However, I dont think that this will actually happen. At least not by 2010. That is only 5 years away people.
The thing to keep in mind though is that Bigelow has been working on this already for several years. He already has full-scale structures built, tested, and currently sitting on the ground, and has already purchased launches for the smaller-scale prototypes.
It's a good question but I don't think there's a need for worry. There will always be a small minority of adventurous people willing to take the risks.
But what if others, such as Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn), wish to pass laws preventing others from taking those risks?
Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station?
According to this article, there have been some negotiations with the Chinese government. I believe the docking module is already being designed to fit with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.
From the article:
China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or other space-business endeavors.
A Chinese role in these ventures could challenge the U.S. government to focus more attention on space cooperation with China. This is especially so, since the U.S. State Dept. would have to rule on such commercial cooperation....
China Great Wall Industries managers recently visited Bigelow facilities in Nevada. They sounded out the company on the possible launch of Bigelow test or operational modules on Long March boosters or the in-orbit support of Nautilus by Shenzhou Chinese manned spacecraft.
The Chinese are also planning to develop their own small space station, which could theoretically provide orbital infrastructure for the docking of a Nautilus inflatable.
"We talked to the Chinese on a confidential basis, and they indicated they are thinking seriously of opening their program to space commercialization," said Robert T. Bigelow, president and founder of the company....
An entrepreneur who made his fortune as the founder of Budget Suites of America, along with other real estate deals, Bigelow is personally financing the module development, costing several tens of millions of dollars. He has not had detailed discussions with the Chinese, and has talked more with the Russians about potential Soyuz in-orbit and launch support. But he also said there's an "opportunity for America" in cooperating with the Chinese space program, and he disagrees with what he regards as the current negative U.S. policy toward such cooperation.
But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line.
I'm not sure I'm completely agree. The way I see it, there's going to be three different types of space endeavours in the future:
* Government-run: Pretty much mostly what we have now. Governments sending things up for science, prestige, and military purposes.
* Private for-profit (commercial): Right now this is mostly satellites, but should expand to things like space tourism, mining, orbital power satellites, shipment, manufacturing, space porn, etc.
* Private non-profit (altruism): This is the one which everyone seems to overlook, mostly because it really hasn't been done so far. These are done for prestige, to attract more donations, to assure a place in history, to advance mankind, to pad one's ego, etc.
This last one I think has a lot of potential. The best near-term examples is the Planetary Society's Cosmos I, which will launch the first solar sail spacecraft lin April of this year. It'll also be the first-ever space mission by a non-profit group (I think).
Another example I often cite is Elon Musk, who had a "Mars Oasis" project for launching an experimental greenhouse on the surface of Mars. There wouldn't be any direct payback from this -- just an entry in the history books and the knowledge that he'd advanced mankind. However he put this on hold when he did a thorough analysis and found that launch costs would be the dominant part of the price tag. Instead, he's invested his efforts in SpaceX; hopefully once he gets launch costs down he'll return to the Mars Oasis project.
Controlled nuclear fusion within a containment vessel has been possible for some time, but it remains quite difficult to make into a practical generation system. The fusion field refers to a break-even point where the amount of energy put into the reaction is equal to the amount of energy released from the reaction.
Yeah, that's happened to me several times -- I submit a story, only to have it rejected and have another submission pop up several days later, with far fewer details and more innane banter. I think you needed to have references to the Genesis Device in yours.
For example, I've had the following submission already rejected once. Maybe I'm weird, but IMHO it seems very much "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters":
Bigelow to launch CSS Skywalker orbital resort by 2010
Popular Science has a cover feature on self-made billionaire and space enthusiast Robert Bigelow (who's been mentioned before on Slashdot). Bigelow plans to launch a 'CSS Skywalker' orbital resort by 2010 and sell space habitats to others, such as scientists, manufacturers, Hollywood producers, and countries. The habitats will be made of inflatable modules with multilayered kevlar-like walls. A prototype habitat will be launching on a SpaceXFalcon V next year. To help ensure cost-effective access to the station, Bigelow is also running the $50 million America's Space Prize. In the long run, the modules could be the basis for space yachts and moon cruisers.
I tried resubmitting it after changing the title and reorganizing it to make it better somehow, but it's been sitting in the submission queue for about a day now.
Private and for-profit research are not one and the same. Whenever these conversations come up, everyone always forgets about non-profit organizations which fund research. I know in my field the Howard Hughes Medical Institute funds a great deal of work.
Is that the case? Even if Boeing isn't actively trying to sell their rocket for non-military applications, I doubt that they would turn away a commercial customer if one popped up. I could be wrong, though.
Of course, I recognize the fact that Troll modifiers are often given to show disagreement, rather than as an evaluation of the merits of the post.
I often think that slashdot would be much better if it got rid of modifiers like Troll and Flamebait completely, or had them cost twice as many mod points. As it is, you're quite right -- people tend to just mod down things they disagree with.
I mean, do we really need to have a person there for any other reason than to have another, as The Onion put it, "Holy Fucking Shit, Man Walks on Fucking Moon" moment?
To each his own, but I think having humanity be a multi-planet species is a very worthwhile goal, arguably the most important goal we have for the immediate future.
I'm skeptical about how much Dean will be able to do, but he can't possibly be worse for the Democrats than Terry McAuliffe.
The Boston Globe had some bits to say regarding Dean:
"I'll pretty much be living in red states in the South and West for quite a while," Dean told reporters after he was elected to the post on a voice vote. "The way to get people not to be skeptical about you is to show up and say what you think."...
"If we want to win nationally, we have to start by winning locally," said Dean, who repeated his pledge to rebuild party organizations in each state. "We can't run an 18-state strategy and expect to win. This party's strength does not come from consultants down, it comes from the grass roots up."...
In a news conference after his speech, Dean said he planned to reach out to evangelicals, a bloc of voters that forms the core of Republican support. "We are definitely going to do religious outreach," said Dean, whose recent speeches routinely cite an example of a conservative evangelical who now supports him because of his support for expanded healthcare.
If I understand correctly the attention to local politics is a significant shift in DNC policy, which has in the past decade had a tendency to almost completely ignore local and state campaigns, focusing almost entirely on failed bids for the presidency. I have my fingers crossed that the Democrats will take up the nigh-forgotten banner of "States' Rights," which the Republicans seem to have dropped like a lead brick (particularly when it comes to things like gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and medical marijuana).
Also, I'm curious to see if Dean's grassroots approach can actually manage to reach beyond those who are already True Believers. Before, it just seemed to basically be Dean supporters (including myself) telling each other how much they hated Bush, which would get them riled up, which would have the end result of them telling each other how much they hated Bush.
I believe the Delta IV Heavy has similar capabilities and a similar price. Launch costs in general are still insanely expensive.
I currently have my hopes for lower launch costs pinned on SpaceX's Falcon series, which (if all goes well) should start launching this year. Their Falcon V, although it's overall payload to GTO is only around 2000kg, should have a price equivalent to $10,000 per kg. Hopefully their planned even-larger rocket will have even better prices per kg.
This is more of a technological progression and commerial tool than a scienfic exploration unlike a lot of other projects, which I think is a shame
How exactly were you planning on getting scientific projects into space in the first place? Improving launch engineering brings launch costs down (usually), which makes it easier to pursue scientific projects in space.
It seems like one of these would do at least half-decently in the DARPA Grand Challenge if you upsized it and stuck on GPS receiver. It'd be able to roll over most obstacles. For those it couldn't roll over, it could use reactive techniques (coupled with IR sensors, cameras, or simple bump sensors) to find its way past.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I dont think that this will actually happen. At least not by 2010. That is only 5 years away people.
The thing to keep in mind though is that Bigelow has been working on this already for several years. He already has full-scale structures built, tested, and currently sitting on the ground, and has already purchased launches for the smaller-scale prototypes.
CSS == Commercial Space Station
It's a good question but I don't think there's a need for worry. There will always be a small minority of adventurous people willing to take the risks.
But what if others, such as Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn), wish to pass laws preventing others from taking those risks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station?
...
...
According to this article, there have been some negotiations with the Chinese government. I believe the docking module is already being designed to fit with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.
From the article:
China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or other space-business endeavors.
A Chinese role in these ventures could challenge the U.S. government to focus more attention on space cooperation with China. This is especially so, since the U.S. State Dept. would have to rule on such commercial cooperation.
China Great Wall Industries managers recently visited Bigelow facilities in Nevada. They sounded out the company on the possible launch of Bigelow test or operational modules on Long March boosters or the in-orbit support of Nautilus by Shenzhou Chinese manned spacecraft.
The Chinese are also planning to develop their own small space station, which could theoretically provide orbital infrastructure for the docking of a Nautilus inflatable.
"We talked to the Chinese on a confidential basis, and they indicated they are thinking seriously of opening their program to space commercialization," said Robert T. Bigelow, president and founder of the company.
An entrepreneur who made his fortune as the founder of Budget Suites of America, along with other real estate deals, Bigelow is personally financing the module development, costing several tens of millions of dollars. He has not had detailed discussions with the Chinese, and has talked more with the Russians about potential Soyuz in-orbit and launch support. But he also said there's an "opportunity for America" in cooperating with the Chinese space program, and he disagrees with what he regards as the current negative U.S. policy toward such cooperation.
Actually, I believe Bigelow purchased the TransHab tech from NASA and hired several of their engineers. I could be wrong, though.
Not if you stick them in a rapidly-spinning torus. :)
But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line.
I'm not sure I'm completely agree. The way I see it, there's going to be three different types of space endeavours in the future:
* Government-run: Pretty much mostly what we have now. Governments sending things up for science, prestige, and military purposes.
* Private for-profit (commercial): Right now this is mostly satellites, but should expand to things like space tourism, mining, orbital power satellites, shipment, manufacturing, space porn, etc.
* Private non-profit (altruism): This is the one which everyone seems to overlook, mostly because it really hasn't been done so far. These are done for prestige, to attract more donations, to assure a place in history, to advance mankind, to pad one's ego, etc.
This last one I think has a lot of potential. The best near-term examples is the Planetary Society's Cosmos I, which will launch the first solar sail spacecraft lin April of this year. It'll also be the first-ever space mission by a non-profit group (I think).
Another example I often cite is Elon Musk, who had a "Mars Oasis" project for launching an experimental greenhouse on the surface of Mars. There wouldn't be any direct payback from this -- just an entry in the history books and the knowledge that he'd advanced mankind. However he put this on hold when he did a thorough analysis and found that launch costs would be the dominant part of the price tag. Instead, he's invested his efforts in SpaceX; hopefully once he gets launch costs down he'll return to the Mars Oasis project.
It seems to have already been accepted. I give a 50/50 chance that your submission will end up being a dupe in a few days. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Controlled nuclear fusion within a containment vessel has been possible for some time, but it remains quite difficult to make into a practical generation system. The fusion field refers to a break-even point where the amount of energy put into the reaction is equal to the amount of energy released from the reaction.
Hum. I guess that's just further evidence of how screwed up the launch market is.
Yeah, that's happened to me several times -- I submit a story, only to have it rejected and have another submission pop up several days later, with far fewer details and more innane banter. I think you needed to have references to the Genesis Device in yours.
For example, I've had the following submission already rejected once. Maybe I'm weird, but IMHO it seems very much "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters":
Bigelow to launch CSS Skywalker orbital resort by 2010
Popular Science has a cover feature on self-made billionaire and space enthusiast Robert Bigelow (who's been mentioned before on Slashdot). Bigelow plans to launch a 'CSS Skywalker' orbital resort by 2010 and sell space habitats to others, such as scientists, manufacturers, Hollywood producers, and countries. The habitats will be made of inflatable modules with multilayered kevlar-like walls. A prototype habitat will be launching on a SpaceX Falcon V next year. To help ensure cost-effective access to the station, Bigelow is also running the $50 million America's Space Prize. In the long run, the modules could be the basis for space yachts and moon cruisers.
I tried resubmitting it after changing the title and reorganizing it to make it better somehow, but it's been sitting in the submission queue for about a day now.
Private and for-profit research are not one and the same. Whenever these conversations come up, everyone always forgets about non-profit organizations which fund research. I know in my field the Howard Hughes Medical Institute funds a great deal of work.
Is that the case? Even if Boeing isn't actively trying to sell their rocket for non-military applications, I doubt that they would turn away a commercial customer if one popped up. I could be wrong, though.
Of course, I recognize the fact that Troll modifiers are often given to show disagreement, rather than as an evaluation of the merits of the post.
I often think that slashdot would be much better if it got rid of modifiers like Troll and Flamebait completely, or had them cost twice as many mod points. As it is, you're quite right -- people tend to just mod down things they disagree with.
I mean, do we really need to have a person there for any other reason than to have another, as The Onion put it, "Holy Fucking Shit, Man Walks on Fucking Moon" moment?
To each his own, but I think having humanity be a multi-planet species is a very worthwhile goal, arguably the most important goal we have for the immediate future.
The parent poster was actually correct. We have built a number of fusion reactors, but none which produce more energy than they consume.
I'm skeptical about how much Dean will be able to do, but he can't possibly be worse for the Democrats than Terry McAuliffe.
...
...
The Boston Globe had some bits to say regarding Dean:
"I'll pretty much be living in red states in the South and West for quite a while," Dean told reporters after he was elected to the post on a voice vote. "The way to get people not to be skeptical about you is to show up and say what you think."
"If we want to win nationally, we have to start by winning locally," said Dean, who repeated his pledge to rebuild party organizations in each state. "We can't run an 18-state strategy and expect to win. This party's strength does not come from consultants down, it comes from the grass roots up."
In a news conference after his speech, Dean said he planned to reach out to evangelicals, a bloc of voters that forms the core of Republican support. "We are definitely going to do religious outreach," said Dean, whose recent speeches routinely cite an example of a conservative evangelical who now supports him because of his support for expanded healthcare.
If I understand correctly the attention to local politics is a significant shift in DNC policy, which has in the past decade had a tendency to almost completely ignore local and state campaigns, focusing almost entirely on failed bids for the presidency. I have my fingers crossed that the Democrats will take up the nigh-forgotten banner of "States' Rights," which the Republicans seem to have dropped like a lead brick (particularly when it comes to things like gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and medical marijuana).
Also, I'm curious to see if Dean's grassroots approach can actually manage to reach beyond those who are already True Believers. Before, it just seemed to basically be Dean supporters (including myself) telling each other how much they hated Bush, which would get them riled up, which would have the end result of them telling each other how much they hated Bush.
I believe the Delta IV Heavy has similar capabilities and a similar price. Launch costs in general are still insanely expensive.
I currently have my hopes for lower launch costs pinned on SpaceX's Falcon series, which (if all goes well) should start launching this year. Their Falcon V, although it's overall payload to GTO is only around 2000kg, should have a price equivalent to $10,000 per kg. Hopefully their planned even-larger rocket will have even better prices per kg.
This is more of a technological progression and commerial tool than a scienfic exploration unlike a lot of other projects, which I think is a shame
How exactly were you planning on getting scientific projects into space in the first place? Improving launch engineering brings launch costs down (usually), which makes it easier to pursue scientific projects in space.
It seems like one of these would do at least half-decently in the DARPA Grand Challenge if you upsized it and stuck on GPS receiver. It'd be able to roll over most obstacles. For those it couldn't roll over, it could use reactive techniques (coupled with IR sensors, cameras, or simple bump sensors) to find its way past.
And curiously enough, Carter was actually a nuclear engineer...
I completely agree -- a functional programming language would likely be much better for doing this than an imperative language.
Wow, I had no idea.
Hm.. good point. I guess I'll keep that in mind next time I make a submission.