Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Space Factory

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Raktizer Omheit

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:26:02 PM9/30/05
to

"The promise of materials processing in space-generally known as MPS-may
sound like the promise of a quick buck: something for nothing, the nothing
being the weightless, airless environment of space. But the fact is that
large corporations and NASA are deeply interested in a potential revolution
in manufacturing, a Third Industrial Revolution, as it were, for
pharmaceuticals, optical glasses, electronics, ceramics, magnets, and
industrial tools."

"The results of minimising these two factors [ i.e. gravity and oxygen ] is
that materials may reach their theoretical structural and chemical limits by
letting them behave as if they were in a universe of their own. Microgravity
should virtually eliminate convection currents, separation of immiscibles
( ie substances that do not mix ), and fractures of solid crystals.
Materials can be isolated from container walls, via acoustic or
electro-magnetic forces, to prevent premature or excessive crystallisation,
internal stresses, or transmission of vibrations from the outside world.
Micro-atmospheres will permit greater purity and quality-control by reducing
unwanted gases present in the best commercial vacuum pumps, and make
possible finer control of the trace materials used in advanced electronics."

"Of particular interest is the prospect of making materials and products
benefiting from unique conditions of microgravity, exposure to vacuum
conditions and an energy source "freely-given"-the Sun. Already experiments
carried out during flights of Apollo, Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project,
Soyuz, Salyut, and various unmanned sounding rockets [ as well as by the
Spacelab programs of the U.S. Space Shuttle, the Mir Space Station, and the
International Space Station or ISS ] indicate that space processing offers
one of the greatest potential space benefits. Examples are new high-strength
alloys, some of which will not mix on earth, new crucible-free melting
techniques for super-pure alloys, and the prepartions of serums of high
purity.
The production of large, homogenous single crystals of semi-conductors, so
important to today's solid state electronics industry, has attracted great
interest particularly in the Soviet Union, the United States and West
Germany."

"The shape of neither the space factory nor its legal framework can be
guessed at this time. It might be a federal corporation operating with space
stations built from entirely new space hardware. Or it might be a consortium
owning a core module and renting berthing space and utilities to individual
operators. It might be little more than a research facility turning out new
standards for gauging the capability of Earth-based production methods, or
it could become a sizable fraction of the world economy. The permutations
are bound only by the possible products and the imagination of man. Both
seem limitless at this time."

From pages 218-219, 223, and 225 of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space
Technology: A Comprehensive History of Space Exploration," by Kenneth
Gatland, Consultant and Principal Author, edited by Philip de Ste. Croix,
and by Dave Dooling, Chapter 17, "The Space Factory," Salamander Books Ltd
1981, London, England, distributed by Lansdowne Press, Sydney, Auckland,
London, and New York.

Uncle Al

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 9:29:36 PM9/30/05
to
Raktizer Omheit wrote:
>
> "The promise of materials processing in space-generally known as MPS-may
> sound like the promise of a quick buck:

ARE YOU INSANE? Boosting mass in the execrable Space Scuttle costs
$30/gram - if it is running, if it can make a round trip. Look up the
price of gold and convert to $/mass, idiot. Do you read what you
type?

[snip crap]

> "Of particular interest is the prospect of making materials and products
> benefiting from unique conditions of microgravity, exposure to vacuum
> conditions and an energy source "freely-given"-the Sun.

NASA bullshit. "Nuclear power so cheap we won't bother to meter it."
Controlled nuclear fusion. Right.

[snip more crap]

> From pages 218-219, 223, and 225 of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space
> Technology:

[snip]
> Salamander Books Ltd
> 1981,

Idiot. Theory bows before empirical observation.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 10:46:49 PM9/30/05
to
Uncle Al wrote:


>
> NASA bullshit. "Nuclear power so cheap we won't bother to meter it."
> Controlled nuclear fusion. Right.

Controlled nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future and it
always will be. If memory serves, controlled fusion has been thiry years
in the future for the past fifty years.

Bob Kolker

Jan Panteltje

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 7:25:14 AM10/1/05
to
On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:46:49 -0400) it happened "Robert J.
Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in <3q6bktF...@individual.net>:

Controlled nuclear fusion, EOTVOS results, artificial diamonds, dead cockroches
ARE ALL in Al's future.

I want my crow, I want it now.
So eating crow is also in the future.

No surprizes so far.

ANSA is going to send a robotic mission to the moon first, before human landings.

Some knowledge must have been lost.
Maybe this thing about time moving backwards is true after all.
Sarfatti? Go help NASA.


Raktizer Omheit

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:34:00 PM10/1/05
to

"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:433DE680...@hate.spam.net...
Don't blame me. Blame Dave Dooling who wrote it in the first place. I myself
had serious doubts about what he wrote in the first place. The only bit
where I agreed with him was with the following:

"The shape of neither the space factory nor its legal framework can be
guessed at this time." "It might be little more than a research facility

tj Frazir

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 1:28:25 AM10/2/05
to
LPE beets nukes 10000 to 1 .
beets gas engines 16 to 1 .
that makes electric too cheap to run a nuke.
water rocket boat motor is my lattest engines.
Look ma ,,no rotor !!
water just flows into the cylinder then the valve closes ,,then the
compresor dumps its 200 psi in the head then the fuel injects ..the exit
jet opends ..
nothing gets near that boat !! its too quick.
4 cylinders provide thrust all the time.
1 second stokes.
floatng piston and mag counter rail beside the cylinder .
in the space is a 20 hp outboard is 3000 pounds thrust on he SAME
amount of fuel.
Ill be more than happey to drag yer asses threw the math .

tj Frazir

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 1:42:36 AM10/2/05
to
giro/radar steering for drag cars.
green light censor aimed at go light gets car going.
laser guidance posible .
prehot drag car is so quick LPE tat the driver will black out and ride
along blind.
This LPE starts out red hot cylinders preheated from the outside .
The water inside is 700 F .
gas and O2 is rocket fuel.
The 1/4 mile is 4 strokes at 3500 psi .
the vane rotor conects direct to boath back wheels and are 5x6 sliding
vanes.
3500 pounds on 30 si.
100,000 HP drag car .
The back wheels are solid rubber.
It wount ever come in second place.

0 new messages