On Feb 6, 12:07=A0am, Martin Eastburn <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Just scattering material - every which way.
Right. So you don't build, you excavate. Do the foundation work
here, then send up the plumbing, electrical, and trim crews.
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/5/2013 9:23 AM, Father Haskell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast
> > dot net> wrote:
> >> <http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2>
>
> > Earth-orbiting lasers would be cheaper. =A0No losses due to scattering
> > by air.
Just scattering material - every which way.
Martin
On 2/5/2013 9:23 AM, Father Haskell wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast
> dot net> wrote:
>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2>
>
> Earth-orbiting lasers would be cheaper. No losses due to scattering
> by air.
>
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:07:11 -0600, Martin Eastburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --topposting corrected--
>
>>On 2/5/2013 9:23 AM, Father Haskell wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast
>>> dot net> wrote:
>>>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2>
>>>
>>> Earth-orbiting lasers would be cheaper. No losses due to scattering
>>> by air.
>>
>>Just scattering material - every which way.
>
> They'd likely be operated in a spun environment if in space.
>
> I wonder if the moon's light gravity would be sufficient, or if they'd
> have to slow things down considerably to allow 3D printer work on the
> surface.
Electrostatic attraction would probably take care of that problem: negative charge on the
substrate, positive charge on the particles...
On 2/4/2013 7:55 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2>
And, closer to home:
http://sketchupdate.blogspot.com/2013/01/stls-for-3d-printing-in-and-out-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OfficialGoogleSketchupBlog+%28Official+Google+SketchUp+Blog%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:07:11 -0600, Martin Eastburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
--topposting corrected--
>On 2/5/2013 9:23 AM, Father Haskell wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast
>> dot net> wrote:
>>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2>
>>
>> Earth-orbiting lasers would be cheaper. No losses due to scattering
>> by air.
>
>Just scattering material - every which way.
They'd likely be operated in a spun environment if in space.
I wonder if the moon's light gravity would be sufficient, or if they'd
have to slow things down considerably to allow 3D printer work on the
surface.
--
Newman's First Law:
It is useless to put on your brakes when you're upside down.
--Paul Newman