4 ms·

It’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, s

It’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 ago
Cut 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 ago
  Either by using that money to lowering taxes or finance NASA.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    Your 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 ago
  Giving billions from one government agency to another doesn't sound like it would create real innovation to me.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Is 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 ago
      I 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 ago
Nuclear 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Because 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.

rms 18y ago

Cut 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 ago
Either by using that money to lowering taxes or finance NASA.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Your 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 ago
Giving billions from one government agency to another doesn't sound like it would create real innovation to me.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Is 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 ago
    I 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 ago

Nuclear 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 ago
The 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Because 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.