6 ms·
Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now
- TomOfTTB 18y agoIt’s sad because the Biosphere 2 is pretty close to this by all accounts. But the disastrous second mission (which had nothing to do with technical problems, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Second_mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Second_mission) really hurt the development of biosphere’s on earth which in turn hurt the cause as a whole. But the reality is this... 1. Biosphere 2’s first mission was an overall success, albeit with a few glitches 2. The International Space Station exists and is working relatively well proving we can put a self contained environment in Space virtually without problem Combine those and you see that the technology is really in our grasp.It’s simply been held back by a few unlucky events that have kept us from ironing out all the bugs. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we’ll have a 10,000 person colony in space any time soon. But I think an artificial environment off the International Space Station is possible and I wish more research was being done.
- rms 18y agoCut the US defense budget in half and we'd have 10,000 people on Mars in 20 years. It's an issue of priorities.
- eru 18y agoEither by using that money to lowering taxes or finance NASA.
- TomOfTTB 18y agoYour both probably right but priorities come from Public Sentiment more than anything else. So it's as much the fault of people not talking about it (which I'm guilty of) as it is the fault of anything else.
- ivankirigin 18y agoGiving billions from one government agency to another doesn't sound like it would create real innovation to me.
- gravitycop 18y agoIs innovation needed, in order to colonize Earth orbit? http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm
- ivankirigin 18y agoI don't believe governments have what it takes to make any good, big idea in space viable. We're biased towards believing that because of the space race, but I don't think it will ever happen again. So even if something isn't new tech, the innovation will be the group doing it. I'm really excited about the private efforts today.
- gaius 18y agoNuclear submarines proved we can do life-support in a hostile environment for extended periods of time, not just 3 people like a space station but dozens if not hundreds. The actual problem is a power/fuel source to move mass-produced and well-understood things into space in the first place. What kills the budget right now is that everything has to be custom made for space.
- gravitycop 18y agoThe actual problem is a power/fuel source to move mass-produced and well-understood things into space in the first place. What about this?: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099
- gaius 18y agoIf such a hypothetical power source existed, we could literally replace the propulsion systems of nuclear submarines and have an instant space fleet... Complete with torpedoes ;-)
- gravitycop 18y agoI guess I'm not following you. What problem is this hypothetical power source attempting to solve? Before, it sounded like you were talking about a need to launch cargo into orbit. Why are you using the term power source? By the way, high-thrust, and high Isp (rocket fuel efficiency = propellant speed), goals generally conflict with each other. To launch from Earth requires high thrust. To travel through space requires high Isp.
- gaius 18y agoBecause to do anything useful in space we've got to get stuff there, i.e. heavy industrial machinery for mining, and people to operate it, and a way to sustain them, and a way to get what they produce back to Earth. Getting in an out of a gravity well has to be routine. It's only expensive and difficult now because we don't have anything with enough energy density to do it. If you can make a powered re-entry you don't even need to bother with the Shuttle's elaborate heat shielding, you just take your time, match orbit with the Earth and come "straight down" in an hour or two. Power source, energy source, fuel, these terms are interchangeable.
- ryanwaggoner 18y agoThe reason that we're not isn't technical capability: it's a lack of demand. Why spend hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to put 10,000 people in space? Because we can? Not good enough...space exploration and colonization will only really pick up when we must do it to survive and/or there's a serious financial incentive.
- eru 18y agoOr when Nanotech will have made it cheap enough. (At least unmanned missions. Humen in space are mostly a PR gimmick anyway.)
- jraines 18y agoNot in the really long term -- what about when the sun dies? Think humanity will make it that long?
- jmtulloss 18y agoWell, there's nothing that can take us out now, and I don't see us allowing anything to evolve that can destroy us. So the two options are: 1. We do ourselves in 2. We get hit by a giant asteroid
- zacharypinter 18y ago3. Supervolcano
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- vaksel 18y agothe problem is that there is nothing to do in space. If there was some mining of asteroids or lets say trade with aliens...then sure space colonies would make sense. All we need is some gold rush for unobtanium, and there'll be 100,000 in space in 5 years
- gravitycop 18y agoIs there anything to do in Hawaii?
- vaksel 18y agoYou can vacation there for cheap...which is a resource + there were indigenous people there from the start. Space tourism could be an answer...but it needs to be a good bang for your buck. Right now you spend millions just to go up for a little time.
- gaius 18y agoYou mean like the tritium that's just lying there on the surface of the moon? As soon as we have working fusion reactors on Earth that'll make the Saudi oilfields look like pocket change.
- gravitycop 18y agoIt is Helium-3 that is on the moon. Tritium is Hydrogen-3 (and has a half-life of only 12.3 years, so it is unlikely that there is any on the moon).
- gaius 18y agoYou're completely right, my mistake.
- zandorg 18y agoIt's a shame SpaceX has so many employees. They're offering a 4x saving on a rocket trip, but I think it could be 10x by cutting out dead wood from mission control (eg, more automation) while it's still possible.
- randallsquared 18y agoIf they continue to be a private company, they can add automation as they scale up without adding so many employees, and achieve the same. Reducing (the percentage of) employees in favor of automation seems like something to do after launches are so routine that all the decisions have been made multiple times.
- zandorg 18y agoI agree, especially about the 'private' part. Going public (I think) tends to have value by having a lot of employees. Staying private won't affect the market cap if they lay people off. I'm not saying slash and burn, just that the lowest launch cost is made possible.
- randallsquared 18y agoHm. I actually was referring to not becoming bound too tightly to the government (that is, "public sector"), when I said "private". I do agree that not becoming a publicly-traded company may help them stay small and lean, but I'm not sure that's a major risk anytime soon anyway.
- debt 18y agoSpace is incredibly dangerous. We need to put computers in space not people.
- ericb 18y agoMeh. Air travel should be dangerous by all rights, but there is something north of 50,000 people in flight over the US at any given time.
- evgen 18y agoAir travel gets you to a place that you want to go to. Going into space just gets you a pretty view and not much else. To quote Gurtrude Stein: 'there's no there there"
- ericb 18y agoI think you underestimate weightlessness and the possibilities moving and floating in 3 dimensions brings. Space sports could be very different from sports today. What is the grand canyon other than a pretty view? With no gravity, aging in space is a different proposition. Insurance against nuclear and meteor catastrophe on earth is worthwhile, if only as a backup copy of civilization. Once people start living in space, cultures will fragment and evolve in ways they never have before. Colonies will have their own recipes, foods, traditions, etc. We bring the "there" with us, or create it "there."
- tokenadult 18y agoHow much is it costing to put people into space currently? Once people get there, what can they do that is worth the expense of sending them there?
- mmilenko 18y agoThis is the kind of fantasy bullshit NASA was peddling before they came up with global warming. Anybody cares to guess what will be current thirty years from now?