Developing New Materials With Space Science

Scientists at the European Space Agency are using techniques inspired by their experience with outer space to make new and better products here on Earth. Certain compounds and alloys which are not normally viable can be made in different ways once forces such as gravity are removed from the equation. From BBC News: "The near absence of gravity (microgravity) has a profound influence on the way molten metals come together to form intermetallics and 'standard' alloys. With no 'up' and 'down' in the space environment, a melt doesn't rise and sink as it would at the planet's surface and that means solidification can turn out very differently. 'Gravity induces a lot of segregation of the elements,' explains IMPRESS scientist Dr Guillaume Reinhart. 'For instance, tantalum and niobium are heavy atoms and in doing the solidification process on the ground, they will segregate in different places and produce a very heterogeneous material. If you do this in microgravity, you obtain a very homogenous material because you prevent separation; and you have a much more efficient material, mechanically.'"

Re:Why use space?

[MindStalker]

The time to heat, mold, cool a new metal could take hours, no practical way to setup an hour long freefall.

Incentive for Commercial Space Exploration

[cheesethegreat]

This is exactly what we need to jump-start serious commercial investment from companies like Dow Chemicals in space exploration. They'll never give more than token amounts to a project which is for the "betterment of mankind and improvement of human knowledge".

But...if they think that they can make products superior to their competitors (or even better, products which are unique) then you can bet they'll be very interested in setting up orbital refineries and finding economical ways of doing it.

This is the first really hopeful news about a continued human presence in space that I've heard in quite some time (Virgin's space gimmicks notwithstanding).

Re:Incentive for Commercial Space Exploration

[KGIII]

I think that, in the minds of your average person, the "conquest of space" was completed back in the late 1960's and now most view it as a drain on the budget and a waste of resources better used elsewhere. Unfortunately this mindset is also present in the c-levels that make such policy decisions.

*sighs* Yet another case of chicken and the egg... If a company were to successfully profit from space, development in space, or research then most companies, such as your aforementioned Dow, would be all over the idea and attempting to exploit anything and everything. Alas, no one has done it and it seems that such is likely to stay true for a while as getting into space is damned expensive.

Anyone care to justify that to the shareholders? Anyone think they'll have any luck making a case for it with the beancounters?

NASA used to talk about this

[Animats]

Back when the Shuttle was called the "National Space Transportation System" and NASA was claiming that launch costs would come down, NASA used to talk about materials processing in space. That was a long time ago.

The trouble with materials processing in space is that for small things, gravity is dominated by surface tension and other forces like Brownian motion. So biological processing in space never amounted to much. Some early Shuttle flights carried an electrophoresis apparatus designed for zero-G operation to make some kind of diabetes drug. But bioengineering went beyond that approach; today it's easier to engineer some bacterium to crank out whatever you need.

For big objects, there would be some advantages (and many disadvantages) to working in zero G. Handling molten metal in zero G safely would be tough. One molten droplet could puncture anything we currently send into space. With gravity and in air, molten droplets don't travel very far and cool. In space, they can go a long way. Steel mills use floors of dirt or refractory brick in molten metal areas; concrete will blow up when its water content boils. Welding in space [newscientist.com] has been tried, but on a very small scale, and very nervously.

Lift to orbit is far too expensive to justify flying heavy metal up there for casting and welding. This is one of those ideas that won't be feasible unless and until lift to orbit costs about what long distance air travel costs now.

Re:NASA used to talk about this

[soldeed]

I beg to disagree! The potential usefulness of novel vacuum cast alloys is incalculable. I just can't stand the attitude that we should not do a thing because of expense or difficulty. A REAL engineer rolls up his sleeves and figures it out! Who knows? Some material(s) yet to be invented, only possible to make in a vacuum may be the key to making a spacecraft efficient enough to bring down launch costs! Developing new technologies is always difficult and expensive, but you never learn how to do anything until you overcome the obstacles and DO it!!

Re:Why use space?

[dotancohen]

You speak like a physicist, not an engineer. In theory, you are correct. In reality, how will you launch the material, such that it travels at exactly 0 degrees from vertical, at the required velocity? Solving for v in m*h*g=0.5*m*v^2 I get 150 m/s launch velocity. At perfect vertical. On a payload that contains a manufacturing process, probably including a molten metal. More than a kilometer below ground level.