Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

KingCracker wrote:How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

I'll need a citation on that. I'm willing to bet a waste system for zero gravity that doesn't have a water or sewer system to plug into would cost more then a normal toilet and require more design time, but I don't know that it would be $10 million. If the price includes the years of research time, mock ups, tests, system integration, and final model perhaps, but usually when talking of the cost of a thing the end product is being referred to. A Bic pen is only a dollar, but the very first one that all the rest are based on wasn't. Highly specialized and unique systems will always be more expensive.

\


Oh look at that, I misremembered, apparently it was nearly double that
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623499/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-funneled-space-toilet/

Boom. Your head, just exploded.

KingCracker wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

KingCracker wrote:How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

I'll need a citation on that. I'm willing to bet a waste system for zero gravity that doesn't have a water or sewer system to plug into would cost more then a normal toilet and require more design time, but I don't know that it would be $10 million. If the price includes the years of research time, mock ups, tests, system integration, and final model perhaps, but usually when talking of the cost of a thing the end product is being referred to. A Bic pen is only a dollar, but the very first one that all the rest are based on wasn't. Highly specialized and unique systems will always be more expensive.

\


Oh look at that, I misremembered, apparently it was nearly double that
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623499/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-funneled-space-toilet/

Boom. Your head, just exploded.

Actually I am not all that surprised. After I stated that I realized I was probably a decade or two behind on the cost of things; I spoke to soon. The article even talks about what a space 'toilet' consists of and why the cost. The problem is they are using the word toilet in two different ways and comparing them as if they are the same thing: a 'toilet' in the normative sense in talking about the porcelain seat versus an entire highly specialized waste disposal system. Oddly, the requirements for a space station, much like a submarine, are different than normal use toilets. It takes a lot more time to both build and design them. Compare the number of households to the number of space stations and you might start getting an idea of how highly specialized.

KingCracker wrote:
Oh look at that, I misremembered, apparently it was nearly double that
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623499/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-funneled-space-toilet/

Boom. Your head, just exploded.

Keep in mind, that while your toilet disposes of waste, this toilet does this:

The new system will be able to transfer urine to a device that can produce drinking water.

Big deal, its got a fething filtration system on it. I can piss in the sand, and have it evaporate and catch the clean water with some plastic wrap and a cup. PResto, clean drinking water.......so what accounts for the rest of the $18,999,997.00?


Again, its basically a shop vac with a urinal attached to it. Oh and add coffee filters to it

KingCracker wrote:Big deal, its got a fething filtration system on it. I can piss in the sand, and have it evaporate and catch the clean water with some plastic wrap and a cup. PResto, clean drinking water.......so what accounts for the rest of the $18,999,997.00?

Because pissing in sand and letting it evaporate in zero gravity will work inside a space station right? Obviously everything in space works the same was as here on earth and is really easy to design... Oh wait!

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

We don't. But in going to the moon we developed efficient satellite technology, that's allowed for instant communication across the globe and shaped the modern world.

That's kind of the thing about doing something no-one's ever done before, it opens up all kinds of possibilities that no-one had ever thought of before.

Columbus was an idiot, who used his own made up, silly numbers to argue that the world wasn't as big as everyone else said, but much smaller and shaped somewhat like a pear, and so it would be quicker to get to India by heading out West. He was was, wrong, so wrong in fact that there was space for two whole other continents between Europe and India. He was also an idiot, and tried to claim it was actually some islands off the coast of of India that he reached.

Despite all this, he did something no-one had ever done before, and because of that changed the world in an immediate, massive way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote: This is an urban myth I'm afraid.

IIRC both factions used ball point pens/biros, as the design lets the ink flow even in zero G. Pencils would be a bad idea as they require sharpening and you don't want even more detritus floating around and, possibly, interfering with equipment.

Almost. Both sides originally used pencils, but as you say there were problems with tips breaking and getting into equipment. A guy called Paul Fisher heard about this and developed a pen that could be used in zero-g. He offered the pen, at no cost, to the Americans, and some time after that also to the Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

Just read about what the toilet does. It should become clear very quickly that the toilet, and space in general, isn't expensive because NASA wastes money, but because space is a really hostile environment to human life.

Which makes for a pretty decent argument that the ISS was never a very good idea, but not that NASA wastes money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Big deal, its got a fething filtration system on it. I can piss in the sand, and have it evaporate and catch the clean water with some plastic wrap and a cup. PResto, clean drinking water.......so what accounts for the rest of the $18,999,997.00?


Again, its basically a shop vac with a urinal attached to it. Oh and add coffee filters to it

Because you're not in space.

I'm getting a real 'anything I don't understand is easy to do' vibe from you here.

NASA is suffering now, because they do not have a clear mission that ties into national priorities. That may change at some point, but it is true for now.

The Pentagon, other nations, and corporations are getting into the satellite business, and NASA wasn't created for that anyway.

Said it before here, but it's hard for me to believe that NASA wants to put a priority on manned spaceflight and colonization when the Earth is going to be a far cheaper and superior living space for a long, long time. Some super avian flu or something is probably going to wipe us out long before we need to get off this rock. Meanwhile, a planet-killing asteroid could sneak up on us next week, and there'd be next to nothing we could do about it.

Don't you focus on the more immediate and likely threat?

I'm getting a real 'anything I don't understand is easy to do' vibe from you here.

Not even close. Ive read the article, and Ive read other articles on it. I know perfectly well what it does, and I understand to a degree, the difficulties in zero gravity, but regardless of what you say against my view on it, I simply cannot understand where it takes 19 million dollars to do what it does.

KingCracker wrote:regardless of what you say against my view on it, I simply cannot understand where it takes 19 million dollars to do what it does.

In space no one can hear you gak.

KingCracker wrote:[Not even close. Ive read the article, and Ive read other articles on it. I know perfectly well what it does, and I understand to a degree, the difficulties in zero gravity, but regardless of what you say against my view on it, I simply cannot understand where it takes 19 million dollars to do what it does.

It doesn't help the cost that you're only ever going to build one.

MAybe thats the only reason it costs so much. Im sure if you only ever needed 1 lightbulb, they certainly wouldnt cost a buck each.

KingCracker wrote:MAybe thats the only reason it costs so much. Im sure if you only ever needed 1 lightbulb, they certainly wouldnt cost a buck each.

Well yeah. On top of that you need a light source that won't shatter and have little bits floating around as well as minimize oxygen consumption. It isn't much of a concern on the surface but in vacuum it is somewhat important.

Easy E wrote:NASA is suffering now, because they do not have a clear mission that ties into national priorities. That may change at some point, but it is true for now.

The Pentagon, other nations, and corporations are getting into the satellite business, and NASA wasn't created for that anyway.

The point about satellites isn't that NASA is needed to make more satellites, because as you rightly point out most new satellites are launched by the private sector, mostly telecommunications companies. It's that by pushing the boundaries of human achievement, for whatever reason, you will typically find all kinds of incredible new tech options that no-one would ever have thought of otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Not even close. Ive read the article, and Ive read other articles on it. I know perfectly well what it does, and I understand to a degree, the difficulties in zero gravity, but regardless of what you say against my view on it, I simply cannot understand where it takes 19 million dollars to do what it does.

That's the thing, I can't understand how it takes 19 million either. But that's not because it couldn't possibly cost 19 million, but because I'm not an engineer specialising in space.

If there's something that costs a lot of money and I don't understand it, I'm inclined to accept that it probably needs to cost that much, because the alternative is to assume that the people who know about this are just wasting money for no reason.

Well we just look at the same problem from different views. Im a cheap ass by nature, I try and do, to make everything I have, work/function/obtain as cheaply as possible. Ive pulled this off many times, and usually for alot cheaper then normal. So yea, I truly believe that it could be done for WAY less then that. Personally, I think probably, 70% of that is gouged from various sources. More of a "hey look, piles of money, I want more of it" If I had the tools and the time, I bet I could make a gak/piss station that filtered that junk in space, just as effectively, for a whole gak ton less then 19 million.

You could make these kinds of things for much less, but the problem is that unless you own and control the entire supply chain, every company along the way will be taking their cut to ensure that they turn a profit and that soon mounts up, especially with anything as complex (and specialised) as a space shuttle.

If NASA produced its own electrical components, from resistors and capacitors up to complex circuits, fabricated its own materials, air frames, etc, etc the costs would probably fall (assuming that it also opened up those manufacturing capabilities to the market - selling components to others to help cover costs and even generate profit).

Not only that but NASA uses vast quantities of money taking apart things and putting them back together before reusing them - design and build something that is simple and doesn't require that kind of messing around every single time you use it and you cut down the costs too...

This

and this

plus

and some of these

Toss in some of this for good measure

and of course this stuff, ALWAYS this stuff

and finally you get this




Like I said, I want my 17+million dollah

Seeing as NASA is already developing their next rocket, I'd say Obama at least supports NASA, though I wish it would get more funding. Also, we have a space probe on the way to Mars as we speak, so that will be awesome.

I plan to work for NASA as an engineer (and will possibly apply as an astronaut). I think space exploration is probably the most important thing we can do, and I just wish people would look a bit further into the future.

Hope your in incredible shape both mentally and physically. Good luck on that dream man, seriously. Being able to see the Earth from Orbit, would definitely let me die a happy man.

KingCracker wrote:Well we just look at the same problem from different views. Im a cheap ass by nature, I try and do, to make everything I have, work/function/obtain as cheaply as possible. Ive pulled this off many times, and usually for alot cheaper then normal. So yea, I truly believe that it could be done for WAY less then that. Personally, I think probably, 70% of that is gouged from various sources. More of a "hey look, piles of money, I want more of it" If I had the tools and the time, I bet I could make a gak/piss station that filtered that junk in space, just as effectively, for a whole gak ton less then 19 million.

Except you're talking about an agency that's been on the outer for decades, that has to fight for every dollar it can get while it's total share of federal funding steadily declines. If you were talking about an intelligence agency in 2002, when money was just being thrown at them for whatever they thought sounded useful then I'd agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:You could make these kinds of things for much less, but the problem is that unless you own and control the entire supply chain, every company along the way will be taking their cut to ensure that they turn a profit and that soon mounts up, especially with anything as complex (and specialised) as a space shuttle.

Not really, the profit margin corresponds pretty directly to the capital in use in each stage, not the number of stages along the chain. That is, if I had a $1,000,000 company I'd try and make about $150,000 from supplying NASA for a year, and if you had a $2,000,000 company you'd look to make about $300,000. If some outside source bought both our companies, they'd have a $3,000,000 investment and be looking to make about $450,000 a year. The total profit drawn out of the system would remain the same, no matter how many individual companies there are along the way.

If NASA produced its own electrical components, from resistors and capacitors up to complex circuits, fabricated its own materials, air frames, etc, etc the costs would probably fall (assuming that it also opened up those manufacturing capabilities to the market - selling components to others to help cover costs and even generate profit).

Then NASA would be dealing with having to build it's own management systems, as well as controlling all those new assets it just acquired. It would have greater control over the quality and customisation of the supplied good, but not an overall cost saving. There's a reason all kinds of companies, government and private, contract stuff out.

It's a shame NASA keeps getting its budget, as well as its objectives, cut. As others have said, the modern world (specifically global communications) would not be possible without the tremendous expenditures that the US and Russia made following the 2nd world war. You could argue that the 1969 moon landing was many years ahead of its time, and that is why subsequently we appear to have achieved very little. The Space agencies then did far more than the technology level might otherwise have allowed, and only now are the improving technologies on the cusp of making the next 'big step' possible.

In response to plans for a large asteroid heading towards earth, I heard that any plans would be difficult to implement because the schematics for the Saturn launch vehicles (by far the most powerful ever made) have since been 'lost', which doesn't fill one with confidence. My prediction is that I wouldn't be surprised at all if, 20 years from now, the first man on Mars is Commander Yang Xi, with a red flag on the side of the landing vehicle. The Chinese and Indian economies are expanding rapidly, as is their political ambition for this kind of thing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the next step in serious space exploration originates from the East. Certainly, the increasing austerity from Western governments makes it quite unlikely I think that anything so ambitious (and expensive) will be attempted.

As long as they shared the discoveries Id be fine with that honestly. Just learning about something new is good for me, I dont much care whos flag is on the planet.