Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by TomOfTTB on Saturday January 10, 2009 @04:46PM (#428387)

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) 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by rms on Saturday January 10, 2009 @05:47PM (#428469)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by eru on Saturday January 10, 2009 @05:51PM (#428474)

Either by using that money to lowering taxes or finance NASA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by TomOfTTB on Saturday January 10, 2009 @06:42PM (#428541)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by ivankirigin on Saturday January 10, 2009 @06:26PM (#428522)

Giving billions from one government agency to another doesn't sound like it would create real innovation to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Saturday January 10, 2009 @06:29PM (#428526)

Is innovation needed, in order to colonize Earth orbit?

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by ivankirigin on Saturday January 10, 2009 @11:53PM (#428803)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gaius on Sunday January 11, 2009 @12:58PM (#429342)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Sunday January 11, 2009 @01:37PM (#429382)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gaius on Sunday January 11, 2009 @01:41PM (#429384)

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 ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:02PM (#429408)

If you are talking about single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) submarines, I should tell you that the Sea Dragon is kind of like that. It is 75 feet in diameter, and produced in an ordinary maritime shipyard out of steel. This is larger in diameter than any submarine ever made. The Russian Typhoon submarine class is 75 feet wide, but it is not round (it is shorter high than it is wide; flat top). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine

A major difference between the Sea Dragon and an SSTO submarine would be the fact that a Sea Dragon is a staged vehicle. Only part of it would make it to orbit. It does launch from the sea, by the way. It could potentially be scaled up to whatever your preferable size is. Is there a particular reason why you would want a big metal submarine in orbit?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Sunday January 11, 2009 @01:47PM (#429391)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gaius on Sunday January 11, 2009 @04:49PM (#429653)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:15PM (#429708)

to do anything useful in space we've got to get stuff there, i.e. heavy industrial machinery for mining

That is what the Sea Dragon is for. The payload capacity is 1.2 million pounds, and can be expanded with minor modifications.

It's only expensive and difficult now because we don't have anything with enough energy density to do it.

We have kerosene and liquid oxygen. Chilled propane works, too. Are you thinking that these fuels and oxidizers are somehow not adequate? If so, in what way?

If you can make a powered re-entry you don't even need to bother with the Shuttle's elaborate heat shielding

The Shuttle requires elaborate heat shielding for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that it does not make powered re-entries. The Russian Soyuz capsule re-enters with a basic heatshield and lands on the Kazakh steppes. It's cheap. It's reliable.

Powered re-entries to Earth are not feasible and not desirable. They would be outrageously expensive and probably unreliable (read: dangerous).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gaius on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:53PM (#429767)

Powered re-entries to Earth are not feasible and not desirable

If you've just mined a million tons of iron from an asteroid, I think you would want to bring it back in a controlled fashion!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I thought we'd all be living in space by now by gravitycop on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:58PM (#429776)

Do you consider the Apollo or Soyuz re-entries to be too uncontrolled?

[ Parent | on HN ]