Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Please think about tools for less or zero gravity - space

Please think about tools for less or zero gravity - space

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:21 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 37 posts ] 
Please think about tools for less or zero gravity - space 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:18 am
Hello, spacecowboy,

what does "I got you beat" mean? I suppose to have problems to understand a special english term here. It sounds as if we were competing for something which I didn't have in mind.

Regarding your link: Thank You Very Much for it - I remember the title of a NIAC-study including the term Taylor-force field but I didn't know yet that this term has to do with what the german article reported. This majorly has to do with Technical English it seems. So you closed a gap of identification.



Thank You Very Much again,

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:49 pm
Us Americans like to turn pretty much anything into a competition -- for example, one guy from down the hall (yes, I live in a dorm -- hoping to get either a suite or an apartment next year, but for one more semester yet, I live in a dorm). Anyway, as I was saying, one guy from down the hall and I were having a competition about who had the best music on their computer. I pulled out a dance remix of "The Scotsman's Kilt" and won by a nose (somehow he wasn't fazed by the theme from DS9).

So yeah, you're right. We're screwy.

Oh, and I have no clue what a Taylor forcefield is. I'll remember to find that out, though, when I see him (which will be sometime in the next couple weeks).

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:40 pm
haha -- I just looked that that link I posted again, and I believe we have another piece of information lost in the translation: it's not a Taylor Force Field, it's a Tailored Force Field. That solves your problem, I believe.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Posts: 72
Location: The Land of Hurricane Charley
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:18 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
Us Americans like to turn pretty much anything into a competition


Not all of us.

_________________
"Floating down the sound resounds around the icy waters underground.."


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:08 pm
Bah. I do it for entertainment purposes only.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:03 am
In between the tailored-force-fields-idea obviously has been menitioned in an article about STAIF including an illustration - "Research Warps into Hyperdrive" ( www.space.com/businesstechnology/060308 ... drive.html ).



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:45 pm
Besides the Tailored-Frce-Fileds-concept which I already start to read more about - what about using Mechatronics also?

May be they have been mentioned already - I am speaking about them because there is an article in Witschaftswoche is repprting about hardware which will be shown at the Hannover Messe at he end of April.

The german company Festo has developed a Mechatronics-grabber which servo-pneumatic. It is called HGPPI.. It can move its fingers independently of each other and thus dose its strength very precisely. And the DLR together with the FraunhoferSociety have developed and built a "Leichtbau"-robot - "Leichtbau" I suppose to mean light weight here - which is five times more capable and efficient that former models. It can hover objects weighing up to half of its own weight. Only five cables are required for external connection.. Its hand reacts to counterpressure and can take raw eggs without hurting are damaging them.

Most interesting regarding that DLR/Fraunhofer-robot - it has been designed and developed for application in space!



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:50 am
There recently was the article "Mini-Satellite to Test Big Concepts Aboard Space Station" ( www.space.com/businesstechnology/060503 ... s_iss.html ) I quoted in Sean Girling's thread about clumpibg satellites together.

The article includes the follwoing issue:
Quote:
The rudimentary docking tests on tap for the SPHERES project could help develop larger, more sophisticated systems to refuel satellites, coordinate positions among formation-flying space telescopes and enhance future spacecraft rendezvous systems, How told SPACE.com.


So these satellites may be something simplifying and further enabling assembly of stations, vehicles etc. in space.

What tools should they be equipped by?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:13 am
How about nanobots that connect to each other at different points and angles, then lock in position. From a fluid or solid resting state, they could self assemble into any required tool in seconds.

Now if I could just get them to glow red or blue, I could build myself a light-sabre. :lol:


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:51 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Canadia
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:43 pm
Stefan Sigwarth wrote:
I think the concept of a hammer won't work very well in zero-g environment, and i think it won't be needed as much as a screwdriver. NASA allready has an electric screwdriver i think, so i think the concept wont be much different from theirs.


We can easily conjecture space suits that don't impede movement and visibility, spacestation components that require either no human intervention or greatly simplified and probably remote manipulation, but what happens if an emergency happens and everything fails and you need someone to go out there and (by hand) flatten a piece of metal? or cut a piece of hard plastic? Yeah, earth hammers won't work well in space, but it would still be a great idea if someone came up with a way to do the work of a hammer in zero-G.

For example, a hammer works well because of a long moment arm attached to a fixed axis of rotation (your shoulder, typically). The effect of leverage of the moment arm increases work, and the fixed length of the arm coupled with a fixed axis of rotation means that trajectory can be easily calculated and counted on (repeated hammerings will multiply the effect of the tool). A spring-loaded trebuchet attached to the side of a space station could ostensibly work like a hammer. As long as you suction cup the tool to the working surface (and add a safety line to contain any possible motion after impact) - then stay back - you've got a pretty effective device for smacking things either into place or into a flattened topography.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:53 pm
Smacking things into place is a method generally frowned upon in American aerospace engineering circles.... Although I hear it's considered much more useful to the Russians. :wink:

In any case, there's very little reason to be smacking things into place, anyway. That's what propellant thrusters are made for. Oh, and thomaskr, you need to consider your advice in terms of Newtonian Mechanics. Think about it for a moment.

And welcome to the boards, thomaskr! Glad to have you.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:51 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Canadia
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Well, at least it could be used to launch projectiles... I think a similar device is/was being used to launch a golf ball from the ISS this year


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:00 am
Either way, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Chuck stuff into higher orbit, and you'll push yourself into a lower orbit. Unfortunate, but true. The way rotating tethers are supposed to work (on the off chance you're wondering) is that they use an electric current and the Earth's own magnetic field to push themselves back up into a higher orbit. Of course, once the Energizer bunny stops going, so does the tether. But that's a different problem entirely.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:02 am
spacecowboy wrote:
Smacking things into place is a method generally frowned upon in American aerospace engineering circles.... Although I hear it's considered much more useful to the Russians. :wink:

Maybe that's why the Russians have an operational, manned launch system, while the Americans don't? :lol:

AFAIK hammers work in space, as long as you have something to hold onto & brace against during the back and fore swing.

One of the biggest problems during an EVA is the gloves. Try doing up your shoe laces while wearing a pair of thick gardening gloves. Eventually, I think we will see mechanical hands outside the suit, exactly matching the movements of the astronauts hands inside the suit, with force feedback.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:51 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Canadia
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:31 pm
Well, you could extrapolate further and envision a future when space walks will be conducted solely thru mechanical proxy (most likely exactly what will happen). But what's the fun in that? :wink:

My take on the original question was to find space-usable versions of simple tools that would not require any electronics, batteries or computers! For example: how much of the ISS is held together with duct tape? (again I wink)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: SANEAlex and 25 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use