Rusting in space Knapp (01 Jan 2016 23:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Kelly St. Clair (01 Jan 2016 23:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (01 Jan 2016 23:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 00:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 04:32 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 04:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 05:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 09:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 09:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 11:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 22:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (03 Jan 2016 01:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 11:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 22:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Knapp (02 Jan 2016 09:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Neil Mahoney (02 Jan 2016 09:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 09:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Neil Mahoney (02 Jan 2016 10:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 22:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Neil Mahoney (02 Jan 2016 22:41 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (03 Jan 2016 01:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Bruce Johnson (03 Jan 2016 20:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (03 Jan 2016 21:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Bill Rutherford (02 Jan 2016 16:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Bruce Johnson (02 Jan 2016 23:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Bill Rutherford (02 Jan 2016 01:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Richard Aiken (02 Jan 2016 02:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Tim (02 Jan 2016 03:08 UTC)
RE: [TML] Rusting in space Antony Farrell (02 Jan 2016 04:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Greg Chalik (02 Jan 2016 04:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Rusting in space Tim (02 Jan 2016 02:43 UTC)

Re: [TML] Rusting in space Bruce Johnson 03 Jan 2016 20:58 UTC

> On Jan 2, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Neil, the problem is affordability.

A problem that’s rapidly being conquered. The materials needed to make these kinds of things are cheap and abundant; it’s the process that needs to be worked out.

See: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-create-exceptionally-strong-and-lightweight-new-metal for a comparable item.

> On 03/01/2016 9:42 AM, "Neil Mahoney" <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> In sure there are advanced material solutions that are just coming into development. Or not even thought of yet.
> For example lightweight ceramic composites with carbon nanotube inserts to act as a form of cathodic protection is theoretically possible.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs