lives property lost *even* if impacts occur in less populated areas. It is simply a matter of *when* the costs to prevent such hazards becomes less than the frequency of their occurrence. I disagree. In the current crises, the worst damage done to the US was not in terms of loss of people or infrastructure, but the attendant panic response. This would suggest that more important than preventing injury to the public is the prevention of the _perception_ that an individual is at risk. What we're talking is not quantity of lives, but the quality of them. That requires money, which is really just another way of prioritizing efforts, by spreading the decision making to as many people as possible. Fundamentally and absolutely wrong. The "quality" of someones life is entirely a subjective experience dictated by the difference between ones needs expectations (genetically and culturally determined) and the reality of what one experiences on a day-to-day basis. Nonsense. Any goat herder in Afghanistan would probably agree that his life sucks, and he's leaving Afghanistan. If he could, he'd come to America, or another Western country. What made him a goat herder, not a stockbroker living a life of ease? Money. A subjective belief that everything's groovy only gets you so far. Molecular nanotechnology or *even* advanced biotechnology provides the means to provide for *all* the people on the planet in a way that their "survival" needs are completely satisfied -- so the "quality" of their lives shifts from something dictated by their basic biology to something that is based purely in their psyche (i.e. purely artificial subjective). Hmm... let's take this to practical considerations. Psyche travelers, in our contemporary sense, seem to be represented by the Heaven's Gate cult, Timoty Leary, and the past lives of Shirly McLaine. My point is that humans evolved to strive, not to mentally masturbate. Take away our reasons for struggle, and we devolve as a species. Once those needs are met, "money" has relatively little to do with it. A small group of professors at a single university chould easily provide a "global" education forum given current information distribution forums. In those situations, it is not "money" or "democratic decision making" that determine the outcomes but the "cleverness" and "desire" of individuals. Your 'small group of professors' could either be philosopher kings, or tyrants. Alternatively, they could prove to be subtlely incompetent, gently leading humanity to social extinction. I'd rather trust to strife, struggle, hardship, conflict, and so forth to keep us a worthy species. In a real context, ask yourself: WHY has it been that humanity's greatest social and technical inventions have usually been as a result of conflict with one another? I'll note that Bruce has argued that there is virtually no cost difference between the "Earth based" and "Space based" protection schemes. I'd argue that that is *fundamentally* incorrect -- that the harvesting of fuel and materials in space is much cheaper than lifting such materials out of the gravity well that the Earth is in. Don't believe *either* of us -- require a demonstration of the math. IMO, Bruce's perspective that a few nuclear weapons (my interpretation of what he has said) can deflect an incoming asteroid is very naive. We need a much greater ability to deploy a massive amount of kinetic energy in space if we hope to be able to defend the planet. What happens when the general in charge of deflecting space rocks decides he's got a better plan for Earth, and the wherewithal to make it happen? The trouble with putting the military in space (or really, any capacity to change the course of asteroids) is the hijacking / coup d'etat question. Just as castles made knights and nobles supreme for 1000 years, so the monopolization of space will tend to be the ultimate 'high ground' of the third millenium. The major players will rule the world, because they rule the heavens. It'll be to make money. Just like the conquest of the Americas. Then you have to wrestle with a couple of UN treaties that make the ownership or development of private property in space *very* problematic. If you can't "own" a rock -- how can you make money from it? That, my friend, is the one area that, if
Re: More jolly Space Station news
In a message dated 10/8/2001 10:30:00 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, at the risk of being considered a "bottom line" man, here's my read on the space station fiasco. In the early 1970s, Nixon wanted the space shuttle because they thought it would be a great way to launch err, spy satellites. So, we got it. Now, we have the space station to give the shuttles someplace to go when they're not launching satellites, fixing telescopes, bore-bore-bore, etc. The science is marginal at best, contrived at worst. This would be a great area for congress and NASA to cut costs. It's an expensive albatross, if there ever was one. Geez, Gary After all this time, I STILL say that the reason to be in space is not 'Dr. Science' projects or 'Chicken Little' asteroid doomsday scenarios, but money. Who gives a rat's ass whether bean sprouts really grow well in low-G? If a 3 mile rock comes down from space and lands in Peoria, well, we probably should have prepared, but we have to live with risk. Ah, but money... I still say, rent out the space station time to travelers and businesses. Use the station as a jumping off point for asteroid mining, solar energy gathering, low-G pharmaceuticals, etc. Keeping the Space Station as it currently is intended would be like Queen Isabella hawking her jewels so that Colombus could sail three times around the Canaries, or work to prevent an Aztec invasion of Europe. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: More jolly Space Station news
In a message dated 10/8/2001 1:43:29 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd argue on humanitarian and moral grounds that the best evaluation criteria should be on lives saved / $ spent (or more accurately years of potential life saved / $ spent). In that respect the $ going to the NIH or the EPA probably far exceed those going to the NSF or NASA. Bottom line is -- if you want a billion dollar Europa mission -- how many human lives are on the line if the available $ are diverted from NIH research to NASA development? It isn't a nice question but it needs to be asked to *focus* your attention on priorities. Don't be ridiculous. In a world of 6.5 billion people, lives are cheap. What we're talking is not quantity of lives, but the quality of them. That requires money, which is really just another way of prioritizing efforts, by spreading the decision making to as many people as possible. Again, if you're talking billion dollar missions, you should be funding those projects which have some opportunity of return on your investment. Getting a major company or ten involved in the space decisions game would tend to raise this issue to paramount importance. Pseudo science projects would wither away, and economical projects would flourish. Space exploration, if it happens, won't be to 'save human lives'. It'll be to make money. Just like the conquest of the Americas. It's gonna happen. It's just a question of when. -- JHB
Re: More jolly Space Station news
In a message dated 10/8/2001 2:13:48 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why? I'll note that the U.S. is planning to spend between $15 -$100 BILLION on the loss of ~5000 individuals. This is equal to an ~2-5 year NASA budget allocation. Go compute the frequency of impact likely to wipe out 5000 people -- Is NASA spending $1-$5 billion a year on preventing that? You misunderstand the US position. We're not hitting the terrorists because of 6000 lives, although that makes excellent cause celebre'. After all, we lose over 100,000 a year in auto accidents, but no one is calling to march on GM or Ford. No, the US position is a response to a symbolic attack. The loss of the lives in the WTC was far more symbolic than the lives lost in Bangladesh, for instance. And, it's more addressable to go after terrorists than after asteroids, which you can't have a nice, splashy war against. To assess this properly one needs to place a valuation on risks to major population centers, years of potential life lost, etc. I do not believe that this has been done in detail. Sure the loss of Oshkosh, WI would be less than that of NY, NY, but presumably both are equally at risk. Robert, in my other life, I'm an attorney. I can tell you this: there is nothing more tenuous than an evaluation of a human life. A CEO is presumeably worth millions, while a ghetto dweller or third-worlder is worth less... but who can publicly admit this (especially in a world where 'we are all created equal'?). The closest you can come is in evaluating presumed income over the expected life of that individual. According to this analysis, a welfare recipient in California is worth more than a scientist in India. It makes sense to develop a *complete* equation with regard to the risks and allocate funds accordingly. Nuclear weapons are a serious concern but we can develop detection technologies for those. Biological weapons we can be by and large be vaccinated against. Rocks falling out of the sky onto our ill-prepared adobes is something that needs to be factored into the equation. I can individually request that my physician vaccintate me against Yersina pestis (the plague organism) -- I *cannot* individually hope to shelter myself from a rain of asteroids unless I can afford to live many meters underground. There's no such thing as a complete equation for risk factoring. Who could have figured that a group of semi-educated fanatics would be able to learn to fly a plane, while still retaining their fanaticism? Sure, cosmic rocks may be a threat of some degree, but what degree? It's far more limited, surely, than the immediate threats of, say, global warming (whoops, there went Bangladesh!). -- JHB
Re: Two new online articles about SETI from ST
In a message dated 4/29/2001 7:02:10 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A lot of interesting speculation (and cool movie scripts) coming out of answers to Gail and Roberta's questions. Of course, Carl Sagan and others have covered much the same ground before, and viewers of Star Trek, etc. are also familiar with this topic. Some important additional points are: if there are advanced aliens out there, what is/was their purpose in communicating with other, less advanced ones? Allow me to answer your question with a question. Why do some humans shoot animals with dart guns, fit them with radio collars, and let them loose? Objectively speaking, the answer is to observe their 'natural' behavior. Clearly, behavior so impacted by being darted, collared, and followed around for the rest of your life is not conducive to making the best test subject. Nevertheless, the data gathered is thought to be 'important', to the gatherer. Hypothetically speaking, an advanced alien species is NOT likely to 'wink out' of existence overnight. Personally, I think that doomsayer stuff about '100 years from the discovery of radio technology until a civilization destroys itself' to be a bunch of foolishness. Consider: if a civilization discovers various big technologies, it very likely has had those technologies employed to increase the size of its population, thereby increasing the social pressures, thereby increasing the demand for... social philosophies to emerge. Case in point: Ancient China has likely been 'civilized' for 4000 years. It has had the capacity to build cities, grow giant populations, and so forth... and, because it has had giant civilizations for 1000s of years, it had to figure out ways to get along. Confucian philosophy was their answer. In essence, they came up with a methodology for getting things done, as a group, over the long term, by stifling out individuality. This has a mixed result. It allows relative harmony, by stifling dissent. It also stifles innovation, therefore allowing Chinese civilization to 'plateau'. I suspect that all of Earth may be on the verge of such a necessary discovery of group harmony theory. It's necessary, in a world of nearly 7 billion people. Now, in a world of 7 billion, with shared communications, there will be more capacity, but less innovation, because of the monopolization of creativity by a relatively small clique. This is another way of saying that 1000 tiny nations are individually less capable, but probably have a greater divergence of ideas, than one giant world nation. Ergo, we may be on the verge of figuring out how to get along in a crowded, advanced society, by stifling out our madmen and our geniuses. So, IF there has been another group out there which has discovered similar technologies, it may be entirely possible that it could be around for many, many millenia. I suspect we humans will be around long after the various doomsday theories have long withered away. Now, IF such a millenialist group exists, and they do have the capacity for long-distance communications, and the interest, why would they want to risk doing so? They would likely know that if we discovered we were being tinkered with or watched, we'd react, thereby blowing the experiment. It would be the biggest kick in the pants to human evolution since the discovery of fire. Ergo, a truly wise civilization, and I'm presuming they are wise, to have lasted for millenia, wouldn't risk outright communications... unless they were desperate or crazy. -- John Harlow Byrne We are being very kind to ourselves in giving longevity to our current technology-based culture. Personally, I look around and don't see the long-term odds as too great--hope I'm wrong. JUSTIFY your pessimism. Don't just regurgitate the pablum we're fed by the media. So we've got the bomb. So what? Since the bomb was first used, nearly 60 years ago, the world has been a far more peaceful place than it ever was in the centuries preceding it. So we've got pollution. So what? If it gets all that bad, the weak will die, and the survivors will evolve to tolerate pollution. The civilization, though, survives. So we're overcrowded. We'll invent harmony theory. So we've got crime, madmen, riots. Big deal. Read any ancient Roman historian. Rome had nutcases too, and lasted for 1000 years. Besides, we now know the symptoms, so may be able to treat the disease. And lastly, humans have got this far because a lot of contingencies were fulfilled that may be nearly impossible to reproduce. How long would we have to wait for cows or dolphins to build radios? Don't put your money on cows or dolphins. I'd bet instead on raccoons, or maybe chimpanzees, in another 2-5 million years. See any of Steve Gould's books on this subject--my favorite is "Wonderful Life". Even given the immensity of the universe, the odds of producing and maintaining an advanced civilization are
Re: Europa
Ro Ro: I understand theres a guy out there who operates a website on Ionian tectonics and vulcanism. Also, I suggest you talk to Sam Michaels -- he's got some fascinating theories on cataclysmic events besides the Chixiculb impact, which involve great Earth events and the changing of thermal flows on Earth. -- JHB
Re: NASA Funding
In a message dated 4/13/2001 10:15:25 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the driving force behind space exploration money(profit)? Yes. Exploration just for the sake of exploration? Yes. Scientific investigation? Yes. Finding more room for humans? Yes. So the answer is "All of the above," just as it is for nearly every aspect of human endeavor. Some of us humans will see monetary profit potential, as some of us do now. Remember Heinlein's "Mow your lawn, lady?" as the beginning of the creation of one of the galaxy's richest men? Some folks won't do anything unless they get paid for it--I've worked with some of them! Others, like me, I think, do things just for the hell of it, especially if I haven't done it before. In a restaurant, especially one I've never been in before, I'll order something off the menu that looks interesting especially if I haven't tried it before. How else does one learn about new things? In that case, I heartily recommend the Rocky Mountain oysters! Or, perhaps you'd prefer the chilled monkey brains? The scientists among us want to know how and why things behave the way they do. The current hoo-ha about cloning is an example. Hooha? Gail, I'm 33. Since the age of 24, my hair has been thinning. So, I'm waiting for some doctor out in Japan or Holland to come up with 'cloned' hair! It just goes to show, that all hoo-has are relative. Also nanotechnology. Once discovered, things can't be "undiscovered," and the counter to one such argument against nanotechnology (it shouldn't be allowed because there's too much risk of misuse) Misuse? Hell, that's the point! Why bother spending billions of dollars bending the rules of physics, if you can't then make 'em work to your advantage? is that prohibition of research and development would just make it go underground, thus setting up the very condition the prohibition is supposed to prevent. Um... drunken Federal Agents? Whoop! Wrong prohibition. So what this says is that we need to appeal to all of the motives, not just one or the other. There may well be profit potential in discovering a new energy source in the sub-ice ocean of Europa. Great! Go for it! Design me some boots that will insulate me from the ice and help me build a shelter from Papa Jupiter's radiation! I recommend the Europan Mukluk, in vibrant lime green and brilliant blue, sizes S-XXL, now with new odor-eaters, good for 400 million miles or your money back -- just try collecting it, sucker! Personned or unpersonned, get the samples of the ice and the water and see what makes our favorite satellite tick! Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood -- J.
Re: NASA Funding
In a message dated 4/12/2001 1:08:45 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it's called exploration. Science is not the reason we send spacecraft to the planets; if it was, why would NASA's budget be as large as the rest of science - excluding medicine - put together? Science is simply something interesting to do when you've got there. We don't go to Jupiter (for example) to clear up niggling mysteries about it's aurora, magnetic field, and interior in order to gratify the few hundred die-hards who can both do the math and find joy in it. We go there out of wonder and awe - and to satisfy the ancient urges to do something about our origin and destiny. The same thing drove the building of the pyramids, and, I suppose, the frantic potlatching of the West Coast indigenous Americans. Pyramids, potlatch, Pluto. The complete survey of the solar system would be a fitting monument to our civilisation - and it's this urge for completion that's driving the desire to get this thing off the pads now, not the admittedly ridiculous smokescreen about Keep this thread going. WHY is Europa worth going to? I say that money (or the promise of money) is it. Edwin says it's the joy of discovery. Others say raw science data. Maybe it's just something we need to do to keep ourselves busy? I suspect that the bigger reason for the pyramids was hubris (outrageous pride, on the part of the pharoahs) and a cause celebre' for the nation... to build those giant stone structures took 1000s of people, decades to build. In the process, a nation was forged. Building a bridge to the moon / Mars / Europa may be the same thing... a monument to governmental hubris, and a reason to spend billions of dollars (after all, just imagine... the Feds have billions of dollars to play with. If they don't spend it every year, there will be less justification for having as much money the next year). Ergo, they build it, in order to build it. By the way, since Bruce Moomaw et al have planned a low-cost probe, why not take this to the logical extreme and build one for $5 mn? How to do this is layed out in detail in Bill Yenne's "Interplanetary Spacecraft" (Brompton, 1988). The era of the small space explorer is soon to dawn. It's becoming cheaper and cheaper to launch the damned things... it stands to reason that by 2015 or so, some small country or large corporation will make a shot for space away from the aegis of NASA and the Euro Space Agency. After that, all bets are off. -- J. Edwin Kite
Re: Alternative Energy Sources Could Support Life on Europa
In a message dated 4/4/2001 7:35:24 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, the real question regarding alternative energy production systems is whether any of them might produce a molecule of oxygen as waste, as photosynthesis does. You get free O2 in the water, you've got the possibility of large, robust organisms not unlike ourselves. Any other energy system--while leading to interesting life, no question--is likely to remain 100 % microbial, precluding bug-eyed mosterns in the Europan seas. It disturbs me that the leading thinking is still that O2 is still thought to be the only precursor to large life. I well remember how shocked everyone was, when Archaea was discovered... 'non-photosynthetic life? Impossible!'. Remember, that any Europan life forms have possibly had longer than 3 billion years of uninterrupted development. That's a lot of time to 'get it right' and come up with something workable, even in the absence of terrestial goodies. -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Ice
In a message dated 4/3/2001 9:21:25 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact that we can feel remorse for the lossof the species might be a sign ofa more mature attitude as a species. I will grant you this: in the middle of an impending energy crises, and with 1000s of Alaskans wholeheartedly in support of opening ANWR to oil exploration, there remains a majority of Americans who would rather that ANWR be left as a caribou calving grounds. And yet... outside of the Western world, ecology is seen as a Western scheme to keep the 3d World down. So, forests are logged, oil is sucked up and spilled, and various animals are wiped out for one reason or another. If life were discovered on Europa, would the vast majority of the world truly support preserving it in its pristine form, or would most rather develop it, and partake of the riches? Is such a question pointless, years before any such life is discovered, if at all? I don't think so: this group, the Europa website, and other planetary exploration societies, are now laying the groundwork -- the technological and idealogical groundwork -- for decades to come. Will we, can we, supply the philosophical groundwork of non-tampering as well? Personally, I must admit that I am in favor of space develoment, as a Deus Ex Machina to solve many of humanity's current population and social problems, over the next century. But, concurrent with that desire is a profound hope that humanity will be able to rise there as a more mature species, to rise above our simian hardwiring, and become a caretaker species, for ourselves, and for any biota which we may discover. Understand: even if Mars and Europa ARE 100% sterile, there will come a time when we DO discover some form of extraterrestial life, probably microbes. Life is simply too inevitable. Chemicals make RNA, RNA makes microbes, microbes make unicellular biota, which makes an opportunity, and a responsibility. Commentary? -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Alternative Energy Sources Could Support Life on Europa
In a message dated 4/3/2001 3:52:01 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Grrr. This is exactly that revelation I had saved for my coming SpaceDaily article on the possibility that Europan organisms -- without evolutionary competition from the far more vigorous photsynthetic organisms -- couldhave evolved energy-collection systems unlike any on Earth organisms today. Bruce... I'm reminded of Charles Darwin, in 1860, ruminating for decades on his findings in Patagonia and the Galapagos... until finally propelled to action under threat of another scientist coming up with the same theory, and thereby stealing his thunder. And what a thunder it was. So, Bruce, get cracking! -- JHB
Re: Ice
In a message dated 4/2/2001 8:28:36 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Europa has life, we should not open it to private corporations. It should be protected, as we protect Yosemite here. I was wondering when the Cosmic Sierra Club would weigh in. One of the most aggravating, and compelling characters in all of Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars trilogy was the ecologist, who fights a losing battle to preserve Mar's sterile character for all time. My question for the writer: HOW do you intend to enforce the Europan Preserve? What will be done in the event of hostile claimstaking? Presume you set Europa aside, along with all its lifeforms... and, presume that the life has the added interest of being extremely energy efficient... (ergo, as some have suggested, a draw to corporate interests). How are you going to keep the Europan Preserve pristine from human interaction, for all time? Are you willing to shoot a poacher out of the sky? Somehow, I think that if a poaching corporation is willing to go through all the effort to GET to Europa, a mere censure will not be sufficient. For laughs, let's suppose that the UN sets up some sort of enforcement body. Will they be more efficient than the blue helmets were in Somalia, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere? Would the fact that it is a 'Preserve' (with a capital P) be any more effective than the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has been (now under pressure to be opened for Big Oil interests)? Oh, and who / how are you going to pay for someone to be posted to guard off-world preserves? Taxes? Science fiction, anyone? -- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Cost/Benefit
For example, I worked for DMV. For nearly the whole twelve years I was there, energetic attempts were made to get the income into the bank as early in the day as possible. By the time I retired, that was up to about 97% of the moneys received were deposited before noon of the day they were received. I don't know the exact amount of income earned each day, but the effort was worth it. I've worked in law, and in insurance billing. With law, there's something called an IOLTA account... client monies, held in trust. Several states mandate that the micro-interests generated by holding client monies in trust for a week or two be given over to free lawyer programs. Insurance? Insurance companies for their part love to delay paying on accounts, even if they're due, to collect that extra day of interest. Dimes make dollars. So the ISS spent money. And so it soaked up more than pure efficiency in design, construction, testing, et al., than it could have if administered better. Could a private corporation done better? Now THERE is the big question. I do not believe that government can efficiently operate in space, unless there is direct competition involved (ie, a war with another government). Therefore, we're thrown back on the closest thing we have to a non-shooting war we have, corporate competition. To get corporations up there, however, they must have dramatic incentives. Then again, I do not believe that the future of humanity lies in big government. We went down that road with Naziism and Maoism and Stalinism. Rather, I think the future lies in a regulated system of micro-governments... something akin to a weak parent regulatory government overseeing small direct interest groups (like corporations, religious affiliations, or racial groups). Put another way, we are now in the era of the deconstruction of giant governments (when there is simply no economic advantage to being giant). It is more advantageous to being smaller, and hyper-efficient (or, more attuned to a special interest). This is the era when a small group can terrorize whole countries, because bombs and internet scrambling and so forth are widely available -- power has diffused away from big government monopolies. So, it we are at the dawn of an era when a group of like-minds (fanatics, or stockholders, or what-have-you) can put their true interests into direct action, by the creation of special interest groups (let's call them 'enterprises') for the realization of those interests. Space is the ultimate playground for such efforts, because it's a very forgiving place. Basically, if 'group A' goofs up, the whole world won't be threatened, like they would be if 'group A' did so on planet Earth. Ultimately, one path for humanity to take is to simply allow corporations or special interest groups to strike out for places such as Mars or Europa or Ceres. The alternative, of course, would be for governments to try to prevent it... the result of this, I think, would be similar to what has happened with governments trying to prevent the narcotics trade... a big, fat failure. Could a group of "Whiz Kids" like the Robert McNamara bunch at Ford did after WWII? They got Ford up and running with their bean counting, but the same thing didn't quite work as well in running the Vietnam adventure. Maybe there's a big difference between private industry and government after all. The significant difference? Human lives. You can't count people like you can count bolts and beans and decimals. Governments have a monopoly on the spending of lives, simply because they've kept to themselves the exclusive right to own armies. But, it wasn't always so. For centuries, lords and corporations maintained private armies. It may happen again. If we're going to go into space in any significant way, we must be prepared to spend human capital. Lives will be lost. But, we cannot sacrifice the aspirations of all humanity for the Christa McAuliffes of 2015. Well, duh! Satisfying stockholders is one thing--keep the profit up and they're happy. Satisfying taxpayers is quite another, partly because there is no agreement on what "profit" is.T Simple. Profit is 'gain'. But, gain means different things to different people, never more so than today, when, for instance, the 'Heaven's Gate' cult felt that their gain was to attain heaven by suicide. With such a diversity of opinion, and such power now possible to small groups, I don't see how the dedicated interest group can be held back from space efforts, especially once it becomes apparent that it IS possible. So you see, I don't see the ISS as a big hole in the sky into which money is poured. I see it as an effort that much be made if we are ever going to be a spacefaring race. I see it as one of the first faltering, limping, stumbling, staggering steps we must take on the way "out there." Queen Isabella did not sell her jewels to provide ships to Colombus so that
Re: Ice
In a message dated 3/27/2001 9:53:00 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's something to chew on. As you know, I've been intrigued by the prospect of mining ice and water on Europa, but had a lot of trouble figuring out how to make it profitable. What if... Breaking out my trusty knife and fork of Devil's advocacy, I see the following issues with mining Europan water-ice. Humans need water to live. Travelers beyond our system will need water. Transporting water from Earth all the way "out there" will be expensive, not only in money, but in the energy needed to carry it. Water is critical to survival. Anyone disagree with that? Nope. Except that travelers would hypothetically be able to recycle water very efficiently, with water purification devices and / or simple boiling with solar energy. Due to the lack of atmosphere, exposed surfaces heat very rapidly in space (if within a few AUs of the sun, that is). More distant solar heating could perhaps be provided with giant-scale lenses and mirrors. Currently, NASA has technology to recycle water from human waste. Presuming a space-faring colony (there long enough to have people dying on a regular basis) would be in space too long to worry about niceities of burial, you could likely get quite a bit of water from a corpse as well. I'd imagine a 150 pound man would have about 110 pounds of water in him. Our knowledge of Europa suggests that it consists of an ice mantle perhaps several kilometers thick, with an ocean of liquid water, yes H2O, underneath. Water is heavy and wiggly. But what about carving out chunks of ice like the Eskimo do to make igloos, Whoops! Problem one: Eskimoes (more properly 'Inuit') don't make houses out of ice. First, they use a sort of dense snow, and second, they don't make igloos anymore. They all live in houses these days. Fact is, it's getting damned hard to retain traditional skills in Native communities, even up in Bush Alaska. All problems of pedantism aside, however... boosting it into an orbit, collecting it in great masses, Why not just shoot it there with mass drivers? A mass driver works by magnetically propelling an item along a rail, for several kilometers. Works well in a vacuum. Of course, water is not magnetic, but 'packaged' ice could be fitted out with magnetic particles. and towing it with sail ships to rendesvous points "out there" as needed? If you have solar sails, why bother with water ice? The best reason for masses of water wouldn't be for survival. A small sufficiency would do. Fuel? If you have a solar sail, it is propelled either with solar wind directly, or by photons energizing a sail to power an ion drive. Again, it's extremely efficient, and the ions can come from practically anything. Fuel for chemical drives? You only need a chemical rocket engine if you're fooling around with high-speed manuevers, atmospheric diving and escaping, and so forth. If you're up in deep space, it's sufficient to simply make up in numbers of automated solar sails, what you lack in individual efficiency. It would be collected for storage by starships or even left frozen to be defrosted as needed. Imagine a starship towing a huge block of water ice and carving off what it needs as it needs, thus obviating the need for huge water storage tanks on board. Last issue: Europa isn't the only place in the solar system besides Earth with water. As I understand it, water ice is relatively common in asteroids and chondrites (amalgams of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other basic organic chemicals). Chondrites are fairly common in the neighborhood of Jupiter / Saturn. So, your ice blocks are already up there, if they are needed. Last, best reason I can think of for a mass of water ice? Terraforming. In that case, it might work to, as Gail suggests, lift millions of tons of ice from Europa (presumeably because it would be the most economical place to find it, not the only place), drag it from Jupiter by solar sail, and then drop it on Mars, and send the solar sail back for another load. Last, best reason I can think of to bother with Europa, in the absence of a need for large masses of water ice? Life. An alternate life-system would be very compelling, and possibly profitable, reason to explore and exploit Europa. You'd need one, considering the distance, hardship, isolation, and hard radiation all around. OK, folks, kick this one around, and Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood I'm kicking, while I'm watching. Don't laugh. It's not easy! -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Reaching Out, Part Deux (Oops!)
In a message dated 3/16/2001 9:54:29 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I misquoted a source: It wasn't Peter Drucker, it was C. Northcote Parkinson in "Parkinson's Law" who said "Work expands to fill the time available." He further extended that to say that needs expand to consume the resources available, which is my point. Mea culpa! G. B. Leatherwood So, would this then explain why people are busily trying to figure out how to land on Phobos so they can then land on Mars, instead of just cutting out the middleman, and going right for the prize itself? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: A reminder...
In a message dated 3/17/2001 5:15:56 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...that the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list is intended solely for discussions of Europa and missions to it. Other discussions are off-topic and should not be held on the list unless that can be directly tied to Europa. Your ability to abide by this simple rule will determine the fate of the list. Sincerely, Jeff Foust list administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff: while I admire your putting the Europa website up for people to contribute to, I cannot agree to your attempted limitation of it to strict discussions of Europa. First, there is simply not enough material about Europa and or Europa related issues. There are no solid missions there, there is no solid evidence of life or no life, etc. Much of it is speculation. As this is the realm of speculation, there is bound to be some issue wandering. This is not a group of obedient bureaucrats inhabiting this web discussion group -- these are pseudo-scientists, writers, business professionals, engineers, and hacks -- an eclectic group. I believe that most of the people here will keep within the realm of space technology and exploration, with some peripheral discussions such as speculative planets, biota, and so forth. Even if some of these topics are not always strictly 'on point', they nevertheless are part of an environment where more Europa related topics can flourish. That's my position, and I hold by it. I do not promise to always confine my topics strictly to Europa related discussions, nor will I. To my understanding, the website is generally open to all persons who care to contribute, in a mutually respectful manner, about subjects which generally involve some aspect of space technology or development. That is the sort of website I am interested in contributing to. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Gadfry!
In a message dated 3/13/2001 4:46:13 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My God. To say that this is an extreme solution is the understatement of the century. Prosthetic bone replacements aren't attached to the muscles -- they can't be, since the connective tissue cells that make up the ligaments blend in directly with the living bone cells. As surgeons are fond of pointing out, joint replacements are actually much more vulnerable to breakage than living bone because the latter is a living tissue that regularly repairs developing damage in itself. And I haven't heard of any compound anywhere on the horizon that could be used to strengthen atrophying bone -- if there was, every woman with ostoporosis would be clamoring for it right now. I don't see any practical way to completely replace even a single bone in the human body (unless you're Wolverine from "X-Men"). We simply have to keep bones from losing calcium in 0-g in the first place -- and since exercise, from what I hear, doesn't seem to do the trick, unless and until we discover a really effective and safe anti-osteoporosis drug we're stuck with artificial gravity for long-duration spaceflight. Robert Bradbury, of nanotechnology applications fame, might suggest somehow using blood circulation nanomachines to do the trick. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Zero-G Health Impacts
In a message dated 3/14/2001 5:19:49 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Centrifuge Accommodation Module -- although it's being built by Japan -- may now have to be dropped because of ISS' overall cost problems. If so, the very last of the original justifications used by NASA to talk Congress into funding the Station back in 1984 -- studies of how to keep people healthy during long-duration spaceflight -- will disappear, and we will have a $40 billion orbiting white elephant with absolutely no use whatsoever (at least until some president with no sense of humor shuts it off). Actually, I'm wrong; the Station has fulfilled one function magnificently -- swindling the taxpayers out of $40 billion -- which, of course, is the only real reason NASA proposed it in the first place (as with the Shuttle). But now it's collided head-on with another grand government swindle -- Bush's tax-cut flim-flam -- so it has to go. Bruce, you've pretty much gutted the whole ISS concept with your above statements... so, you're suggesting that it's just a contemporary version of Skylab and Mir? Once again, it seems the best thing for the long-term development of space is to get it away from NASA and the big boys. What's your take, Bruce? Anyone else? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Jovian resource mining
And perhaps siphoning off "expansion energy" (if that's what zero-point = energy turns out to be) isn't such a bad thing. Almost every study thus = far has concluded that the universe -- even counting the unseen Dark = Matter -- has far too little mass to naturally slow the expansion of the = universe. I don't know about anyone else, but I much prefer an ocillating = universe with a series of big bangs and big crunches to one in which = everything expands infinitely and eventually peters out when the last = proton dies... How can 'every study thus far' have any bearing whatsoever, when the subject matter is itself still hypothetical and / or of unknown parameters? You might as well consult a crystal ball for such answers, when you don't even know the right questions to ask. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Phobos colonization
Pardon me, but what's the point of going all the way to Mars, only to fool around with a little rock orbiting the big prize? It seems to me that practical, economic sense, and a sense of what is politically expedient would rule out setting down on an isolated rock, when it would be simply easier to land on Mars, and go forward. Mars has the gravity, the resources, and available areas for settling down. About the only reason I can think of to go to Phobos would be that it is outside the Martian atmosphere, therefore not subject to duststorms, and would be easier to land on as well. But, once you obviate those two (limited) advantages, on balance it seems to me that it's just an unnecessary extra step. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
