Glass In Spaaaaace

AnKsT wrote to mention an article on NASA's site about creating and manipulating glass in space. From the article: "In microgravity...you don't need a container. In Day's initial experiments, the melt--a molten droplet about 1/4 inch in diameter--was held in place inside a hot furnace simply by the pressure of sound waves emitted by an acoustic levitator. With that acoustic levitator, explains Day, 'we could melt and cool and melt and cool a molten droplet without letting it touch anything.' As Day had hoped, containerless processing produced a better glass. To his surprise, though, the glass was of even higher quality than theory had predicted."

Manufacturing in Space

[Al Mutasim]

It's interesting research, but the manufacturing-in-space argument is weak. This has been used as a justification for the expense of going to orbit with astronauts, and it never rings true to me. Floride glass fiber won't be manufactured more than 100 feet from the surface of the Earth in the forseeable future. Has any of the materials-properties-in-space research has lead to new commercial products?

Serious topic

[Quentusrex]

Only a few serious answers so far, but do you realize how important this kind of work could be? He has proven a concept. Now it is much more likely for a corperation to invest in space stations to build their products. I'm not saying it'll happen within the next year, but that is it closer. Now corperations will feel the investment is less risky with much more payoff. Can you imagine having your CPU made with the parts so much more pure then they are now? Engineers could build smaller chips because they wouldn't have to account for the impurities that naturally come in the materials.

That might not be possible.

[IcEMaN252]

If you RTFA, you'll see that they are working with non-stardard types of glass in addition to standard glass. I would imagine the metallic glasses wouldn't be quite to susceptible to breakage.

Re:I see potential

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is a government funded entity. the OP was talking about a purely commercial enterprise...

NASA people don't do stuff to kill time, nor are they specifically looking for a way to generate profit. Their interests are *gasp* scientific in nature and melting glass in space could very well be the result of mere curiousity.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers!

[techno-vampire]

Basic research tends to be expensive. Once we know how to make these glasses, it becomes an exercise in engeneering, and the price comes down. Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure. And if there's enough profit out there, the costs will come down as more and more ships are going up and back.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure.

Knock, knock! Econ 101 is calling.

Inflation will increase that $7000/kg just much as it will devalue the $7000. So, based on your hypothetical of it not getting any cheaper to bring stuff out of orbit, 50 years from now it is going to cost a heck of a lot more than $7000/kg.

Re:purity

[myowntrueself]

"because it is RESISTANT to crystallization under such conditions"

Heres a thought.

Will this sort of effect be important in hibernation and cryogenic storage of human beings?

Think about it like this, we develop a way to freeze people and thaw them out, test it for a few years here on Earth, deploy the system for space trials and find that the human body reacts quite differently to crystalisation under microgravity.

Re:what a cliche

[Planesdragon]

I've never been really impressed with Asimov's rules for robots. They're pretty plainly obvious, but nobody came up with them, because there wasn't any need (there still isn't!)

A: Re-read Asimov and replace "robot" with "artifical intelligence." Or, better yet, "android."

B: Asimov created his rules to tell stories about the rules, including how they were a bad idea. Not to mention that there should be 5, not 3.

1: An android must perform only those tasks which it has been designed to do.

2: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must obey the commands of its owner.

3: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not take any action, or refrain from taking any action, that results in harm to a person.

4: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not allow itself or any other object to come to harm.

5: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must obey the commands of all persons that are not its owner.

Brilliant!

[RyoShin]

While this may seem a bit odd, seeing as how they'd have to get that glass back to Earth without shattering it, they don't need to worry going back to Earth to make profits.

This is the perfect thing for moving spacestations and eventual moon colonization forward. The station and moon have to deal with micro-meteor showers, which don't bother us because the rocks burn up in the atmosphere. Better glass would be a great contribution to these places to put up with the showers without suffering the view- the first private places on the moon will likely be held by the ultra wealthy, and, by golly, they'll want a view! Astronauts would probably thing it's damn skippy, too.

Then, as most good inventions work, as the rich buy it, it eventually becomes cheaper and cheaper until Joe America can sit on his front porch with his friends on the moon and chuck empty beer cans at their super-glass dome without worry, just to watch them 'float' through the air.

Assuming they find an economical way to get the glass to Earth, this can be perfect for deep-sea scientific endevours- glass that will hold up to higher pressures would allow for long time monitoring of underwater ecosystems with less reliance on miniature subs and wetsuits. Perhaps we'll even get talking dolphins.

Re:what a cliche

[cagle_.25]

In the I, Robot stories, robots were most emphatically designed not to be weapons. Your rules would allow robot weaponry.

I'm not so sure that I, Robot portrays the rules as a "bad idea" but rather a source of inconsistency -- and therefore a source of great story material.

Offtopic Offtopicness Meta-Discussion

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

"I don't think its appropriate to talk OT on Slashdot."

a) At least half of the interesting discussions on Slashdot are offtopic.
b) I think that one should be prepared to participate in any discussions arising from content in one's own signature.

In general, it's in pretty bad taste to put something potentially inflammatory in your signature, because of the tendency to incite threadjackings. Religion and politics both usually fall into that category, regardless of where it falls on the spectrum.

-If

"Die Cast Construction it's a lost art."

[infonography]

"Die Cast Construction it's a lost art."
-Optimus Prime.

Some of you might not remember the Transformer's episode. However it's useful in regards to building in space. Using focused sunlight and magnets you could build space stations and space craft. It would solve the delema mentioned in another article about the aging shuttle fleet. Why carry stuff up, when we can use moon rocks to build it.

Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day

[Anonymous Coward]

"In fact, with enough tequila, the glass doesn't even need to be clean."

With enough tequila, it doesn't even need to be glass; an ordinary wall will do.