Wonderful idea.  Could this also be adapted for a Low-cost moon base?

Great idea, too bad NASA couldn't have thought of it. It took people like Burt Rutan and Robert Bigelow to come up of ways to live and get to Space. All NASA seems to do is cancel sucessful projects like Saturn 5 and Hubble and keep "White Elephants Money Pit" like the ISS.

You'd probably want to cover it with a layer of Lunar regolith (that is; 'dirt') for protection from temprature extremes, or, if you had advance knowledge of the location of one, an accessible cave or lava tube of the necessary size (and the ability to mount the solar panels outside, plus a nighttime power source), I don't see why this basic design couldn't do that. Or lend itself to other locations in the solar system where human exploration in general, can be done.

a. p. garcia, NASA did think of it first; google Transhab. Congress forced them to cancel it in 2000 (H.R. 1654, section 127). NASA sold the Transhab rights to Bigelow to comply with the act, and Bigelow hired several NASA/JSC employees who had worked on Transhab.

Genesis I is just son-of-Transhab. This is just as much NASA's baby as Bigelow's.

NASA did come up with the idea, but they cancelled the project.

Mr. Garcia,

    NASA did think of it.  NASA invented the "Transhab" technology back in the 1990s.  But it took Bob Bigelow to actually invest in improving that technology and now demonstrating it in Earth orbit.  
    For the record, NASA didn't cancel the Saturn 5, President Nixon's Office of Management and Budget did.  that is why those Saturn 5s lying outside the Kennedy, Johnson, and Marshall Space Centers are *real rockets* that were initially built to fly in Apollo 18, 19, and 20.  

Cool stuff. Us private firms
should use more Russian rockets for their ideas because they are cheap.

Here is an idea...instead of spending billions(ahem...trillions up until today) on the space program, why don't we first take care of many problems here at home(earth) such as poverty, wars, etc. Then we would be ready for space exploration and we would make much faster progress than we are now. Just imagine if all the countries on the planet spent money on bettering their societies and their environment. But then again the human flaws always prevail...greed, need for conflicts(aka drama), etc.

I cannot see taking the money to "fix" the planet working. Our best bet is to push forward with our technological exploration, and hope the rest of the world follows. Our space programs over the past 50 years have already benefited each of us in ways we can hardly imagine and will continue to benefit every human in the future, perhaps even unifying all peoples on the planet some day in a common exploration of the universe.

Our future relies on our ability to advance, evolve, and expand. That argument from Alen, in KY "why don't we take care of the many problems here at home" instead of spending money on space exploration is a good one, with a very good answer. We cannot force people, either individually or as "a people" to accept enlightenment. We cannot mandate happiness and health. We cannot make anyone believe anything, or accept anything. All we CAN do is lead people to those things. By choosing to reach up and out, and showing that by working together in peaceful co-existence, we "civilized" free people can lead the ignorant and hateful away from their deceit filled lives. Remember, as a child...EVERY single person born to EARTH wants peace, health, and happiness for everyone. We can't impose this on others, we can only show it to others...and then as they see it, they will desire it for themselves, and that over time breaks the grip of power that the legacy religions, and governments hold. The truth will set you free...we must find and reveal the truth. That truth, not more bullets, or handouts...will inspire and motivate humanity to create that better society and environment.

Funny, but i don't remember seeing any money going to a martian or any other alien. People, ALL that money is spent HERE on earth. Check out all the advances in science,medicine,industry, then remember where they came from.

Alen

If society delayed exploration until problems were solved, then we'd still be living in caves.  Wars are caused by greed, and poverty and disease are caused by greed and poor logistics.

Quite frankly, if I have a choice on which ratholes I can throw my money into, I'd choose space over a bunch of poor, sick people who have the annoying tendancy to shoot at me when I try to help out.

Mr. Alen of KY:
If you can find a way to do that, I'd be the first to invest.  However, humans have been battling since creation (if your a creationist) or since the dawn of time (for you Darwinians out there), so good luck.  That said, NASA does seem to waste a lot of good money.  Then again, many of today's common household items that were once viewed as "revolutionary" and "technical advances" came from the space programs. We do the best that we can.

Alen, that's the same argument Wally Mondale tried when he wanted to dismantle NASA back in the 60s so he could throw its entire budget at social programs, which would've helped them by about 10%.  Meanwhile, Mondale and Proxmire set up massive subsidies to dairy farmers in their home states, but we sure never heard anything about cutting those back to help the inner cities.  

And "trillions until today"?  Add up ALL the NASA budgets, and they won't even come close to a single trillion.  Over the same period farm subsidies alone, including tobacco, far outweigh NASA's share of the pie.  That's not even counting the money dribbled away on gawdawful housing projects, the War On Drugs, or the Star Wars boondoggle.  

Matter of fact, NASA is about the only agency where you get a lot of what you pay for, especially when you consider aerospace - driven in some part by NASA requirements on one hand and NASA research on the other - is one of the few shining lights of American exports.  Cutting it back would be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Wars have been going on for ages, and there's never been nor will there ever be a time without poverty. There are other reasons to start wars than lack of money, so those billions are a no go for eliminating war. Spending money on poverty, well, the quality of education is not necessarily proportional to how much money is thrown at it. And if you makes welfare too attractive there's the free rider problem, which is all around bad for society.

Besides, Bigelow Aerospace isn't the government.
Here's really hoping SpaceX's next launch goes well.
If Bigelow and SpaceX both succeed there may actually be some real progress in space travel.

We're a civilization that can walk and chew gum at the same time. If we aren't doing enough on the issues you refer to, it's because we chose not to, for various social, political, economic and other reasons.

Plenty of money *is* spent on war, but not in the way you likely meant. Changing the various motivations that cause wars (and combatants often also believe thamselves to be 'bettering their societies' through their actions), isn't the sort of problem you can throw maoney at and expect to change (unlike space and other technological problems that do tend to respond to an appropriate amount of funding). NASA scientists, engineers and technicians can't fix those human flaws you list, nor is all of the NASA budget likely to, either.

If anything space-related is considered too unimportant, how do we prioritize the other issues? (If it's a matter of saving the most lives-per-dollar, you concentrate on curing heart disease first...but you may keep existing and future AIDS or *** cancer paitents waiting a lethally long time.)

And who decides when this future time when 'everything on Earth is good and we can go' has arrived? And how do they decide it?

Even 'The Space Program' is not what it could have been. ('Trillions?' please get real annual NASA budget figures, then compare them to DoD or Health and Human Services expenditures in the same years) at one time, it was expected that humans would be on Mars in the 1980's...

Not that that has anything to do with Genesis-1. Like  the various new space companies, this is being done with private money, not taxes. Bigelow, Musk, Rutan, Carmack and the others, can spend their bucks in any legal way they please, espically with the intent of creating new businesses.

Remember, Bill Gates can afford to be massively philanthropic, only because Microsoft, whatever else you think of it, has already been massively successful in a then-new field (operating systems and other software for desktop computers). Let's engourage these guys to do the same...

Mr. Alen,
If you think that "money for the space program" should be put to better use to "help of the poverty, wars, etc". Then we should not use the satellites in space that track down harmful "war machines" or use the weather satellites to inform the framers on what crops should be planted for the up coming harvest to feed people on planet earth. We should also stop using the satellites and the shuttle to detect earth movements to warn people of possible earthquakes or tsunamis. If you honestly think that that space program does not help the people of earth, then I hope that you never have to use an MRI or the improve x-rays, because they came from the space program. If we wait and solve all the problems here on earth 1st, then we will never go into the space and improve our lives. Space right now is the only thing bring countries together in peace.

Were it not for the United States Space program, there would be no microwave ovens, velcro, teflon, cell phones, gps. We would have been trapped in the 50's. There is no part of our lives that has not benifited from the space program

Alen, I understand your viewpoint. I also care about people and I'm sure most people would rather pay their dollar to a starving man, however the problem lies within gov'ts distributing their wealth accordingly to their nations. Lets say we did focus Nasa's entire budget towards aiding the fight against hunger and poverty. Then we would be doing a great crime against humanity.  We are here to grow and expand.  To enrich our existence by better understanding our surroundings  and maybe even our origin.  The way to help the issue of povery is not by ending somthing else which is so positive to our survival but rather to focus on the systematic problems of the structure of govt's which unjustly hoard money while there fellows lack bread to eat.

NASA programs and Private Industry programs for space exploration.It seems the private industry programs are much more effective and cheaper? Maybe. I would think when you take out the government in space exploration, you get better results.The result mentioned here about the inflatable vehicle certainly makes a whole lot of sense. Consider NASA program with the shuttles, Certainly more expensive in money and lives but I guess we have benefitted some what in some of their experiments and test.

We are actually still in the dark ages when it comes to the technology in space exploration or travel. Dealing with NASA may well keep us there for many centuries to come.It will take private enterprise to further our technology to venture into the new frontier affordably ( money and lives).

Unless our DNA can be genetically re engineered to with stand the rigors of space exploration or occupation for substained periods of time ( I am talking years, decades or centuries,not months or weeks), all the minds or money in the world will not matter. We will be sending our astronauts on a one way suicide mission.I am thinking a better alternative would be as we have done with the Mars exploration. Robots or androids which means we need to advance our computer technology to the point that the computers can react and function as humans do or create singulars in a microscopic or minute  environment to cut cost and bulk for long trips.

I do not think it is viable for humans in our current genetic makeup to survive in space. Our current make up is not designed for such an environment and to continue research to provide a safe environment for that purpose is wastefull and costly.

DV of Portland, Nice job!  I like the “working together” humanity tone!

In July of last year Mark DeChambeau of Washington said this about space funding: "The assertion that the resources used for exploration would be better spent on finding cures to disease, poverty and war to be self-evident but shortsighted. These are serious problems — no one could dispute this — but they are chronic problems related to finite resources and human nature itself. I'm not sure we can solve them with the resources at hand.”

Much like in the animal kingdom, it might be that the more resources that exist, the larger families would become until we once again had more people than we could support.  That is the general nature of life and why environmentalism is not instinctive.  I’d also like to note that being poor isn’t necessarily always a bad thing.  If you go to some of the poorest countries in the world, you will often find the people and children living there happier and far more independent than today’s overpampered populous that sees such ultra high stress levels.  

Until people concern themselves with real solutions that they themselves could implement (as opposed to what the government might be able to do) these problems will never be solved.  Communal living might be part of the answer to some of these issues as one could say that it has been the inefficiency of single-family living that has created such a gap within our social classes.  By simply sharing many of out appliances and common areas, we can gain more while using less.  Identifying wastefulness and streamlining our system to function at its peak is something we should all concern ourselves with: both as we go forward exploring and seek to make life better as well.

Of note is that the US spends more on the military than the entire world combined.

But Isabelle spenting all this money on this crackpot, Columbus, would be a total waste of our monetary resouces.  Instead let's help our poor and destitute.

In all fairness however, Teflon was not a spinoff of space research, but the Manhattan Project. It filled the need for a pipe-lining material that could resist highly corrosive uranium hexafluoride...

'Human genetic makeup' is largely irrelevant in this context. This is why we have technology. We don't wait for a new breed of humanity that grows more hair and fat to live in colder climates, we create warmer clothing (from animal skins to synthetics), make fire (from campfires to central heating) and so on.

Then there's the various forms of sport and commercial diving. With not a gill or other adaptation in sight....

Technology already makes possible the degree of survival in space that we currently enjoy. Why should we not expect this trend to continue? Learning what's needed to survive over extended periods, is one of the purposes of ISS.

Testing its ability to support humans, before committing any to it, is the purpose of flying the Genesis-1 technology.

Modest advances in nuclear propulsion (and nuclear rockets were built and tested in the 1960's, but the NERVA program was terminated, when it was clear that the missions that could best use them, e.g. regular flights to the Moon and missions to Mars, wern't going to be funded as originally expected) could get crews to Mars and back in the length of time that humans have already functioned aboard Mir and ISS. 'Decades and centuries' indeed.

The only 'one-way' space flights humans are ever likely to engage in (albeit not soon), will be intentional colonists. Like the colonists of old, going home again won't be their plan.

Genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence will indeed happen, but adapting humans to space will not be among the reasons.

Anyone else notice that the folks who crow the loudest about spending money on "our problems here on earth" rather than on technological advances rarely volunteer to sell their computers and give the money to a homeless shelter? And here they are, surfing the internet while people are starving!

The problem so far is that several people are taking an "either/or" approach to who should be running the development of space technologies here in the States.  What we need to realize is that both NASA and private companies are crucial to our advancement.  The private sector, driven by profit, is capable of making vast leaps in technology in a short period of time in order to stay ahead of competators; while NASA and other government agencies have the ability to option the privately developed technology and use the government funding provided to them to bring that technology into use on a national and international scale for the benefit of our country.  This same process of private sector to government and back has boosted many technologies (think computers) in the same way throughout our technological history.  I think that private sector bringing spaceflight to the public is exactly what the government needs to get that push in the right direction to develop and use new technologies itself.

Frank Glover:

You made some interesting points to be considered but I am firm in the humans in space is not viable for prolonged stays. I am not talking a mission to the moon, stays on the ISS, or mars. We have the technology to do that today ( maybe not mars yet) but the long term effects of travel to other worlds out side our immediate areas (Mars and the moon).

The last time I checked, even with nuclear fusion propulsion we are talking "decades and centuries indeed" It is nice to work towards putting a human on Mars but at what cost.What good will it do? What will be the cost to our crews health today, tomorrow, or years into the future? It is a lifeless planet to some extent.

I think our genetic situation now as humans is the radiation factors and micro gravity on bone density and bone mass loss even in a well protected current environment on the ISS or a space traveling vehicle. Reports have suggested that the astronauts being on the ISS even a month have reported a bone density and mass loss of 2% or better due to radiation and micro gravity.Who knows to what extent that the radiation will have for future cancer situations with the astronauts.

This is just a theory. Lets say we found a similar star with a solar system that had a planet capable of substaining similar life forms as we know it.It was only 6 to 10 light years away.Lets say we used the now forgotten NERVA nuclear fusion propulsion system to propel us to the new planet at about 200,000 MPH or better.It will take a long time to get to that speed and a long time to slow down.The human body I don't think can substain going from 0 to 200,000 MPH in 30 seconds or even 30 minutes. Lets just say we have the propulsion to get there in about 40 years. Not knowing yet what other particles that might be bombarding the travelers during that time,I will decline from going in that direction. Just the bone mass lost alone will be extreemly critical is just 5 years or less not to mention radiation and solar bombardment.I do not see the capacity now or even into the future of space travel for humans in our present form.
That is why I feel artificial intelligence or singulars in a micro or minute environment is the best solution for our reaching for the stars.Humans colonizing these new worlds? We are not traveling across the Atlantic Ocean here.It will take decades and centuries indeed if not longer to get there at any speed save the speed of light.

Larry I think your theories are flawed.  

Do we not visit Antarctica for clues to our planet problems because we can only stay there a short time due to inclement conditions incapable of human life?  Do we not travel to the bottom of the ocean to find the one plant that may cure cancer because we can only be down to that depth for just a few minutes?  You lack the ability to dream/hope.  

From the first day of life when we take a simple breath of air, we begin a continuous journey with many difficult odds.  What separates humans from other species is that we have the ability to extend our knowledge, to learn.  AI doesn't "learn" without us or more importantly dream.  AI doesn't consult with other AI about their expertise.

Modest gains as you put it - to nearby destinations such as Mars, could be accomplished very quickly with commitment and resolve.  Shortly thereafter travel to the next planet and so on would be accomplished.  We once had a committed government and public that put us on the moon quickly.  Imagine if we dared again to dream.  All of our greatest advances have not been made without man or woman.  Is AI self-evolving?  No, without human space flight, our gains will be minimal and non-existant.  Can you imagine the knowledge gained by two humans on the opposite sides of Mars compared to two rovers?  Wait that could have been three had one been able to find its way out of a valley.  The rovers have been how many miles?  What you propose will only slow the evolution of technologies that you seek.  This planet does not have unlimited resources, we do however have many people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice not for country this time but for humanity.

AI has single focus and its programming is only as good as its creators.  Humans can make decisions AI would never comprehend.  AI has all the flaws of it limited programmers.  Don't get me wrong, computers and programs do amazing things, however they are limited in scope.  Our greatest gains come using all our senses, including our "sixth" sense, something we can't give a robot.

I for one happen to think that Frank Glover is very on with all of his comments.

If we are ever to solve humanities problems, it first starts with working together – human to human.  What better place than our space program?

You did not initially specify *interstellar* flight, in which case, some of your concerns do have at least some validity.

It is true that some have proposed what has been called 'generation travel' as a means of carrying out interstellar exploration. This requires ships capable of supporting a signifigant number of people for what could well be several centuries, and only their descendants would reach the goal. I have an undefinable discomfort with this approach, as well as the practical issue of wether a system like this could cary out virtually perfect internal recycling, virtually perfect containment of atmosphere and other issues of relaibility for those periods....

...And more simply, technological advancement being what it tends to be, such a vessel may well find itself passed by something faster, with better technology developed back home, during that time. So my position on that is, if it can't be done in something signifigantly less than 100 years, one is better off waiting until the technology allows something better. (unless one is going to a *very* distant goal, and already up against the limits of physics, as the speed of light may well be)

Yes, an unmanned probe has no life support issues, but most of us want the results to gat back to us in something less than the average human lifetime, as well.

And this also disregards the prospect of some form of human suspenstion {simplyfing life support needs, and allowing a smaller, lighter ship that can trave faster, with a given technology), or of lengthening the human life span itself, which also changes the equation. (and also an example of something that researchers will seek, for reasons having little to do with space flight)

It is true that we don't have as much data as we might like, of the effect of galactic cosmic rays (one does not have to leave the solar system for this to be a concern) on living organisms over the very long term, but they are not impossible to shield against, though this complicates the engineering, by making ships more massive.

Loss of bone density is an issue, but we hardly have the last word on what to do to counteract it, in terms of physical activity, or pharmacologically (if a solution can be found in the latter, the benefits for non-space travelers with bone-loss conditions are obvious)

There's always been the option of using centrifugal force as a substiture for gravity, but again, it's an engineering complication that one will employ only if necessary, on a ship thst's going anywhere. (as oppposed to a large orbiting space station of the classic wheel shape, where it's certain to be eventually employed)

In other words, it's *far* too soon to declare these and many of the issues you describe, as beyond solution.

Though useful in the inner solar system, NERVA would have been totally inadequate for interstellar flight. Fusion rockets are the only forseeable technology that woukd make relatively nearby interstellar flight thinkable, again, not soon. (If your means of propulsion allows it, you'll accelerate at a steady rate of 32 ft per-second/per-second, that is, one Earth gravity [which eliminates one of your biological problems right away], halfway to your goal, turn over and decelerate the rest of the way at the same rate. This gets you to the Moon in about 3.5 hours, to Mars [at its closest] in about 50 hours, to Pluto in about 15 days. This may not happen without fusion rockets with a very good thrust to weight ratio, but not impossible)

It's not clear if Robert Bussard's 'interstellar ramjet' concept is feasable, so the following is *very* speculative, but if it also allowed constant 1-g flight over interstellar distances, the slowing of time as one nears the speed of light, even the Andromeda Galaxy is accessable in a human lifetime...though one would return to an Earth that was over 4 million years older. [closer goals would obviously be less extreme])

Check here for some possibilites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel
http://www.spaceref.com/directory/future_technology/interstellar_travel/
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040621/travel.shtml

Ask me again in 100 years what our proplulsion options are. I suspect they'll be rather greater, and
we'll be much more comfortable and experienced with operating within this solar system.

In any case, the current goals are easier, cheaper, regular access to Low Earth Orbit, with a permanent return to the Moon, and first missions to Mars in our sights. And driven more and more by commercial operations, and less and less on the government dime, except at the very edge of exploration.

When it's time for the stars, we'll likely know what to do.

Dear Frank and Mark:

Seems we are getting some excellent discussions on the space travel issues here.All great issues and ideas. I don't think my theories are flawed as per say but they are only theories, not proven fact yet.

This was only one person's thoughts as a means to stimulate others ideas about solving solutions to the space travel concepts and which way to pursue the challenges ahead on long term travel. I think the Genisis craft is an excellent idea for future space craft. Certainly much more cost effective and easily modified for different payloads ( humans included ).

I have to agree with both of you that human presence in space exploration to other worlds is certainly much more productive and offers a better perspective on functioning in those other worlds. Given todays technology, it is only a dream. I do not lack the ability to dream and hope. Given my years in time I have unwittingly peppered that ability with reality. Exploration on earth at the polar regions and under the oceans is a minute task given the hurdles we face in space exploration. Hopefully, some day into the future we may over come those hurdles for long term travel.

As a young lad in school and college my majors were geared towards science, engineering, and physics. My ambition was to be a part of NASA. Unfortunately, reality shifted me into another direction at my dismay but I still keep a keen interest in space exploration.

Proctor and Gamble in association with NASA are working on new drugs pertaining to bone mass loss that will help that issue in space so we can hope that may become a positive point for prolonged stays.
Fusion propulsion if developed further is another gain to cut travel time. Not mentioned yet are "worm holes" but not much research in that area yet.Have no idea where that will take us.

Artificial Intelligence and Singulars is definitely a cheaper alternative now for space travel in order to gain the insight as to what we will face when we put humans into the long term space travel situations.We can then work on solving the complex problems that we will be faced with to survive such situations.

Private industry world wide will likely be the pioneers in this venture.I have my reservations about NASA alone being able to finance future cosmos ventures.The other planets in our own solar system are a vast stock pile of minerals and gases that would be a gold mine of opportunity for commercial
exploitation given the fact our own planet's resources are quickly dwindleing.Thus the race is on.

I appreciate your comments and views. Perhaps working together for solutions we can if not soon,possibly in the future realize all of our dreams of space travel and what new developments or prosperity it may bring.I can only hope we will be ready for it.

Schuldhulpverleners helpen mensen met schulden in alle vormen.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):