Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes.html

 

Thats what they are called " Respriocytes "

 

Abstract: Molecular manufacturing promises precise control of matter at the atomic and molecular level, allowing the construction of micron-scale machines comprised of nanometer-scale components. Medical nanomachines will be among the earliest applications. The artificial red blood cell or "respirocyte" proposed here is a bloodborne spherical 1-micron diamondoid 1000-atm pressure vessel with active pumping powered by endogenous serum glucose, able to deliver 236 times more oxygen to the tissues per unit volume than natural red cells and to manage carbonic acidity. An onboard nanocomputer and numerous chemical and pressure sensors enable complex device behaviors remotely reprogrammable by the physician via externally applied acoustic signals. Primary applications will include transfusable blood substitution; partial treatment for anemia, perinatal/neonatal and lung disorders; enhancement of cardiovascular/neurovascular procedures, tumor therapies and diagnostics; prevention of asphyxia; artificial breathing; and a variety of sports, veterinary, battlefield and other uses.

 

 

http://www.phleschbubble.com/album/respirocyte01.htm heres a movie of the little guys in action haha

 

 

more links here

http://www.rodalestore.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10002&storeId=10051&productId=15538&langId=-1

 

read that there, that book is also a brilliant one :)

 

http://nanotech2004.thenewatlantis.com/2004/10/nanomedicine.html

Posted

We could propose the development of any technology we wish. As example, I could propose the mass production of ruby shoes. Just click your heels together 3 times, and your on mars. Impossible? Consider this quote from Arthur C. Clark: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

 

Then again we could propose that the budget now allocated to defence and/or acts of conspicuous wastage will be transferred to this project. Frankly I have more faith in ruby slippers.

 

Perhaps the question should be "How would we colonise space with the minimum development of technology, and/or the minimum allocation of resources?"

Posted
Would it be feasible to colonize the moon?

 

Yes. With some hardship. As Tormod says, resources on the moon is in short supply.

Permafrost has been found at the poles in some concentration. To build an infrastructure

to process and/or transport reclaimed water from there will not happen at first. So most

supplies would come from Earth. It turns out that the moon would be a great source of

Aluminum. Once a base would be built the mining & geology could commence.

 

Myself, I would start building a base on the moon though maybe not at first.

 

The first thing I would consider independent of fuel type is build a larger space station, maybe

3 of them. I would build transport vehicles from Earth to orbit and back. I would start then

construction of vehicles to Mars. Though I would seek paths that either can have a travel

time of about 6 months or so (faster/lighter) that would be higher energy and need more

fuel or take the longer route of 11 months and beef up the shielding. These would likely be

about a 8-12 crew and be coed (less stress). Any ships going would be there about 1-2

years before return.

 

If a reliable ion propulsion can be made on a budget then farther out is available. Being

able to go to Mercury would be good source of many metals and so a mine would be

good to put there. The environment would be extremely hazardous being so close to the

sun.

 

Mining the asteroids is my dream (has been since I was a kid). Then there are the outer

moons: Ganeymede, Europa (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn). By 2050 if we kill ourselves by

sheer stupidity, no SF movie has done justice to what we could really accomplish.

 

Kewl, huh ! :hihi:

 

Maddog

Posted

I think we might be thinking about this the wrong way. We are thinking like scientists, we should be thinking like businessmen. If we were serious about colonizing space, we would need to make it lucrative in some way. Like aluminum on the moon, or space hotels, anything that could generate profit. Only once that happens will space be colonized.

Posted
Now Robots should be the first colonists, They should do some basic proceedures to setup some sort of structure on mars for the arrival of man, That I feel is the best possible way to make a succesful first mission to mars. Get the the Structures up before we arrive and machines so we can use them.

I think many proposals include this as well. I think it's a great idea to get the modules and equipment there and up and running before we're going there ourselves. If something fails on Mars while the colonists are on their way, they will know it will before they land, and could possibly fix it when they arrive.

Regarding nanotechnology it is no doubt very fascinating, but I'm not sure how far along we will be within a few centuries. It could hold promise though.

Posted
Myself, I would start building a base on the moon though maybe not at first.

 

The first thing I would consider independent of fuel type is build a larger space station, maybe

3 of them. I would build transport vehicles from Earth to orbit and back. I would start then

construction of vehicles to Mars.

A good idea to construct the groundwork, the infrastructure that will make the rest easier. I think that industries in orbit will be necessary.

 

Mining the asteroids is my dream (has been since I was a kid). Then there are the outer moons: Ganeymede, Europa (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn). By 2050 if we kill ourselves by sheer stupidity, no SF movie has done justice to what we could really accomplish.

This is in my list of what could be done to colonise the solar system as well. The asteroids should be mined automatically, and the raw materials could be sent to any industrial facility in the solar system, at least the inner solar system. Ganymede seems a good candidate for an outpost, but also Callisto.

 

I don't think we will kill ourselves, we've had the capacity for quite some time and we never used it... to that extent anyway. We could fall back into a dark age again though.

Posted
I think we might be thinking about this the wrong way. We are thinking like scientists, we should be thinking like businessmen. If we were serious about colonizing space, we would need to make it lucrative in some way. Like aluminum on the moon, or space hotels, anything that could generate profit. Only once that happens will space be colonized.

This has already begun. Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace are great examples!

Posted
Would it be possible to build a self-sufficient colony in space without being on a planet? That may be the first step, once they could provide for themselves well enough, they may be able to produce a surplus of goods that they could then send down to colonists on a planet.

 

 

Now you are talking. Something like the old DS9 show?

 

I really don't see why colonizing the moon first won't work. Isn't there enough Hydrogen and oxygen on the moon to sustain life? I know it has to be mined, but it is there isn't it?

Posted

Thanks for the welcome

 

My thought is that if we could get a foothold on the moon, then the electronic cannon could be built to launch material and personnel to other places in the solar system.

 

I read a story once years ago about a moon mining operation where they sent the proceeds of the mine back to Earth with an electronic cannon. It sounded logical at the time.

Posted

Yes and that's why it could be a great place for mining operations that could then send the materials to large industrial facilities and spacedocks in L1 or something, where there are no real limits on how large structures, ships and probes one can build. Right now we're restricted to expensive and inefficient rockets with limited capabilities regarding to lift capacity and size.

Posted

OK, now about water. If there is hydrogen and oxygen on the moon, is it much of a trick to combine those elements to produce water?

 

It seems to me that when I was a kid in high school, the lab teacher burned a little hydrogen in a test tube and we wound up with a drop of water on the lip of the tube. He said that water was the byproduct of burning hydrogen because when oxygen combined with it to support combustion, it made water.

Posted
That's where the name 'hydrogen' comes from, it means 'water-generator'. But I don't think that combustion would be the most efficient way to create water.

 

Perhaps not, I don't know, but I would think that combustion would be needed to provide heat, electricity and power for vehicles.

 

Givin all that, and since oxygen and hydrogen are available on the Moon, doesn't it seem fesable that a self sustaining colony could be established there after the raising of food problems were solved?

 

Here we think we could create oxygen to breath (of course I suppose we would need to produce other gasses too), and hydrogen for fuel and can produce water from those two elements, all we need is a greenhouse. I don't even think that the greenhouse would have to be pressurized, at least to the point that the human quarters would be pressurized.

 

Hell, the more I think about it, I don't see why we haven't done it already. :hihi:

Posted

It's still not an easy task to do, and it's also about people who could make it happen but chose not to. I know that if I was rich enough I would do whatever I could to make a lunar outpost a reality.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...