CONCRETE IGLOOS
Lilly
http://glamourpriya.blogspot.com
Lunar dust could be used to build giant telescope mirrors on the Moon
– some of which could fill entire craters.
Dust is often thought of as an impediment to lunar exploration, but
could be put to good use to build giant telescopes on the Moon. A
simple method to create a concrete-like substance using a mixture of
carbon nanotubes, epoxy and a crushed rock material that NASA uses as
a stand-in for Moon dust has been established. The process could be
scaled up to produce 20- to 50-metre-wide telescopes on the Moon.
Concrete igloos would call for about 600 kilograms (1300 pounds) of
Moon dust, 60 kg (130 pounds) of epoxy, 6 kg (13 pounds) of carbon
nanotubes and less than a gram of aluminium. The technique could
also
be used to build other structures on the Moon, including reflectors
for an array of solar panels, as well as habitats, or igloos, for
astronauts. The Moon does not have an atmosphere and therefore we
can
see the sky very clearly at optical wavelengths. In addition to
that,
the back side of the Moon that never sees the Earth is an ideal place
to do radio astronomy because there is no manmade radio interference.
I was just thinking that much epistemology requires us to construct
'observation states' that are as free as possible from
'interference'. I have never really been able to do this in maths or
physics as I'm not a thinker in that sense, though I have been able
to
exert control in the laboratory and so on. Breakfast TV is on behind
me this morning - it's ghastly - making me wonder how I might create
a
concrete igloo for social scrutiny. I feel a bit like a probe that
has returned from some distant venture - full of data of some kind
that needs to be sorted free of the chronic interference of the
social
world. Sticking my head into a bicket of Moon dust, epxoy and
nanotubing seems remarkably tempting. I'll switch the tv off.
Doing epistemology is generally beyond what I want to do in social
research - but we have to do something better than what passes as
journalism. I see a lot of well-intentioned research lapse to rat
shit and it's a mistake to think much research is even well-
intentioned. We cannot build observatories - though the French use
this word in their social research. It is almost as though we turn
our 'observatories' into the problem, forever tinkering with them
rather than turning them to the sky. I think we have got what we
think of as interference and contamination wrong - we should be
seeking to expose what this is and its presence in arguments rather
than trying to construct arguments without it
CLICK THE LINK:
http://glamourpriya.blogspot.com