Hmm...that rocker bogie on the Mars rover looks awfully familiar. Could it be slight variation on what they had on steam locomotives before any of us was born?
More than slight. The real important part of the rocker bogie does not seem to be mentioned much. It is the connection between the left and right sides. Not sure what the technical term for the linkage is, differential sounds appropriate. With this "differential" system the rocker bogie is simple and elegant. I will hazard a guess and suggest the the "rocker" in rocker bogie actually refers to this connection between the two sides rather than the motion that the bogies make when going over a rock. Pure speculation on my part but it make sense.
NASA has certainly been deified far beyond reality. In many ways, I fear the greatest by-products of space technology were actually better weapons and surveillance systems.
But if one can include the whole expansion in digital computation, we could easily claim that NASA's efforts have led to the deciphering of the human genome.
And of course, there are the weather satellites that are actually able to much more about our environmental impact that we would ever know otherwise.
And then there are Google Maps that provide us with so much detail about geography than ever before.
And I'd have to say that none of that Krap.
============
On the other hand, teflon, velcro and Tang and other publicity exploits are typical of American advertisers just attaching themselves to anything that has good acceptance by the public.
These days, it seems that I can't turn around without Legos being included in all and everything in one form or another. At least it hasn't found a way to attach itself to NASA. One can only do so much with bricks.
==========
The rush to the moon, served its purposes.
A. To demilitarize a potential Russian claim of the entire moon for national purposes.
B. To demonstrate an equal level of sophistication of rocketry to the Russia.
C. To boost the US economy.
D. To boost national pride.
I am ambivalent when Americans want to revive NASA as a means to revive the USA.
We should be dealing with the realities at hand and not seeking a scheme to distract us from the real problems in the real world. We have developed a tremendous amount of new technology that is creating economic dislocations that may well be taking us away from prosperity and peace.
Why hasn't the disposal of nuclear waste moved forward in the past three or four decades with so many advances in technology? Why haven't we come to terms with environmental damage on a global scale?
We need something more 'down to earth' to replace NASA.
We need something more 'down to earth' to replace NASA.
There are a few very serious problems facing all Earth beings. One is that our star is going to eventually kill us all. Our only hope is to either leave the planet or find a way to stop it from happening. Either way it is going to rely heavily upon technology and space travel. If we plan to survive for a long time then we need to keep progress moving in that direction.
Some people advocate regressing from technology. I can see there would be some advantages to that, but for the long term it's a bad idea for our survival. If Earthlings are going to survive, they need to leave the planet. Advanced technology is the only way that will happen.
Loopy, space Is the future. We will venture out to the stars one day so should we delay It any more than we have? Also, the smart people take a technology from one area and apply it to another. Yes we went to the moon for political purposes but we've also sent probes to other places and put some amazing satellites into space such as Hubble. Since the space shuttle Columbia accident in 2003 NASA has not been what it once was. Budget cuts haven't helped much either.
It's true that NASA didn't invent the products Tang, Velcro, or Teflon, but they did create, support, or fund variations on the themes, which is possibly where some of the urban legend comes from. For example, they funded resources for the development of powdered lubricants, for things things like bushings, that are used instead of Teflon coatings. (Talking about the industrial coatings, not cookware.)
I was once told that strain gauge load cells were developed for the rockets of the time. Obviously not necessarily NASA specific though.
The Moon seems an obvious place to start experimental mining and processing. And if the elevator never materialises then production and construction of large extraterrestrial facilities and craft should also be moved to the Moon rather than trying to figure out how to lift them off Earth.
Why bother mining the moon?
Distance to market is absurd and having to import all your resources is astronomically expensive.
The mineralogy of the moon is mostly the stuff that makes good concrete. But the available water is limited.
Sure, it could be a shipyard for spaceships. But the material may have to come from afar. And then there is the question of where are these spaceships going and why?
I just don't think there is a nation on Earth that wants to bankrupt themselves on space exploration at this point in time. We could do better with terraforming Earth into a stable climate.
++++++++++++++
Others may claim that space is the future. But at what cost to Earth? I'll be dead and gone before space exploration benefits the people of Earth. We simply don't have to go into space. But we really have dire needs to address right here and now.
Our star is going to kill us? Not likely in my lifetime. We can spend a millenium developing a good plan.
"The unique rocker-bogie suspension that gives Sojourner its peculiar, insect-like look offers great stability and an enhanced ability to negotiate large rocks nearly as high as the rover itself. The JPL-patented suspension joins the three wheels on each side with only two swinging joints, and it connects the whole three-wheeled bogie to the chassis at a single point. The structure has no springs, and the freely rotating joints flex to conform to ground contours and climb obstacles. The rover combines independent drive and individual steering (Ackerman steering) for each wheel."
Loosely similar to a locomotive truck, but also quite different.
According to the same page, Mattel licensed the rocker bogie for a toy, and reproduced some or all of it. Maybe Erco would know.
As far as the Saturn V rocket...
I just may be that having built one, we may just have learned that we really might do it better and more cheaply in another way. We can't really lose technology... the knowledge evolves.
We finally have the technology to examine the steel and understand why it was so special.
But we so NOT know how to make it - and haven't for hundreds of years.
I'm desperately holding on to my drafting / printing technology, but it's so obsolete I've had trouble
maintaining the one lap-top and printer that it runs on... Windows 99 and an Epson FX100 printer.
The problem is the printer drivers that allow unlimited length very accurate CAD patterns to be printed
from my desktop - don't run on anything later. Modern printers "evolved" to handle photo-realistic
color, but at a cost of engineering type printing. And the copy shops can't get the scale right(!) so the
patterns are distorted and useless.
The Saturn V was designed for one job only - to take men to the moon.
It was the only (ONLY!) way it could be done - right down to the cryogenic fuels in the upper
stages. It worked. But the margins were scary thin.
It's probably the only way one could take that much mass to the moon today.
Developing new equipment - from scratch? With today's costs?
Ain't gonna happen - at least any time soon - or by the USA.
Saladin's sword was very possibly made the same way as the Samurai swords. At least that's what I get from the description of it's hard sharp edges but overall flexibility.
Basically down to heating and folding the metal over a few times, beating it into shape, and then hardening the edges by cooling them quickly whilst cooling the body more slowly. Which is done by laying clay down the centre to hold the heat and then dumping the thing into cold water where the edges harden by rapid cooling.
Helps to have a good steel with the right iron/carbon/whatever else ratios as well.
Not saying it's not a pretty cunning technique though.
Spent last week in Houston with my grandson, and we visited Space Center Houston (again). We took the tram tour this time, which includes a stop at the Saturn V building.
Here's a few photos...
JLocke, thanks for the photos. The last time I was at HSC was 10 years ago before the Saturn V was restored, and a building was built around it. At that time the metal was rusting, birds were nesting in it, and some of the engines were beginning to hang down as their engine mounts were failing. It's good to see it back to its original shape.
I also liked the pictures of the Little Joe and Mercury Redstone rockets. The Redstone was developed in the early 50's for ballistic missiles, and was based on the German V2 rocket from WW II. It used the same method of controlling the thrust angle with vanes. Gimbaled rocket mounts were up in later rockets. The Redstone was used in the first two manned Mercury missions, which were sub-orbital flights. It was replaced by the Atlas rocket for the remaining orbital Mercury missions.
We may have lost the technology build the Saturn V, but we haven't lost the technology to go to the Moon. Each of the Saturn V engines was hand-built. It evolved from trial-and-error tests until an engine was developed that could produce the required thrust without blowing up. Today's technology allows for engines to be designed on a computer and simulated. Also, today's engines have fewer parts, and are easier to mass-produce than the Saturn V engines. The Saturn V engine is an engineering marvel, but it was also very expensive to construct.
If it's just to go to collect more moon rocks, a robotic vehicle could do that, and it wouldn't need to be nearly as complex as a Saturn V, LEM, and other hardware required to keep a crew of humans alive. If it's to start a small colony/space station, then the Saturn V is the wrong launch vehicle. With that old technology it would cost trillions and decades to get enough materials up there to get things to a point of even modest sustainability. Far better to do things like rail guns to shoot packages of material into an orbit around the moon, then go through the process of getting it down. No air, it's all by retro-rocket. Something clever, new, and fun is needed.
We may have lost the technology to build a single Saturn V engine, but that doesn't mean we've lost the technology to explore space. Every month some country launches a successful space vehicle, and the cost of doing it gets lower all the time.
Why?
Good question.
Because history shows us that societies like people need a goal to work towards..that focus is what moves humanity forward.
I have been told repeatily by those in the know that Sputnik focused the United States like you would not believe.
And when that focus results, society sees leaps in the advancment of technology.
It's a shame we can't move ahead without having our feet to the fire but that seems to be the nature of our species..we need to be pushed to achieve greatness.
I can accept that on face value, but just any old goal or something realistic and worthy?
It sounds to me that you are really saying societies need an outside threat or a common enemy before they can settle on a goal. I hope not.
Before we get all excited about migration to other planets, it seems to me that some sort of global solidarity might be required. In fact, global solidarity might eliminate the need to migrate off planet.
And of course, if you are deeply concerned with the sun burning out, we will have to do far more than migrate to Mars. We will have to leave the solar system and find another one.
From my perspective, if is far better to adapt to the planet you are on than to spend one's life dreaming of getting to a better one.... especially if you don't have much time left and infinitely deep pockets. It might be fun to visit the moon just to look at earth. But I have already visited enough places that while being very interesting and exotic, make home just that much better.
All things considered, I rather migrate to Hawaii or New Zealand.
The photos from the moon are extremely spectacular. But have you even noticed that photos of vacation locations that are spectacular seem to buffer one from the harsh realities of being there? A tropical paradise can be extremely hot, glaring sun, high humidity, the touts that try to sell you sunglasses, and mosquitoes galore -- but the photo looks so good. I imagine the moon could be quite dusty once you are actually there.
I think your missing the point, Loopy. Think of all the technical challenges that need to be overcome to travel to another planet or another star. Whole new technologies need to be developed and current technologies may need to be accelerated. I would also think that other countries such as China would want a piece of the action. This is an endeavor that we could do on our own but an international effort would be a lot cheaper and faster. There is currently no market so the private sector is not going to do it. Other than the space program the only other times there were dramatic technological leaps were in wars whether it was the world wars, the cold war, or the recent gulf wars.
The computer was born in World War II as well as microwaves and the jet engine. Sometimes engineers and scientists need a challenge to come up something truly revolutionary.
I think your missing the point, Loopy. Think of all the technical challenges that need to be overcome to travel to another planet or another star. Whole new technologies need to be developed and current technologies may need to be accelerated. I would also think that other countries such as China would want a piece of the action. This is an endeavor that we could do on our own but an international effort would be a lot cheaper and faster. There is currently no market so the private sector is not going to do it. Other than the space program the only other times there were dramatic technological leaps were in wars whether it was the world wars, the cold war, or the recent gulf wars.
The computer was born in World War II as well as microwaves and the jet engine. Sometimes engineers and scientists need a challenge to come up something truly revolutionary.
And I think others are missing the point.
The time line is so far into the future that is is may be longer than the history of civilization. And the resources required are beyond the scope of the G20 nations.... far beyond if they really were willing to climb on board.
If you additionally consider that the whole exploration agenda is a modern form of manifest destiny that has arisen in a cult fiction genre enjoyed by a mere fraction of the world's population, how can you expect India and China to endorse such a project?
China doesn't desire 'a piece of the action' of Western nations. It desires its own ascendancy of the world stage with a strong current focus of expansion into the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. Russia seems to have its own agenda to revive its ambitions for projecting global power, and recently canceled supplying rockets for the international space station. Meanwhile the Arab nations are in great turmoil as they seek to redefine their role in the modern world.
Considering how fragmented the world's nations and world's cultures are, about the only reason for technological development is to deter warfare and greater world turmoil. Any yet, even putting a base on the moon can be construed as positioning a missile base for world domination.
And so, I just feel the real agenda for the next 25 years is here on earth, not in roaming the stars.
I'd just love to see the USA actually demonstrate a feasible nuclear waste management system for spent nuclear fuel. As it now stands, the 'fuel that is supposed to provide energy for a millennium' is just backing up in the storage ponds at each and every reactor with a useful life of about 40 years. Every nuclear reactor in the USA is a defacto nuclear waste dump. The USA has a 'technology for peace' credibility problem. Nuclear energy was suppose ot provide prosperity and abundant energy, but it has created nuclear material for about 7000 warheads and power plants that have failed drastically. Much of our space program has converted to 'spy in the sky' and 'internet surveillance'. The USA is still the leading producer of weapons on earth.
If you can't take out the trash, why accumulate more?
Science fiction has painted a glorious future with a very broad brush. But we really need to focus on management of Spaceship Earth.. first and foremost.
If all the permanent members of the UN Security Council cannot work together for space exploration while assuring world peace, the time is not right. These members represent the bulk of weapon making capacity for the world.
My understanding is that the French have had nuclear disposal technology for decades but engineers are revered there where as here engineers are blamed for everything wrong with a product. Nuclear waste is an expensive proposition and no one wants it near them. Nothing is going to happen until we have a Fukashima like incident or a terrorist attack. If you think reactors in California are dangerous there are a few reactors near the east coast that are people and only waiting for a disaster to come. Here in California we know our reactors are at risk so they have occasional safety drills and tests along with enough medication should people be exposed to radiation. I used to live near Diablo Canyon and we were quite aware it was there. Every now and then sirens would sound all over the city.
I do agree with you..."There's no place like home."...and humankind should remember that..and treat it with the respect it deserves...not only does quality of life depend on it but its very existence.As to goals...they do not have to be...nor they should they be...fear based...but as a species we are threat oriented.I think that is one of the reasons why the theme of Star Trek is so popular..a future focused on the pursuit of knowledge for its own worth.
It is not engineers and scientist that need a challenge...it is the society they live within.Society decides how to expend its resources...and only when threatened does society focus more resources in the advancement of knowledge.A small recent example...Because of the incredible number of limb injuries to American soldiers, resources have been committed that have resulted in massive technological advances in limb prostheses that will be utilized in future robotic development. The need for these resources has existed for decades...but it took a terrible and tragic need to force that resource deployment by society.The human species still remains a reactive rather than a proactive species even though history repeatily shows that our intelligence IS our primary survival factor when we deal with challenges before they become a threat to our existence.
And I think others are missing the point.
The time line is so far into the future that is is may be longer than the history of civilization. And the resources required are beyond the scope of the G20 nations.... far beyond if they really were willing to climb on board.
If you additionally consider that the whole exploration agenda is a modern form of manifest destiny that has arisen in a cult fiction genre enjoyed by a mere fraction of the world's population, how can you expect India and China to endorse such a project?
China doesn't desire 'a piece of the action' of Western nations. It desires its own ascendancy of the world stage with a strong current focus of expansion into the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. Russia seems to have its own agenda to revive its ambitions for projecting global power, and recently canceled supplying rockets for the international space station. Meanwhile the Arab nations are in great turmoil as they seek to redefine their role in the modern world.
Considering how fragmented the world's nations and world's cultures are, about the only reason for technological development is to deter warfare and greater world turmoil. Any yet, even putting a base on the moon can be construed as positioning a missile base for world domination.
And so, I just feel the real agenda for the next 25 years is here on earth, not in roaming the stars.
I'd just love to see the USA actually demonstrate a feasible nuclear waste management system for spent nuclear fuel. As it now stands, the 'fuel that is supposed to provide energy for a millennium' is just backing up in the storage ponds at each and every reactor with a useful life of about 40 years. Every nuclear reactor in the USA is a defacto nuclear waste dump. The USA has a 'technology for peace' credibility problem. Nuclear energy was suppose ot provide prosperity and abundant energy, but it has created nuclear material for about 7000 warheads and power plants that have failed drastically. Much of our space program has converted to 'spy in the sky' and 'internet surveillance'. The USA is still the leading producer of weapons on earth.
If you can't take out the trash, why accumulate more?
Science fiction has painted a glorious future with a very broad brush. But we really need to focus on management of Spaceship Earth.. first and foremost.
If all the permanent members of the UN Security Council cannot work together for space exploration while assuring world peace, the time is not right. These members represent the bulk of weapon making capacity for the world.
"If you can't take out the trash, why accumulate more?"
Well said.
As the nations of the world spend trillions on arms, their basic infrastructure decays to where bridges fall down.
But I still feel there is a need for goals...challenges...that are not easily met.
Set the bar high so the human species will have to reach for the stars.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,..."
The knowledge and experience gained can be used for good or evil...that too is up to society.
One thing I personally have learned from the focus on space is how incredibly specialand unique this planet we live on is. It has shaped how I interact with the environment and how I expect society to deal with environmental issues.
In my opinion the greatest reward from the expenditure of resources for space technology...an appreciation as to how incredible lucky we have it here on Earth...a series of global selfies.
Saladin's sword was very possibly made the same way as the Samurai swords. At least that's what I get from the description of it's hard sharp edges but overall flexibility.
Basically down to heating and folding the metal over a few times, beating it into shape, and then hardening the edges by cooling them quickly whilst cooling the body more slowly. Which is done by laying clay down the centre to hold the heat and then dumping the thing into cold water where the edges harden by rapid cooling.
Helps to have a good steel with the right iron/carbon/whatever else ratios as well.
Not saying it's not a pretty cunning technique though.
It was a fascinating and informative article, Heater.
No, it's not the same technique as the Japanese.
Think carbon nano-tubes (not fiber).
No, it's not the same technique as the Japanese. Think carbon nano-tubes (not fiber).
I can quite believe the micro structure was very different.
From what little I learned of metallurgy in school it's clear that you can get a very different micro-structure in your product depending on the exact proportions of iron, carbon and other elements you are working with.
Not only that but the resulting structure depends on how the object is heated and cooled.
It depends on the mechanical treatment you give it, crank shafts are drop-forged instead of cast for a reason.
And of course the micro-structure can vary though out the different parts of the piece.
I'm sure Salad's sword makers and the Samurai had experimented with this a lot and found good solutions but I very much doubt that had much of an idea of crystal structures, nano-tubes etc. They just happened to have different materials and different processes giving rise to what we see in their products today. Hence my statement.
Well, it would help if Heater explained the whole process of making a samurai sword, rather than just half of it.
First, there is a high carbon steel that is created in a special furnace.
Second, there is the tedious folding and refolding to blend the steel
Third, there is a laminate process where a mild steel is added as backbone to the harder carbon steel that provides the edge. This provides the characteristic curvature and the tenacious strength to the blade in combat.
I am not sure Salidin's sword is truly a lost technology. But metallurgy is certainly still an evolving knowledge base. It has only been in recent decades that chemist, metallurgist, and crystallographer have begun to recognize the existence of pentagonal quasi-crystal structures.
Still, I wonder if someone that has no underlying knowledge of why they produce a specific metallurgical product can really qualify as a technology. It seem more of an art or craft. The Hindu and Chinese certainly have a lot that have been demonstrated in metals and ceramics, but no well understood as to why.
A lost art or lost craft seems to fit better than a lost technology.
I'm no sword maker and I'm sure Google can provide interested parties with more details.
From what I have read about Samurai swords you have missed out a couple of very important details.
The steel was bashed out into strips and folded over and bashed out again quite a few times. This results in hundreds or thousands of "layers" (two to the power of the number of times you fold it) within the structure and an aligns the crystal structures into planes. Seems this results in a finished product that is far less likely to crack and snap in half in use than just the original randomly oriented micro-structures. That is why we drop forge crank shafts instead of just casting them.
Then there is my favourite part, the heat treatment....
Turns out that if you heat the finished product up enough and then cool it rapidly ,by dunking it in cold water, you get a very hard material that can have a very sharp cutting edge ground onto it. However the whole thing is hard and brittle and may well snap shatter in use.
On the other hand if you arrange for it to cool down slowly you get a much tougher, shatter proof, product. But then you cannot get that fine cutting edge on it. No good for slicing and dicing ones enemies.
So here is the clever part: What you do is lay down a layer of clay along the central spine of the blade, keeping it away from the edges. On both sides. Now when you heat all that up and dunk it in water the edges cool very rapidly and become very hard, good for sharpening, but the body of the sword, under that layer of clay cools much more slowly and becomes very tough and bendy. Very good for not shattering in in conflict.
All in all, the chemistry of iron and carbon and a few other elements mixed up is quite amazing. Giving rise to all kinds of properties depending on exact chemical proportions and how you treat it. Even just "case hardening" our creations in metal shop at school was quite an eye opener.
However, recently a team of scientist at Technical University of Dresden uncovered the secrets of Saladin’s sword (or more accurately, its steel). Using powerful microscopes and x-rays the team discovered something truly astounding about a sample of wootz damascus that they were given access too. The secret of Saladin’s sword was the fact that it contained cemetite nanowires and carbon nanotube structures. “Chiraltube” by Taner Yildirim (The National Institute of Standards and Technology – NIST)
Until this discovery, scientists had believed that these carbon nanostructures, which allow for amazingly light and strong materials, were discovered in the 21st century. Note that carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber are not the same thing. Carbon nanotubes are much lighter and much stronger. That’s right, stronger and lighter (if your mind just got blown, so did mine when I read the scientific paper). As it turns out, swordmakers in the Middle East had discovered carbon nanostructures almost a thousand years before modern science. The incredible strength and weight properties of the carbon nanostructures in the Damascus steel gave it a razor sharp and incredibly hard edge, with a body made of tough, light steel. The blades could very easily have cut their European counterparts in half and not been critically damaged. The edges would have been much harder and the rest of the blades much more pliable and resistant to breaking. Damascus steel, like that found in Saladin’s sword, was a miracle material. All mythmaking aside, this is one miracle that took us another thousand years to rediscover.
Yes yes. They created structures within the steel that we did not discover until recently.
That does not mean they "discovered carbon nanostuctures" or any such thing. It only means that steel and carbon and heat treatment do that and that it was found to be good.
Carbon nanotubes are a follow on from the discovery of C60 molecules or Buckminsterfullerene, commonly known as "Bucky Balls", in 1985.
Bucky Balls can be found in the soot formed from a electric arc discharge between graphite electrodes.
Seems such structures have been with us for a long time and we had no way to know it.
Which is not to say the discoveries in the analysis of Saldin's sword is are not amazing.
@Heater
It is not all about the bashing and folding in layers. That is but one stage in the process. And as far as metallurgy is concerned, there is quite a bit more to determining the actual grain of steel and the overall structure of the blade. Japanese swords as a finished product are a laminate of two entirely different steels. I have no idea if that is true of a Damascus steel sword.
@Cavelamb
The discovery of carbon nanotubes in Saladin's sword (aka Damascus steel) is indeed interesting. It wouldn't surprise me at all that carbon nanowires might exist, but actual tubes seem to be interesting new information.
I still contend that loosing what you don't fully understand is not truly a lost technology as much as a lost art or craft. Do you contend that Saladin's sword makers were aware that they were making carbon nano-tubes and the knowledge was lost? I suspect that their production was incidental.
Metallurgy is still very open to new information and I have followed the progress of quasi-crystal structures for quite a few years now. Some of these are superconductors. Back when I studied General Chemistry, there was no such category as 'quasi-crystal' with there five-fold symmetry. But these do exist in nature and ersatz alloys.
Comments
More than slight. The real important part of the rocker bogie does not seem to be mentioned much. It is the connection between the left and right sides. Not sure what the technical term for the linkage is, differential sounds appropriate. With this "differential" system the rocker bogie is simple and elegant. I will hazard a guess and suggest the the "rocker" in rocker bogie actually refers to this connection between the two sides rather than the motion that the bogies make when going over a rock. Pure speculation on my part but it make sense.
But if one can include the whole expansion in digital computation, we could easily claim that NASA's efforts have led to the deciphering of the human genome.
And of course, there are the weather satellites that are actually able to much more about our environmental impact that we would ever know otherwise.
And then there are Google Maps that provide us with so much detail about geography than ever before.
And I'd have to say that none of that Krap.
============
On the other hand, teflon, velcro and Tang and other publicity exploits are typical of American advertisers just attaching themselves to anything that has good acceptance by the public.
These days, it seems that I can't turn around without Legos being included in all and everything in one form or another. At least it hasn't found a way to attach itself to NASA. One can only do so much with bricks.
==========
The rush to the moon, served its purposes.
A. To demilitarize a potential Russian claim of the entire moon for national purposes.
B. To demonstrate an equal level of sophistication of rocketry to the Russia.
C. To boost the US economy.
D. To boost national pride.
I am ambivalent when Americans want to revive NASA as a means to revive the USA.
We should be dealing with the realities at hand and not seeking a scheme to distract us from the real problems in the real world. We have developed a tremendous amount of new technology that is creating economic dislocations that may well be taking us away from prosperity and peace.
Why hasn't the disposal of nuclear waste moved forward in the past three or four decades with so many advances in technology? Why haven't we come to terms with environmental damage on a global scale?
We need something more 'down to earth' to replace NASA.
There are a few very serious problems facing all Earth beings. One is that our star is going to eventually kill us all. Our only hope is to either leave the planet or find a way to stop it from happening. Either way it is going to rely heavily upon technology and space travel. If we plan to survive for a long time then we need to keep progress moving in that direction.
Some people advocate regressing from technology. I can see there would be some advantages to that, but for the long term it's a bad idea for our survival. If Earthlings are going to survive, they need to leave the planet. Advanced technology is the only way that will happen.
I was once told that strain gauge load cells were developed for the rockets of the time. Obviously not necessarily NASA specific though.
Distance to market is absurd and having to import all your resources is astronomically expensive.
The mineralogy of the moon is mostly the stuff that makes good concrete. But the available water is limited.
Sure, it could be a shipyard for spaceships. But the material may have to come from afar. And then there is the question of where are these spaceships going and why?
I just don't think there is a nation on Earth that wants to bankrupt themselves on space exploration at this point in time. We could do better with terraforming Earth into a stable climate.
++++++++++++++
Others may claim that space is the future. But at what cost to Earth? I'll be dead and gone before space exploration benefits the people of Earth. We simply don't have to go into space. But we really have dire needs to address right here and now.
Our star is going to kill us? Not likely in my lifetime. We can spend a millenium developing a good plan.
"The unique rocker-bogie suspension that gives Sojourner its peculiar, insect-like look offers great stability and an enhanced ability to negotiate large rocks nearly as high as the rover itself. The JPL-patented suspension joins the three wheels on each side with only two swinging joints, and it connects the whole three-wheeled bogie to the chassis at a single point. The structure has no springs, and the freely rotating joints flex to conform to ground contours and climb obstacles. The rover combines independent drive and individual steering (Ackerman steering) for each wheel."
Loosely similar to a locomotive truck, but also quite different.
According to the same page, Mattel licensed the rocker bogie for a toy, and reproduced some or all of it. Maybe Erco would know.
http://ipp.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation55/techemer.htm
Correct. The experimental mining and processing should be in our lifetime but the rest is more likely in the hundreds of years off yet.
That sounds positive, but it is simply not the case.
Technology is lost all the time - examples abound in history.
For instance, Saladin's Sword.
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/11/edc-history-saladins-sword/
We finally have the technology to examine the steel and understand why it was so special.
But we so NOT know how to make it - and haven't for hundreds of years.
I'm desperately holding on to my drafting / printing technology, but it's so obsolete I've had trouble
maintaining the one lap-top and printer that it runs on... Windows 99 and an Epson FX100 printer.
The problem is the printer drivers that allow unlimited length very accurate CAD patterns to be printed
from my desktop - don't run on anything later. Modern printers "evolved" to handle photo-realistic
color, but at a cost of engineering type printing. And the copy shops can't get the scale right(!) so the
patterns are distorted and useless.
The Saturn V was designed for one job only - to take men to the moon.
It was the only (ONLY!) way it could be done - right down to the cryogenic fuels in the upper
stages. It worked. But the margins were scary thin.
It's probably the only way one could take that much mass to the moon today.
Developing new equipment - from scratch? With today's costs?
Ain't gonna happen - at least any time soon - or by the USA.
Basically down to heating and folding the metal over a few times, beating it into shape, and then hardening the edges by cooling them quickly whilst cooling the body more slowly. Which is done by laying clay down the centre to hold the heat and then dumping the thing into cold water where the edges harden by rapid cooling.
Helps to have a good steel with the right iron/carbon/whatever else ratios as well.
Not saying it's not a pretty cunning technique though.
Here's a few photos...
I also liked the pictures of the Little Joe and Mercury Redstone rockets. The Redstone was developed in the early 50's for ballistic missiles, and was based on the German V2 rocket from WW II. It used the same method of controlling the thrust angle with vanes. Gimbaled rocket mounts were up in later rockets. The Redstone was used in the first two manned Mercury missions, which were sub-orbital flights. It was replaced by the Atlas rocket for the remaining orbital Mercury missions.
We may have lost the technology build the Saturn V, but we haven't lost the technology to go to the Moon. Each of the Saturn V engines was hand-built. It evolved from trial-and-error tests until an engine was developed that could produce the required thrust without blowing up. Today's technology allows for engines to be designed on a computer and simulated. Also, today's engines have fewer parts, and are easier to mass-produce than the Saturn V engines. The Saturn V engine is an engineering marvel, but it was also very expensive to construct.
Why?
Good question.
Because history shows us that societies like people need a goal to work towards..that focus is what moves humanity forward.
I have been told repeatily by those in the know that Sputnik focused the United States like you would not believe.
And when that focus results, society sees leaps in the advancment of technology.
It's a shame we can't move ahead without having our feet to the fire but that seems to be the nature of our species..we need to be pushed to achieve greatness.
I can accept that on face value, but just any old goal or something realistic and worthy?
It sounds to me that you are really saying societies need an outside threat or a common enemy before they can settle on a goal. I hope not.
Before we get all excited about migration to other planets, it seems to me that some sort of global solidarity might be required. In fact, global solidarity might eliminate the need to migrate off planet.
And of course, if you are deeply concerned with the sun burning out, we will have to do far more than migrate to Mars. We will have to leave the solar system and find another one.
From my perspective, if is far better to adapt to the planet you are on than to spend one's life dreaming of getting to a better one.... especially if you don't have much time left and infinitely deep pockets. It might be fun to visit the moon just to look at earth. But I have already visited enough places that while being very interesting and exotic, make home just that much better.
All things considered, I rather migrate to Hawaii or New Zealand.
The photos from the moon are extremely spectacular. But have you even noticed that photos of vacation locations that are spectacular seem to buffer one from the harsh realities of being there? A tropical paradise can be extremely hot, glaring sun, high humidity, the touts that try to sell you sunglasses, and mosquitoes galore -- but the photo looks so good. I imagine the moon could be quite dusty once you are actually there.
The computer was born in World War II as well as microwaves and the jet engine. Sometimes engineers and scientists need a challenge to come up something truly revolutionary.
And I think others are missing the point.
The time line is so far into the future that is is may be longer than the history of civilization. And the resources required are beyond the scope of the G20 nations.... far beyond if they really were willing to climb on board.
If you additionally consider that the whole exploration agenda is a modern form of manifest destiny that has arisen in a cult fiction genre enjoyed by a mere fraction of the world's population, how can you expect India and China to endorse such a project?
China doesn't desire 'a piece of the action' of Western nations. It desires its own ascendancy of the world stage with a strong current focus of expansion into the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. Russia seems to have its own agenda to revive its ambitions for projecting global power, and recently canceled supplying rockets for the international space station. Meanwhile the Arab nations are in great turmoil as they seek to redefine their role in the modern world.
Considering how fragmented the world's nations and world's cultures are, about the only reason for technological development is to deter warfare and greater world turmoil. Any yet, even putting a base on the moon can be construed as positioning a missile base for world domination.
And so, I just feel the real agenda for the next 25 years is here on earth, not in roaming the stars.
I'd just love to see the USA actually demonstrate a feasible nuclear waste management system for spent nuclear fuel. As it now stands, the 'fuel that is supposed to provide energy for a millennium' is just backing up in the storage ponds at each and every reactor with a useful life of about 40 years. Every nuclear reactor in the USA is a defacto nuclear waste dump. The USA has a 'technology for peace' credibility problem. Nuclear energy was suppose ot provide prosperity and abundant energy, but it has created nuclear material for about 7000 warheads and power plants that have failed drastically. Much of our space program has converted to 'spy in the sky' and 'internet surveillance'. The USA is still the leading producer of weapons on earth.
If you can't take out the trash, why accumulate more?
Science fiction has painted a glorious future with a very broad brush. But we really need to focus on management of Spaceship Earth.. first and foremost.
If all the permanent members of the UN Security Council cannot work together for space exploration while assuring world peace, the time is not right. These members represent the bulk of weapon making capacity for the world.
"If you can't take out the trash, why accumulate more?"
Well said.
As the nations of the world spend trillions on arms, their basic infrastructure decays to where bridges fall down.
But I still feel there is a need for goals...challenges...that are not easily met.
Set the bar high so the human species will have to reach for the stars.
Very well said in this speech...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,..."
The knowledge and experience gained can be used for good or evil...that too is up to society.
One thing I personally have learned from the focus on space is how incredibly specialand unique this planet we live on is. It has shaped how I interact with the environment and how I expect society to deal with environmental issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
It was a fascinating and informative article, Heater.
No, it's not the same technique as the Japanese.
Think carbon nano-tubes (not fiber).
From what little I learned of metallurgy in school it's clear that you can get a very different micro-structure in your product depending on the exact proportions of iron, carbon and other elements you are working with.
Not only that but the resulting structure depends on how the object is heated and cooled.
It depends on the mechanical treatment you give it, crank shafts are drop-forged instead of cast for a reason.
And of course the micro-structure can vary though out the different parts of the piece.
I'm sure Salad's sword makers and the Samurai had experimented with this a lot and found good solutions but I very much doubt that had much of an idea of crystal structures, nano-tubes etc. They just happened to have different materials and different processes giving rise to what we see in their products today. Hence my statement.
First, there is a high carbon steel that is created in a special furnace.
Second, there is the tedious folding and refolding to blend the steel
Third, there is a laminate process where a mild steel is added as backbone to the harder carbon steel that provides the edge. This provides the characteristic curvature and the tenacious strength to the blade in combat.
I am not sure Salidin's sword is truly a lost technology. But metallurgy is certainly still an evolving knowledge base. It has only been in recent decades that chemist, metallurgist, and crystallographer have begun to recognize the existence of pentagonal quasi-crystal structures.
Still, I wonder if someone that has no underlying knowledge of why they produce a specific metallurgical product can really qualify as a technology. It seem more of an art or craft. The Hindu and Chinese certainly have a lot that have been demonstrated in metals and ceramics, but no well understood as to why.
A lost art or lost craft seems to fit better than a lost technology.
I'm no sword maker and I'm sure Google can provide interested parties with more details.
From what I have read about Samurai swords you have missed out a couple of very important details.
The steel was bashed out into strips and folded over and bashed out again quite a few times. This results in hundreds or thousands of "layers" (two to the power of the number of times you fold it) within the structure and an aligns the crystal structures into planes. Seems this results in a finished product that is far less likely to crack and snap in half in use than just the original randomly oriented micro-structures. That is why we drop forge crank shafts instead of just casting them.
Then there is my favourite part, the heat treatment....
Turns out that if you heat the finished product up enough and then cool it rapidly ,by dunking it in cold water, you get a very hard material that can have a very sharp cutting edge ground onto it. However the whole thing is hard and brittle and may well snap shatter in use.
On the other hand if you arrange for it to cool down slowly you get a much tougher, shatter proof, product. But then you cannot get that fine cutting edge on it. No good for slicing and dicing ones enemies.
So here is the clever part: What you do is lay down a layer of clay along the central spine of the blade, keeping it away from the edges. On both sides. Now when you heat all that up and dunk it in water the edges cool very rapidly and become very hard, good for sharpening, but the body of the sword, under that layer of clay cools much more slowly and becomes very tough and bendy. Very good for not shattering in in conflict.
All in all, the chemistry of iron and carbon and a few other elements mixed up is quite amazing. Giving rise to all kinds of properties depending on exact chemical proportions and how you treat it. Even just "case hardening" our creations in metal shop at school was quite an eye opener.
Until this discovery, scientists had believed that these carbon nanostructures, which allow for amazingly light and strong materials, were discovered in the 21st century. Note that carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber are not the same thing. Carbon nanotubes are much lighter and much stronger. That’s right, stronger and lighter (if your mind just got blown, so did mine when I read the scientific paper). As it turns out, swordmakers in the Middle East had discovered carbon nanostructures almost a thousand years before modern science. The incredible strength and weight properties of the carbon nanostructures in the Damascus steel gave it a razor sharp and incredibly hard edge, with a body made of tough, light steel. The blades could very easily have cut their European counterparts in half and not been critically damaged. The edges would have been much harder and the rest of the blades much more pliable and resistant to breaking. Damascus steel, like that found in Saladin’s sword, was a miracle material. All mythmaking aside, this is one miracle that took us another thousand years to rediscover.
(full story at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/11/edc-history-saladins-sword/ )
That does not mean they "discovered carbon nanostuctures" or any such thing. It only means that steel and carbon and heat treatment do that and that it was found to be good.
Carbon nanotubes are a follow on from the discovery of C60 molecules or Buckminsterfullerene, commonly known as "Bucky Balls", in 1985.
Bucky Balls can be found in the soot formed from a electric arc discharge between graphite electrodes.
Seems such structures have been with us for a long time and we had no way to know it.
Which is not to say the discoveries in the analysis of Saldin's sword is are not amazing.
It is not all about the bashing and folding in layers. That is but one stage in the process. And as far as metallurgy is concerned, there is quite a bit more to determining the actual grain of steel and the overall structure of the blade. Japanese swords as a finished product are a laminate of two entirely different steels. I have no idea if that is true of a Damascus steel sword.
@Cavelamb
The discovery of carbon nanotubes in Saladin's sword (aka Damascus steel) is indeed interesting. It wouldn't surprise me at all that carbon nanowires might exist, but actual tubes seem to be interesting new information.
I still contend that loosing what you don't fully understand is not truly a lost technology as much as a lost art or craft. Do you contend that Saladin's sword makers were aware that they were making carbon nano-tubes and the knowledge was lost? I suspect that their production was incidental.
Metallurgy is still very open to new information and I have followed the progress of quasi-crystal structures for quite a few years now. Some of these are superconductors. Back when I studied General Chemistry, there was no such category as 'quasi-crystal' with there five-fold symmetry. But these do exist in nature and ersatz alloys.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1859&page=233