Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Glass In Spaaaaace

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the microgravity-for-macrogains dept.

Space 292

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

*Crash!* (3, Informative)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859822)

And best of all... In space, no one can hear you break the glass.

*Crash!*Poot!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859925)

"And best of all... In space, no one can hear you break the glass."

Or wind.

That might not be possible. (1, Insightful)

IcEMaN252 (579647) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859973)

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:That might not be possible. (1)

Ass Feces (892481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860073)

Its a joke. Get over it and don't take it so seriously.

Re:That might not be possible. (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860131)

non-standard.. hmm...

Transparent Aluminium?

Re:That might not be possible. (4, Interesting)

vandemar (82106) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860219)

Indeed--

Also intriguing to space researchers is fluoride glass. A blend of zirconium, barium, lanthanum, sodium and aluminum, this type of glass (also known as "ZBLAN") is a hundred times more transparent than silica-based glass. It would be exceptional for fiber optics.

A fluoride fiber would be so transparent, says Day, that light shone into one end, say, in New York City, could be seen at the other end as far away as Paris. With silicon glass fibers, the light signal degrades along the way.

Re:That might not be possible. (1)

KaptNKrunchy (876661) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860223)

If you RTF summary you would see that they are controling it with sound waves, which means its not in a vacum, so your gonna hear it break.

Re:*Crash!* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860095)

Glass? Who gives a fuck about glass?

Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859829)

Meh. Microgravity rocks.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859977)

Meh, next to boxen, is the worst English word in the world. Congratulations.

Re:Meh. (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860141)

Actually, cromulent is the worst English word in the world. Ironically however, the word cromulent itself is, in addition to the words meh and boxen, perfectly cromulent.

high-definition window (1)

Ravatar (891374) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859835)

This reminds me of that commerical for Windex, where the term "High Definition Window" was used... How much per square foot?

Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day (5, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859836)

The only reason he wants to create glass in space is to one day fashion a giant magnifying glass in space. After calibrating it on ants, he plans to bring the world to its knees.

Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859956)

"how to make a glass of yourself"

RE: Your sig (OT) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859967)

Something in the Bible predicted something else in the Bible? That doesn't make the Bible true, it makes it internally consistent (but I have doubts about that as well). I'm not surprised that your name is "CrazyJim" because you're just another insane Christian crank.

Re: Your sig (OT) (-1, Offtopic)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860011)

There are over a thousand predictions in the bible. All predictions come true 100%.

I should think so. I mean, they're all in the same book. What else could one expect?

Re: Your sig (OT) (-1, Offtopic)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860140)

*All* of them?

Wake me when lions & lambs start shacking up together and trees start clapping their hands.

Should make good TV....

Re: Your sig (OT) (-1, Offtopic)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860177)

Please mod this and the parent down, if the poster wants to find a reply, he'll know where to dig.

Please take religious discussions off the Slashdot board, and email me directly at James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com

I don't think its appropriate to talk OT on Slashdot. I'm more than willing to create an email correspondence for weeks or years about God if you want to, but not here. I'll do this for anybody, who knows, you may make a friend in the process.

And finally to answer your accusation, the bible isn't one book, its a collection of sixty six books, written by different people, but all guided by God.

Re: Your sig (OT) (-1, Offtopic)

scotch (102596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860221)

The why is called "the good book", smarty-pants. And if it's a collection of 60 independent books, I should be able to find all of those books independently, in a form that predates the thousands of years and editing, translation, transcription, politicizing, and anthologizing that produced the bible we have today. You know, like the one called "good news" you have on your bookshelf.

20/20 SpyVision. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860000)

You get a funny, but I see the intelligence agencies using this to build better spy satellites.

Re:20/20 SpyVision. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860090)

Or better telescopes. It would be really cool to be able to build huge telescopes directly in space.

Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day (0, Offtopic)

fmobus (831767) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860125)

What? No shark-mounted lasers? This is just not right.

ok... (1, Funny)

UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859841)

But can molten glass in space sort bolts.

Re:ok... (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859877)

A hot meteorite smashing into the ISS would definitely rearrange the bolts in contains I would think.

glass in spaaaaaace? (1, Funny)

bobinabottle (819829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859844)

I'd be much more interested in new discoveries of delivering televised footage of muppet pigs exploring the universe.

purity (4, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859845)

Several SF authors have predicted that electronics manufacturing would eventually move to space because it'd be easier to produce purer semiconductor crystals in microgravity. Maybe the time has come?

Re:purity (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859865)

Not using this technique. TFA says the reason glass is so much more pure in microgravity is because it is RESISTANT to crystallization under such conditions.

Re:purity (4, Insightful)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860214)

"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:purity (3, Funny)

joeybagadonuts (849172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859913)

Yea, but the shipping costs are just crazy!

Re:purity (1)

KingPunk (800195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859941)

i cant remember where i saw it, or even if its entirely accurate,
but didn't nasa once say that payload price is only like 850$/pound or something like that?

Re:purity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860023)

not really: open airlock, kick package out. repeat. ;)

Re:purity (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860156)

Yup. If we bought pentiums made in space each one would cost $20,000.

Re:purity (1)

onepoint (301486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859923)

In reading the link, it would seem that crystal structures might be more difficult to create. Why? I really don't know, but it might be due to gravity.

onepoint

what a cliche (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860096)

Several SF authors have predicted that electronics manufacturing would eventually move to space because it'd be easier to produce purer semiconductor crystals in microgravity

Siiiigh. I'm going to guess that's because SF authors heard about scientific theories/research.

Scifi authors are just people who are good at making semi-plausible science to help an otherwise boring plot along. It's like curry...the meat's pretty lackluster, so there's a strong sauce. Few of them actually envisioned stuff that wasn't already thought of by lots of other people, or at least obvious if you sat down and thought about it for a bit. For example, 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!)

Re:purity (0, Flamebait)

oddsends (867975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860106)

Cost. Even newegg wouldn't sell those.

Build a better BONG (3, Funny)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859850)

I wonder how long it will take humans to use this technology to build a better bong. Think about it -- bongs made in space...

Re:Build a better BONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859910)

aka: GRAVITY bong?

Re:Build a better BONG (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859911)

Dude, I was just thinking about how much I would pay for something like that... Then I got to thinking, about thinking, about thinking, about thinking about this glass... and then I got like real confused and decided to use a pipe instead.

Nachos anyone?

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

TexVex (669445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859947)

How would one go about making a bong that could operate in freefall?

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

mrhandstand (233183) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859970)

spin arroung with the bottom out while you use it...centripedal force will keep the liquid on the far end of the tube....course...spining aroung whilst getting a binger....not so easy.

Re:Build a better BONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859975)

turn the bowl parallel to the diredtion of motion, keeping the cherry facing an object which you happen to be gravitating towards...

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860050)

Any sort of non-liquid bong should work fine in freefall. Now... a water bong in freefall, that'd be an interesting project.

mod parent up please (1)

Roland Piguepaille (883190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860008)

why is this only at 4 this comment should be modded up to ten-hundred i mean think about it

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

jsweval (693114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860030)

Whoah, like, far out man!

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860032)

How...did...this...get...insightful?

Re:Build a better BONG (1)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860129)

I have never wished I had mod points more than I do now... bravo, drew, bravo.

What a relief! (5, Funny)

ScaryMonkey (886119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859859)

It's a good thing they figured out a way to make glass in space. Maybe now they come overcome the titanic production hurdles involved with producing glass here on Earth, and bring down its astronomic cost.

Re:What a relief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859921)

man oh man do i wish i had mod points.

But how do you get it back? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859926)

But how do you get the glass back from space? You gotta "drop" it down to earth to get it back, right! Of course I understand the real ability is to work with micro sized pieces we'd never be able to manapulate here. at that scale glass is nearly as strong as metal... espically flawless glass.

Re:What a relief! (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860062)

And to get it back to Earth, they can just produce non-glazed, defect-free items, which can then be sent down in microwaves...

Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (4, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859860)


This article is a perfect example of the sort of technological advances that will be possible when we establish a space habitat capable of sustaining industrial production. Microgravity is a condition that is almost impossible to replicate here at the bottom of the gravity well, and we are just beginning to realize the applications.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859929)

And it only costs $7000 a kilogram to bring that glass payload back down to earth! Sweet! Micro-gravity coke bottles for everyone!

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860082)

OK, I know it's a joke but I just love being a wet blanket. Obviously, the glass we make on earth is fine for coke bottles. It's also plain that this guy wants to make glass that will be unique from that made on earth in the hope that it's special properties will have special applications.

How about "Transparent Aluminum"?

In Earth-orbit, it turns out, these molten liquids don't crystallize as easily as they do on Earth. It's easier for glass to form. So not only can you make glass that's less contaminated, you can also form it from a wider variety of melts. But why is that important? What's wrong with glass made of silica?
...
Another example: Glass made of metal can be remarkably strong and corrosion-resistant. And you don't need to machine it into the precise, intricate shapes needed, say, for a motor. You can just mold or cast it.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860108)

You know though, this could be used to create finer lenses for lithography back on earth.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (3, Interesting)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859942)

Although this article [bobpark.org] is a couple of years old, the scientific community is not necessarily convinced of microgravity's promise.

This is one result that may or may not scale to industrial production.

I'm not closed minded, but I am skeptical.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860039)

I'm not closed minded, but I am skeptical.
Yes you are. You are a bigot. A closed-minded intolerate bigot.
Racist.
.
.
.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
.
.
Oh, yeah and for extra points ... Bu$Hilter Chimpy McHaliburten.
.
Yeah. that should do it.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860051)

Yes you are. You are a bigot. A closed-minded intolerate bigot.

The word you are reaching for is "intolerant".

But being a dumbass, you wouldn't know the difference.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

zilym (3470) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860184)

At Six Flags in California, they have a ride where you sit in a chair that they lift up high. Then they accelerate the chair down to the ground, simulating weigthlessness for a brief period of time.

If research shows some kind of advantage of producing new types of glass under zero g, couldn't companies invest in some kind of apparatus like this and invent a process to produce their zero-g glasses on Earth?

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859963)

This makes me think of space elevators. It almost seems like the ribbon will need to be manufactured in space, to ensure a smooth, high quality malarial. Then it could be lowered to it's destination in the Pacific.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

SillySilly (843107) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859965)

This is poor science, and very expensive at that. "Applications" are less science more more engineering or product development -- let the companies that see a profit in these products invest the enormous sums needed. If you want science, there are significantly better ways of spending money on research that will produce significantly more discoveries in a shorter amount of time.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860080)

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! (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860167)

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:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

lightningrod220 (705243) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860189)

It may not be worthwhile to NASA to keep doing this (especially if Congress butchers their budget), but if private companies find a good use for this, it would give them a good reason to ignite the private space race. More than just million-dollar prizes for making a flight....

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860194)

I would think that inflation will apply to rocket fuel as much as anything else. You can't pay today's prices tomorrow, so I don't see where the whole value of $7000 in 50 years thing is relevant.

Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers! (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860226)

Back when the IBM PC first came out, you could buy a top-of-the-line PC for about $2000. You still can, even with inflation, and you get a lot more for it. My point is that even if the cost is still $7000/Kg, the price will be much less in purchasing power.

Why this matters (3, Informative)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859861)

No, it's not to make purer martini glasses for snobs who demand only the very best. From the article:

"But why is that important? What's wrong with glass made of silica?

For windows silica is just fine. But glass made from other chemical compositions offers a panoply of unexpected properties. For example, there are "bioactive glasses" that can be used to repair human bones. These glasses eventually dissolve when their work is done. On the other hand, Day has developed glasses which are so insoluble in the body that they are being used to treat cancer by delivering high doses of radiation directly to a tumor site."

Cool beans!

Re:Why this matters (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860083)

Oh, great. That's just what I want: GLASS BONES.

Re:Why this matters (1)

TCM (130219) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860104)

Glass bones are perfect! They will eventually lead to super heros [imdb.com] !

Re:Why this matters (1)

mogwai7 (704419) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860229)

Are you sure? They did not seem to help Glass Joe [tearusapart.com] much. ;)

I see potential (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859866)

I can see this as being a new field of manufacturing in the not so distant future. Imagine zero-gravity precision made materials and parts for a variety of uses. We could make better lenses for microscopes and telescopes as an example.

If you're smart, you'll start a company to capitalize on this future market ;)

Re:I see potential (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859896)

I can see this as being a new field of manufacturing in the not so distant future. Imagine zero-gravity precision made materials and parts for a variety of uses. We could make better lenses for microscopes and telescopes as an example.

If you're smart, you'll start a company to capitalize on this future market ;)


Wow, I really hope NASA people read Slashdot. Imagine that, without you they'd still be melting shit at random in space to kill time.

Thanks Mr. Obvious...

Re:I see potential (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860042)

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.

Everything is made better... In Space (1)

doormat (63648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859882)

Glass, concrete, etc. Everything is made better in space.

Re:Everything is made better... In Space (2, Funny)

Lips (26363) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859959)

And when we get really advanced, Chromium usage will increase as well...

Sponge-Tron: Everything is chrome in the future!

I can see it now, orbital chrome plating factories!

Space-DRUMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859886)


Currently waiting for the Space Shuttle to begin flying again:

http://www.guigne.com/space/spacedrums.asp [guigne.com]

Purer carbon nanotubes too? (2, Interesting)

wheels4u (585446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859892)

Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too? Space elevator anyone?

Re:Purer carbon nanotubes too? (3, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859916)


Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too?

Short answer: yes.

Re:Purer carbon nanotubes too? (4, Funny)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860059)

Is it easier to purify carbon nanotubes in microgravity too?

Short answer: yes.


Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeees.

(Note: Length and pitch of the Long Answer may be affected by answerer's velocity relative to yourself.)

Cost Effective (1)

fgl (792403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859893)

All that quality & no one to buy...
unless there are idle billionaires that will get the stuff for bragging rights.

Manufacturing in Space (2, Insightful)

Al Mutasim (831844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859894)

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?

Re:Manufacturing in Space (2, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859966)

What's really needed from space manufacturing is the tools to continue space exploration. For truely state of the art space stuff the drop-out rate of parts is near 50% that you have to make to get enough usable ones.. that number's gotta get way down. Not to mention were're starting to make the technology leap from cutting parts out of blocks of stuff to steering the building of the momlecules that make up stuff... there's not the facilities on earth to do that economicaly

Cost of Space Products (3, Interesting)

AtomicSnarl (549626) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860146)

One of the space products has been Microspheres [microspher...pheres.com] several magnitudes more precise than those made on earth. Other of the NASA Microgravity projects [nasa.gov] can lead directly to ultrapure chip development for use in, for example, pinhead size medical and scientific gas chromatographs [shu.ac.uk] and mass spectrometers.

Because the microgravity should allow for high chip yield and high quality, the remaining issue is cost of production.

Allowing for $10,000 per Kg (source [cato.org] ) for a mature launch/return system like the Saturn 5, Delta, or Titan series, a 100 Kg furnace containing 10 Kg of product would cost $1,000,000 to orbit. If the output is 0.01 gram chips at 95% yield, that gives you 950,000 chips. If you can sell them for a bit over $1.05 per chip, you're in the money. At only $5000/Kg [astrodigital.org] , you are way ahead!

The medical market alone for $5-10 one-shot broad spectrum biochemical testers would easily absorb the 10 million-plus that could be produced with monthly launches.

1. Insert sample into tester
2. Plug tester into USB/Firewire port
3. Read results from software support package
4. (Profit!)

Up-to-date (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859901)

April 14, 2003... Slashdot is really a frontrunner. Next they'll report that Bush won a second term in office...

Re:Up-to-date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859953)

What?!! I thought clinton had won it!

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860034)

Come on, seriously... editors, the least you can do is take five damn seconds to see if the story really satisfies the "new" part of "news." This is a very interesting story, but I'd like something a tad more up-to-date... for all I know, the year-old fiber optics in my neighborhood are already made using this "experimental" technology!

Re:Up-to-date (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860245)

"Next they'll report that Bush won a second term in office"

And after that, they'll report that Bush won a third term in office.

Serious topic (5, Insightful)

Quentusrex (866560) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859902)

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.

Did no one else see this? (2, Funny)

Tropaios (244000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859906)

April 14, 2003 -- In BOLD letters for Jesus "tap-dancing" Christ's sake.

How is this news? I realize the mentality of if I haven't seen it it's new to me, but come on.

Is there an update or something?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

Re:Did no one else see this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859920)

I kinda wish I had mod points at the moment. :p

You weren't the only one to notice it. But then, this is Slashdot. I've personally seen the same story posted 4 times in 2 weeks. It's a fairly safe bet that the admins don't communicate between each other, and that they usually don't read the article linked.

Re:Did no one else see this? (1)

kalayq (827594) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860038)

Pshhh....umm because its IN SPACE. Yeesh.

Container-less Glass (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12859943)

In microgravity...you don't need a container.

Right. Until there's an accident when someone is too busy playing with their velco stripe and a blob of molten glass goes into someone's eye on the other side of the station. If that happens over the state of California, Cal-OSHA will be all over the space station like Bill Clinton with an intern. They would have to shut down the space program until it was safe go back into space -- again.

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859951)

I wish I was space

That's neat, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12859991)

How do you get it back down without breaking it?

Like, no way! (1, Interesting)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860005)


"He did some glass-melting experiments, trying to pull thin fibers out of melts," recounts Day. "During the low-gravity portion of the plane's flight, when g was almost zero, the fibers came out with no trouble. But during the double-gravity portion of the plane's flight, the fiber that he was pulling totally crystallized."

Like, totally, dude.

I guess "that" generation finally made it to the real world.

-Adam

Who Knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860016)

"When most people think of glass, they think of that transparent stuff in window panes. But glass doesn't have to be transparent nor is it always found in windows."

Wow. So what the man claims is that glass can be used for other things besides windows?! And it can be opaque or translucent?!

*HEAD EXPLODES*

the glass was of even higher quality than theory (1)

guardiangod (880192) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860045)

Right

And tell me, genius, how would you secure a large batch of finish glasswares when you are dropping down the outer atmosphere at Mach18 velocity.

Last time I checked, the shuttle produces
quite a bit of vibration. How are you going to cushion it, boxes of Kleenix?

Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860158)

Rockets that launch satellites into space make a lot of vibration too and yet many a satellite with delicate equipment has been launched. Oh yeah, the Hubble's EXTREMELY delicate lenses and mirrors (not counting the original main mirror that was not right before the original launch) were transported in an violent explosion of combustible gases that I'm sure had to be 'smooth as silk' in order to keep them from breaking.
Transporting breakable items seems to be possible to me.

Cue the appropriately "spacy"... (1)

Optic7 (688717) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860071)

Philip Glass music, while we watch molten glass bubbles floating about poetically. :)

I for one, (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12860164)

welcome our new fragile - *CRASH!*

Uh, now that I think about it, a beowulf cluster would be much more appropriate.

For the dummies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12860222)

When most people think of glass, they think of that transparent stuff in window panes. But glass doesn't have to be transparent nor is it always found in windows.
Gee-whizz NASA thanks for that useful tip.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?