1/n. We were discussing this comic by @xkcd while examining simulated lunar regolith, today. It came from this great piece about research by physicist Dr. Karen Daniels on why SAND PHYSICS is so dang difficult. (THREAD) nytimes.com/2020/11/09/sci…
2/ Once long ago, I co-chaired a workshop called "NASA's Workshop on Granular Mechanics in Lunar & Martian Exploration." The other co-chairs included some of the world's leading experts in "sand physics". I casually told them, "Yeah, I think it will take 50 years to solve this."
3/ Bob Behringer (Duke University, a world-renowned expert in sand physics) laughed in my face and said, "MORE LIKE 200 YEARS!" That was 20 years ago. If I were correct that it would take 50 years, we should have solved 40% of sand physics by now. If Bob were right, then 10%.
4/ Without any doubt, we've solved nowhere near 40% of sand physics in the past 20 years. I'm not sure we even solved 10%. More like 3%. That doesn't mean we haven't made great progress. It's just that there is SO MUCH we do not know about sand. Sand is difficult! An example...
5/ When you stand on sand, your body's weight does not spread out uniformly through the sand. Instead, it spreads out like lightning bolts! Some sand grains carrying most of the weight and other grains carrying very little. Source: Karen Daniels et al. aip.scitation.org/na101/home/lit…
6/ Granular physicists call these heavy-load pathways the "force chains". Here's a video showing force chains as a ball falls into a granular material. Source:
7/ Understanding how force spreads in sand is one of the very first things we need to know to be able to predict how sand will move. This should be the easy part. The hard part should be how it responds to the force. But even this is HARD. (Image: physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.…)
8/ Brute-force computer modeling can calculate the exact force that arises where each sand grain touches another grain. This plot shows how many grain-to-grain contacts have each value of force. Lots of contacts have low force. Few have high force.(Source: researchgate.net/publication/32…
9/ Physicists realized this is similar to the way energy is distributed in the molecules of a gas. Here is a computer simulation of gas molecules. Some molecules go fast. Others go slow. The energy "spreads out" like the forces between sand grains. (Source:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tran…
10/ If you extract from the computer model the velocity of each molecule at one moment of time, the plot of velocities is like this (this is for different temperatures). Compare to the plot of forces in sand. It's similar in an intriguing way. (Source: ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/ful…)
11/ Gas molecules spread out their energy by colliding through time, and after a short amount of time they achieve that classic distribution (the Boltzmann distribution). But sand grains spread out their force over SPACE, not over time. And... (source: journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…)
12/ (here it is)...while there is only ONE time dimension, there are THREE space dimensions. While there is only ONE conservation of kinetic energy, there are THREE conservations of force. There is only ONE temperature, but there are THREE principle elements of the stress tensor.
13/ So the forces in a sand pile is equivalent to the energy in thermodynamics but WITH THREE TIME DIMENSIONS. To solve the equations, you literally have to expand physics to have three time dimensions. And that is just for static sand -- sand that isn't even moving.
14/ Here's a paper I wrote about this a few years ago. This treats the forces in sand like a gas but with three time dimensions. This accurately predicts the distributions of forces in the sand. journals.aps.org/pre/pdf/10.110…
15/ But I could only solve a special case, where the stresses are equal in each direction, and where the grains are perfectly round and frictionless and cohesionless. It gets far more complicated with realistic sand! Sand through a microscope: businessinsider.com/images-of-sand…
16/ And it is even worse for lunar soil grains because of their exotic shapes and very wide range of sizes. They have never been "geologically sorted" or rounded by tumbling in the wind and rivers and ocean waves. (Source: NASA)
17/ So today an engineer at @mastenspace, and a geologist, and a planetary physicist from @UCF were discussing how rocket exhaust blows lunar and how it is (still) impossible to solve the physics..THEREFORE we need to take direct measurements of how it behaves on the Moon.
18/18 NASA will do a press release on the newest results and I'm looking forward to sharing soon!
19/ I just realized the link to my paper is paywalled, so here is the open-access preprint version: arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Well, there they are! My logbooks containing years of research into how rocket exhaust blows soil.
2/ Remembering the strange things I looked into, so long ago... Analyzing the sandblasting on the Surveyor 3 landing strut, which was clipped off the Surveyor by Apollo 12 astronauts who visited its landing site 2.5 years later.
This is the one that went to a volcano for a field testing with a rocket thruster blowing volcanic ash. Poor notebook had a rough go of it!
I was in Home Depot and saw the Farmer’s Almanac in the checkout line so I snapped this. Almanacs since the 1600s have been publishing lists of planets. It is a fascinating window into culture’s evolving ideas about planets. Astronomy textbooks don’t tell the true story. 1/N
2/ For example, in this 2020 almanac, the list is almost identical those going back to 1800 with only a few changes. 1) It includes Pluto. 2) It avoids calling the objects “planets”. It lumps them together with the lunar nodes and calls them “Celestial Symbols”. I was surprised!
3/ In the early 1800s, the public had *only just* converted to heliocentrism. It took 200 years after Galileo to be convinced. So in 1800 the public’s idea of “planets” was still the “Old Geocentric 7” including the Sun as a planet. Here are lists from almanacs in 1803 & 1806.
Saw a gorgeous ant pile this morning. Because the soil particles were wet they had cohesion, and as the ants dropped them the normal distance from the hole they did not avalanche down the sides as usual. Instead, they built a vertical wall with an overhang. So fascinating!
Also noticed water droplets glistening on the large Elephant Ear leaves. Some leaves had droplets while others had none at all! I assume the older leaves lose their hydrophobic, waxy coatings so the water runs off, but that’s just a guess.
Also, check out the shape of the new Elephant Ear leaves as they are just beginning to unfurl. So interesting!
Three scenarios how industry may develop in space. "Civilization Fully Revolutionized" means offloading industrial footprint from Earth to save the planet, all humans benefit from developed economies (health care, etc..."Post Scarcity"), vastly greater horizons for science...1
2/...reaching to the stars. The Slow Growth Scenario means only government space agencies like NASA invest pre-economically in off-Earth industry, and we leave commercial businesses to slowly develop profitability and new business cases. Because space is hard, this is slow.
3/ The Rapid Bootstrapping Scenario means there are actors motivated to make it happen faster than the market forces will do. They may be visionary individuals with means, citizen-led movements, or governments that see the long-term benefit of getting beyond our planetary limit.
Except if it was a 6-Earth-mass hamburger, gravity would immediately pull it into a sphere, the heat would melt it, it would differentiate, the metals from the meat going to the center to form a very tiny core. The main elements would be oxygen, carbon, hydrogen & nitrogen.../1
2/...in that order. They would form carbon dioxide (30.1%), water (45.5%), and methane (31.7%). There would be 1% nitrogen. Like Pluto the nitrogen would be in the atmosphere and surface ice. Maybe nitrogen glaciers would glow, like on Pluto!
3/ This “hamburger” would be quite hot, since it collapsed into a sphere all at once. Doubtless it would have liquid water oceans in the mantle. It would likely have a methane atmosphere like a Titan, but thicker with higher pressure since this is a 5-Earth mass burger.
Some say, “This is the best idea for the future of humanity EVER!” Others say “This is colonialism that will destroy the Moon and enslave the poor!” IMO, both sides are seeing some real truth, and there’s a way that they fit together...(short thread) /1
First, there is no risk of companies strip mining the Moon and ruining it until closer to the year 2100, because there are no valuable resources on the Moon that you can sell on Earth. You can get everything on Earth a million times cheaper.
3/ Second, we don’t have the technology to mine the Moon large-scale. The tech development *alone* will likely take 30 to 40 years to make a large-scale lunar mining venture economically viable. The key will be reducing the need for humans to stand around repairing broken robots.