Nanotech in space
Kristian Sigvardsen
ever) could one day send a "seed" of nanotech to an asteroid and recompile
it into an extremely large diameter (depending on mass of course) parabolic
telescope. With several asteroids in the solar system and apropriate orbital
co-ordinates and all that other spacial navigation stuff taking care finer
details.
But any thoughts on the general idea of sending seeds out to mine or
transform massive objects?
Joe
bran...@smartt.com "Kristian Sigvardsen" writes:
I have a proposition and I call it the Genesis Device for obvious reasons.
It comprises sheets of rolled reflector material, that are unwound
and put up by fractal robots. It focuses light to an oven
where you drop bits of material gathered from the surrounding
area. The temperature is 10,000 - 100,000 depending on how
much reflectors you use and the focus area. All the materials dropped
into the oven vapourise and emerge as elemental gases or mixtures of
gases which you then distill and/or re-distill until you
separate out all the elements. Witha that, you can make more
reflector materials and use fractal robots to build more copies
of the Genesis Device. With the elements, you mix them to make whatever
chemicals required and use fractal robots to build entire Moon base,
oxygen tanks, water tanks, grow food etc..
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/new/genesis.htm
o------------> http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk <------------o
: Digital Matter Control Ultra-Science Web Site :
The future is bright
*------ Read it all before making judgements -------*
Kristian Sigvardsen
> into the oven vapourise and emerge as elemental gases or mixtures of
> gases which you then distill and/or re-distill until you
> separate out all the elements.
Why do it the hard way? Just get the nanotech to dis-assemble any material
you want into it's individual atoms. You can even program them to go to
special storage areas for every atom you want.
Joe
Well, you must look at costs - nanotech as described exists on paper only.
Minimum $100 billion+ for disassembler against $10,000 my way
for a small machine. It already works in France where they make
steel this way...nothing to prove - uses just
a football size field of solar tracking mirrors.
o------------> http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk <------------o
: Digital Matter Control Ultra-Science Web Site :
The future is bright
*------ Read it all before making judgements -------*
[You can melt metal with a $10 Bernz-o-matic... The trick is adding
and removing the proper impurities, handling/molding/working it,
machining, annealing, tempering, and polishing, depending on the
application. I don't see how fractal robot blocks would be any
more help at this than the existing special-purpose robots.
--JoSH]
Andrew Thompson
"Kristian Sigvardsen" <bran...@smartt.com> wrote:
> I remember reading when I was younger that a space agency ( NASA,
Euro, who
> ever) could one day send
use as a light sail pushed by laser & they might reach a
significant proportion of the speed of light, to...
> a "seed" of nanotech to an asteroid
send the Nano's to a nearby *star*..
> and recompile it into an extremely large diameter (depending on mass
of course) parabolic
> telescope.
to find and gain materials to 'bootstrap' an industrial base
> (snip)
> But any thoughts on the general idea of sending seeds out to mine or
> transform massive objects?
>
>
I've only begun to investigate this yet, bu initial thoughts
are to build larger components ASAP so that 'bulk' processing
can begin (smelters, storage containers, solar panels etc.).
Just cos MNT may be *able* to do *anything*, I don't think they
(alone) will be the best way to do *everything*
--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.athompson.au.com/
amthom...@telstra.easymail.com.au
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ian Stirling
>In article <0Ces4.8235$lK6.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>
> bran...@smartt.com "Kristian Sigvardsen" writes:
>>I remember reading when I was younger that a space agency ( NASA, Euro, who
>>ever) could one day send a "seed" of nanotech to an asteroid and recompile
>>it into an extremely large diameter (depending on mass of course) parabolic
<snip>
>I have a proposition and I call it the Genesis Device for obvious reasons.
>It comprises sheets of rolled reflector material, that are unwound
>and put up by fractal robots. It focuses light to an oven
>where you drop bits of material gathered from the surrounding
>area. The temperature is 10,000 - 100,000 depending on how
>much reflectors you use and the focus area. All the materials dropped
Nope.
You won't get temperatures that high, with solar reflectors.
Consider a black body, with one side insulated.
Place this near the sun, so that the sun fills 180 degrees of sky.
Now, if this got hotter than the sun, it would heat the sun up.
You can finnesse the issue slightly with non-imaging collectors, but
only by a factor of a few. (and because power emitted by a black
body depends on the fourth power of temperature, the temperature will
only increase by the fourth root of a few)
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science, it is opinion.
-- Robert A Heinlein.
[The sun's surface is about 6000 K, but the corona gets up to a million.
see http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1998/06/061698/sun.asp
--JoSH]
SpyKnife
>Minimum $100 billion+ for disassembler against $10,000 my way
>for a small machine. It already works in France where they make
>steel this way...nothing to prove - uses just
>a football size field of solar tracking mirrors.
There was something I noticed from the Mechatronic Universal Assembler page,
please correct me if I am wrong:
It never states whether or not scaled atomic precision material from the nano
scale to the macro scale could be built with those systems, they are excellent
for developing new materials, and the rest, but, could they make a chair from
molecular building blocks that was atomically precise, or would the materials
produced still have cracks and flaws at the micro scopic level?
[It is possible to make things that are molecularly precise (crystals)
without nanotech, but in general it's not worthwhile with bulk
technology. Joe's fractal cubes are too big to manipulate atoms
individually; my guess is the smallest you could make one is 100 nm.
--JoSH]
operations
space colonies.
every design assumes the necessity for agricultural food production which
requires massive inputs of water, sun, soil and atmosphere.
would it be possible to design a nanotech to 'assemble' 'food'? perhaps
using the already evolved 'nanomachines' of dna, rna et al? would this not
cut tens if not hundreds of thousands of tonnes of mass from colony
designs and thus make such much more feasible?
Kristian Sigvardsen
would be the most difficult to assemble. Apples, potatoes, tomatoes etc.
should be the easiest. The food assembler would have far better implications
here on earth than as a cargo saving device for colonization and space
travel.
Malcolm McMahon
Yes, but inputs of water, energy and atmospheric gasses would still be
required. A nanosystem producing food would, overall, be performing much
the same chemistry as a plant producing food. Of course, except for
energy, the vast majority of the materials you mention can be recycled
whether you use plants or nanosystems.
Nanosystems would, hopefully, be more efficient.
[Note that for people in spacesuits particularly, a lot of the chemistry
could be internal, converting wastes directly into glucose and dumping
it into the bloodstream. Same with co2->oxygen. All you need is
power.
--JoSH]
operations
suspects that investigating a nanotech food assembler would only be politically
feasible in space where there would be a much better chance of implementing an
adequate quarentine protocol.
Malcolm. would not reduce the amounts of volatiles and energy required,
perhaps, might even be less efficient. nanotech food assembly however would
affect space colony design and the initial capitalisation required. one would
not require large mirrors or fibre optics to pipe 'sunlight', there would be no
necessity for megatons of soil/sinter, the volatiles such as water, oxygen
could be mostly space cold, the structure itself could be shrunk dramatically.
p.s. ops is a total newsgroups newbie. for some reason cannot see that my post
actually got posted and am thus surprised and gratified by the replies to it.
also thought had cross posted to sci.space.tech but, once again, can't see it
there either.
[The hue and cry over GE foods has been fostered as an excuse for
protectionism; there is a reasonable chance it will subside to
reasonable levels after the economics are sorted out.
--JoSH]
Fraser Orr
operations wrote in message
<3q9A4.4652$u%1.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
>[The hue and cry over GE foods has been fostered as an excuse for
> protectionism; there is a reasonable chance it will subside to
> reasonable levels after the economics are sorted out.
Completely off topic but...
It always struck me as rather odd that people complained
so bitterly about minor genetic modifications that allow
food to have longer shelf lives, be more resistant to
disease or some other benefit. However they are perfectly
happy to allow food companies to put known carcinogens into
the food or spray toxic insecticides onto the crop to
achieve the same effect.
(Of course there is a simple solution to both issues -- if you
don't like it, don't buy it!)
Thomas D. Ireland
and close to an Earth environment as possible. Nanotech food would be
useful in spacecraft no doubt but would it taste the same? I doubt it? A
space colony requires great amounts of biomass for many reasons. Growing
food this way produces the required biomass, good food, cycles
oxygen/water/hydrogen/nitrogen, pollutants, etc, etc. It also does this
with a minimum of maintenance............! When a machine breaks down you
have to fix it or build another one, but when a plant breaks down it dies
and is reused by other plants and animals as food. There is usually some
kind of regeneration process going on as well. The mechanical solution is
not the best solution. It is merely a replacement when a biological
solution either needs a helping hand or needs replacing for one reason or
another.
Regards Tom
operations (o...@incybr.com.au) wrote:
: regarding an implication of nanotech on the design of 10,000+ population
: space colonies.
: every design assumes the necessity for agricultural food production which
: requires massive inputs of water, sun, soil and atmosphere.
: would it be possible to design a nanotech to 'assemble' 'food'? perhaps
: using the already evolved 'nanomachines' of dna, rna et al? would this not
: cut tens if not hundreds of thousands of tonnes of mass from colony
: designs and thus make such much more feasible?
[Actually, horses require a lot more attention than cars do. Same with
well-designed nanomachines vs their biological equivalents (cells).
BTW, plants don't grow well in 0G. Nanotech will make a *huge*
difference to the viability of a space colony.
--JoSH]
operations
greater than that for edibles, why bother with agriculture let alone nanotech
food assembly. oh well :(
unless, perhaps, one was building such a colony out mars or jupiters way.
bearpaw
>
>Completely off topic but...
>
>It always struck me as rather odd that people complained
>so bitterly about minor genetic modifications that allow
>food to have longer shelf lives, be more resistant to
>disease or some other benefit. However they are perfectly
>happy to allow food companies to put known carcinogens into
>the food or spray toxic insecticides onto the crop to
>achieve the same effect.
"Unaware of" is not the same thing as "happy to allow". Neither is
"resigned to".
>(Of course there is a simple solution to both issues -- if you
>don't like it, don't buy it!)
Good idea.
Am I correct in guessing, therefore, that you support the folks that
are trying to get complete and accurate food labelling, and you
disapprove of the measures that some corporations have taken to
prevent those who make and distribute alternate foods from labelling
their own foods appropriately?
It's hard to not buy something you don't like when you're not
allowed to find out whether it's something you like or not.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bea...@aq.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just Say Know.
Fraser Orr
>"Fraser Orr" <i...@xnet.com> writes:
>>It always struck me as rather odd that people complained
>>so bitterly about minor genetic modifications that allow
>>food to have longer shelf lives, be more resistant to
>>disease or some other benefit. However they are perfectly
>>happy to allow food companies to put known carcinogens into
>>the food or spray toxic insecticides onto the crop to
>>achieve the same effect.
>
>"Unaware of" is not the same thing as "happy to allow". Neither is
>"resigned to".
Closed eyes, and plugged up ears are not a good reason
for government intervention. (To put it another way,
what kind of idiot hasn't heard about these issues?)
>>(Of course there is a simple solution to both issues -- if you
>>don't like it, don't buy it!)
>
>Good idea.
>
>Am I correct in guessing, therefore, that you support the folks that
>are trying to get complete and accurate food labeling, and you
>disapprove of the measures that some corporations have taken to
>prevent those who make and distribute alternate foods from labeling
>their own foods appropriately?
I don't know which folks you are referring too, however
of course I am in favor of good quality food labeling.
Of course, since governments are run by incompetent idiots
I would certainly not allow them to make rules about
something so important.
I don't know what the second half of your question refers
to, however, if you are referring to some companies making
fraudulent claims on their food labels. I certainly am
opposed to that.
>It's hard to not buy something you don't like when you're not
>allowed to find out whether it's something you like or not.
Well don't buy the stuff that confuses you, buy the stuff
you know you like. Unless of course you think we should have
publicly run supermarkets, undoubtedly of the same quality as
public housing, public transport and public postal systems.
And, to make a very tenuous link to the subject area of this
newsgroup... a similar situation arises in regards to MNT.
Let the government regulate it and you get public nanotech
about the same quality as public housing, transport and postal
systems.
(I would have mailed this response, however bearpaw's email
address did not seem to be valid.)
Kristian Sigvardsen
for over twenty years now. It's no new thing. It's new for the media band
wagon but that's their gravy boat. Nobody has died of gene poisoning so
what's the big deal? Fodd quality has only been improving world wide. Even
third world countries are starting to get their own crops. (Politics
providing of course) Our living and eating condidtions are only getting
better so what's the big worry except a bunch of special interest groups
finding excuses to bitch about something.
Malcolm McMahon
>Malcom. upon further cogitation. if the energy cost of boosting inputs is
>greater than that for edibles, why bother with agriculture let alone nanotech
>food assembly. oh well :(
>
Because you can, to a large extent, close the loop and recycle virtually
all the matter. Then you don't have to boost anything after the first
launch. Hopefully inevitable matter losses can be replaced from material
already up there.
Malcolm McMahon
Ireland) wrote:
>The whole idea of having a space colony would be to make space as natural
>and close to an Earth environment as possible. Nanotech food would be
>useful in spacecraft no doubt but would it taste the same? I doubt it?
I see no reason why it shouldn't be molecule for molecule identical if
that's what you want, or alternately have completely novel taste and
texture.
> A
>space colony requires great amounts of biomass for many reasons. Growing
>food this way produces the required biomass, good food, cycles
>oxygen/water/hydrogen/nitrogen, pollutants, etc, etc. It also does this
>with a minimum of maintenance............! When a machine breaks down you
>have to fix it or build another one, but when a plant breaks down it dies
>and is reused by other plants and animals as food. There is usually some
>kind of regeneration process going on as well. The mechanical solution is
>not the best solution. It is merely a replacement when a biological
>solution either needs a helping hand or needs replacing for one reason or
>another.
>
But nanotech can close the gap between machines and biology. Replicators
can regenerate a system which becomes damaged.
And plants have their own agenda. Like us they're domesticated but still
have the remanents of their wild herritage.
Guy Baruch
1) why launch a nano-probe from a baloon if you can launch from orbit ?
just add the needed 100 gr. to the next space shuttle or whatever.
2) regarding nano-generated foods on a space colony:
why do this at all ? what are the benefits of desining a new technology
for this when plants allready exist ? note there is no energy problem
in space, only (posible) matereial shortage. will nano machines really
be much more efficient than existing plants ?
don't nanotech building techniques seem a more productive research path ?
-- regards.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Guy Baruch. Verisity Ltd. <http://www.verisity.com>
+ <mailto:guy...@verisity.com>
+ Tel. 03-9004018
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics is a lovely introduction to Hilbert Spaces!
-- Overheard at last year's Archimedeans' Garden Party
[Actually nanotech would be much more efficient than plants; besides,
plants don't grow too well in 0G.
--JoSH]
LK
It's not that simple. Check out www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100
Agricultural Biotech and the Poor. It is a series of conference
reports by bio-tech indutry and others throughout the world including
third countries. Many economic, social, cultural "challenges" are
involved, _one_ of which is "Potential Health Risks of Genetically
Modified Organisms: How Can Allergans be Assessed and Minimized"?
Science simply does not, yet, know if for example if a particular
gene from a peanut inserted in a grain could trigger allergic response
which could be potentially fatal. (Some people's food allergies will
cause enough swelling on the way down to suffocate.) Treatments and
admissions to hospitals for such incidents are everyday occurences.
Dismissing concerns about food supply and , another example, the
documented facts of a few GE foods killing the larve of Monarch
butterflies is not "bitching." Labeling it as "bitching"
is...naive.
LK
SpyKnife
genetically engineered food in the form of cheese made by bacterial processes,
beer made with bacterial yeast fermentation, and bread made with bacterial
yeast.
Happy Eating!
PS not to mention the corn that has been genetically engineered over time from
maize
Thomas D. Ireland
Malcolm McMahon (mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:58:03 GMT, ug...@victoria.tc.ca (Thomas D.
: Ireland) wrote:
I agree about closing the gap. In the first phase of terraformation of a
colony machines will have the advantage. You could anticipate a very rocky
beginning for biological life forms whereas machines could make things a
lot easier to get things going. I still see the biological life forms as
the ultimate solution though. The robot tree is one such machine. It would
be like an engine for the ecology. It would, possible, create an oxygen
environment where animal and insect life forms could be introduced at the
same time as plants instead of going through many phases of a
terraformation process. It could also be used to cycle ground water for
irrigation, domestic use, and habitat. Depending on what periferals the
tree had it could create an oasis in the harsh environment. This is
critical to colonization etc.
: And plants have their own agenda. Like us they're domesticated but still
: have the remanents of their wild herritage.
Sounds like care to me!
Regards Tom
--
Valter Hilden
>
> Gimme a break you guys! Direct genetic modifications in food has been around
> for over twenty years now.
What about _indirect_ genetic modification of food? It has been around
since the first living being ate another living being, perhaps 1G year
ago. Intentional genetic modifications have been around since humans
started selecting seeds, maybe 10k years. The only difference to genetic
engineering is the efficiency with which the process is conducted.
Another efficiency jump will come when we start creating synthetic
genes. IBM has started designing a "petaflops" computer (capable of 1e15
floating point operations per second) for protein folding studies. Be
prepared for the "dangers of nano-engineered living beings" debate.
Frankensteinphobia will never die.
bearpaw
>
>Many of those same people who attack Genetically Engineered food EAT
>genetically engineered food in the form of cheese made by bacterial
>processes, beer made with bacterial yeast fermentation, and bread
>made with bacterial yeast.
Um, no. This isn't "genetic engineering" in any meaningful sense of
the word. I doubt even Monsanto, et al, would use the phrase this way.
>Happy Eating!
>
>PS not to mention the corn that has been genetically engineered
>over time from maize
And this is a rather over-broad usage of the term "genetically
engineered", though I suspect it's one that Monsanto et al are fond
of. True, there *are* some similarities between cross-breeding and
genetic engineering, and those similarities are worth looking at to
help us understand possible effects, but there are also some
important differences in terms of the biological separation of the
species involved, and the speed at which the changed organisms may
be introduced into the environment.
Really, this is a topic worth *careful* reading and thinking -- it's
interesting both on a science&engineering level, and in terms of
the complicated interplay between science, industry, politics, and
society. (And (ObNano) it's an example very relevant to the coming
changes.) Trying to reduce it to soundbites doesn't help anyone.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bea...@aq.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A rising tide lifts all boats." Of course, if you can't afford a
boat, a rising tide just puts you in deeper water.
bearpaw
>
>Kristian Sigvardsen wrote:
>> Gimme a break you guys! Direct genetic modifications in food has
>>been around for over twenty years now.
>
>What about _indirect_ genetic modification of food? It has been around
>since the first living being ate another living being, perhaps 1G year
>ago. Intentional genetic modifications have been around since humans
>started selecting seeds, maybe 10k years. The only difference to genetic
>engineering is the efficiency with which the process is conducted.
That's not an "only" difference. The size and effects of that
difference is not at all understood yet.
>Another efficiency jump will come when we start creating synthetic
>genes. IBM has started designing a "petaflops" computer (capable of 1e15
>floating point operations per second) for protein folding studies. Be
>prepared for the "dangers of nano-engineered living beings" debate.
>Frankensteinphobia will never die.
Neither will simplistic and dismissive reactions to valid concerns.
It seems that there's never any shortage of overstated arguments on
any side of a debate.
SpyKnife
periods will have no real choice but to compete with novel engineered and
altered living (and eventually artificial) systems.