What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[AnOminous]

Interstellar travel will be more feasible when we figure out nuclear fusion or beat physics in some fundamental way.

If we ever figure out nuclear fusion (well more how to do it at a net positive), then it will make sense to set up Moon bases, because Helium-3 is one of the few things that could give you enough energy to justify the otherwise exorbitant expense of setting up some huge mining operation on the Moon.

It would have to be an enormous megaproject, though, that would probably make the Chinese rare earth element mining operations look penny ante. At least you wouldn't have to worry about "polluting" the Moon.

It wouldn't even make sense to travel to the Moon if you could scoop up pure rhodium, platinum, gold, etc. by the barrel right on the surface.

 

[Meriasek]

If we ever figure out nuclear fusion (well more how to do it at a net positive), then it will make sense to set up Moon bases, because Helium-3 is one of the few things that could give you enough energy to justify the otherwise exorbitant expense of setting up some huge mining operation on the Moon.

It wouldn't even make sense to travel to the Moon if you could scoop up pure rhodium, platinum, gold, etc. by the barrel right on the surface.

Eh, He3 on the moon is kinda shit, the fuel costs are just enormous. Might be more feasible to use the DD side chain of DHe3 reactors to breed more He3. Lower efficiency and not aneutronic anymore, but you don't have to worry about getting He3 anymore.
If you mine on the moon, you'll need massive mass drivers to shoot your mined material back to earth, otherwise your fuel costs will be too high. And that will be a fun security risk.

 

[AnOminous]

Eh, He3 on the moon is kinda shit, the fuel costs are just enormous. Might be more feasible to use the DD side chain of DHe3 reactors to breed more He3. Lower efficiency and not aneutronic anymore, but you don't have to worry about getting He3 anymore.
If you mine on the moon, you'll need massive mass drivers to shoot your mined material back to earth, otherwise your fuel costs will be too high. And that will be a fun security risk.

It depends on the amount you want. Depending how good your output is it makes sense, even though it would have to be done at absolutely enormous scale to be economical. Or we'd have to run out of supply here.

Something else might make more sense, like just collecting it directly from the solar wind with some even bigger gigaproject, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[Meriasek]

It depends on the amount you want. Depending how good your output is it makes sense, even though it would have to be done at absolutely enormous scale to be economical. Or we'd have to run out of supply here.

Something else might make more sense, like just collecting it directly from the solar wind with some even bigger gigaproject, but it's certainly a possibility.

I think if we're going for aneutronic fusion, PB11 is the way to go. The requirements are staggering, but fast ignition inertial fusion might be able to get it to burn.

 

[Bonesjones]

No, molecular welding is a property of vacuum, not low gravity.

And space is both, so you are just splitting hairs.

Ok, 3D printing. Must be polymer extrusion and laser cladding related properties, powder bed fusion obviously doesn't work. And then?

Sintered metal being as strong as it's component parts? It doesn't have to be anything. You again are limiting things to your own definition like a moron.

OK, you can make stuff that doesn't have a flat bottom, but for the most part, 3D printing (and I'm talking about the industrially relevant processes) is barely off the grounds here on Earth, solving all the issues of flying powder in microgravity is gonna be fun.

No, you can make complex shapes that would be impossible on earth. 3d printing is just reverse milling, which we've been doing for over 150 years. And thanks for reiterating my point, solving those problems. You have to start somewhere and you just think someone else in the future should do it because it's hard.

What did you tell hard. Molecular welding, which you misunderstood? Infinite cleanrooms, without any application for them?
I don't lack vision. You lack actual knowledge.

I don't misunderstand anything, you misunderstand me. We've already mentioned many practical applications that you dismiss so you can move your goalpost some more.

Expense compared to, yknow, doing it on the ground. Carrying shit up the gravity well is extremely expensive.

We can stop giving billions to worthless countries to make up for it.

Antimatter exists, what are you smoking?

I meant dark matter but that's irrelevant to the discussion of the practical uses of space.

 

[Meriasek]

And space is both, so you are just splitting hairs.

Sintered metal being as strong as it's component parts? It doesn't have to be anything. You again are limiting things to your own definition like a moron.

No, you can make complex shapes that would be impossible on earth. 3d printing is just reverse milling, which we've been doing for over 150 years. And thanks for reiterating my point, solving those problems. You have to start somewhere and you just think someone else in the future should do it because it's hard.

I don't misunderstand anything, you misunderstand me. We've already mentioned many practical applications that you dismiss so you can move your goalpost some more.

We can stop giving billions to worthless countries to make up for it.

I meant dark matter but that's irrelevant to the discussion of the practical uses of space.

It's wayyyyy harder bringing shit up to space and back than just building a vessel with a turbopump to do the same thing.
Where did I misunderstand you? Where you said molecular welding is a property of low gravity, which it isn't, so the one thing that space has and isn't replicable with a simple vacuum chamber is out? This isn't splitting hairs, this is taking a realistic look at the costs and benefits of doing shit in space.
3D printing in all its forms doesn't benefit from low gravity apart from when you want to make shapes without an anchor point.
Which you'd still need in space, so with laser powder cladding you can do the same thing on Earth if you put the buildstage/point and the cladding head on a robot arm. Evacuate the chamber and boom, practically the same capabilities. You need support structures on Earth for certain geometries, but with a movable stage and careful powder cladding you could do away with those, too. I know 3D printing in its many forms. I know the state of the art, and the limitations. Additively manufactured parts are already as strong as milled parts (depending on alloy and process), theyre even working on in-situ alloying. Zero G doesn't fix anything, just makes it harder to get rid of the waste heat and causes more problems with powder handling.
One thing I could see is zero g crystal growth, but even there... not worth it.

 

[Bonesjones]

It's wayyyyy harder bringing shit up to space and back than just building a vessel with a turbopump to do the same thing.

Reusable rockets means it's only a fuel cost.

Where did I misunderstand you? Where you said molecular welding is a property of low gravity, which it isn't, so the one thing that space has and isn't replicable with a simple vacuum chamber is out?

Again limitations of your thinking.

This isn't splitting hairs, this is taking a realistic look at the costs and benefits of doing shit in space.

Here's one thing you can do in space that you can't on Earth. Scale. Without support structures against gravity, you can make things as big as you want. Which guess what? Makes building space structures easier and cheaper.

3D printing in all its forms doesn't benefit from low gravity apart from when you want to make shapes without an anchor point.

Or building complex geometries that are impossible.

Which you'd still need in space, so with laser powder cladding you can do the same thing on Earth if you put the buildstage/point and the cladding head on a robot arm.

Until you need to make it in a shape a robot head can't get into.

Evacuate the chamber and boom, practically the same capabilities.

"Practically" always with the weasel words.

You need support structures on Earth for certain geometries, but with a movable stage and careful powder cladding you could do away with those, too.

Until you need to make something that doesn't fit in your support structures.

I know 3D printing in its many forms. I know the state of the art, and the limitations.

And yet you see no future.

Additively manufactured parts are already as strong as milled parts (depending on alloy and process), theyre even working on in-situ alloying.

I'd need to see evidence of that, I know they've gotten close but it's been a year or two since I've really looked into it.

Zero G doesn't fix anything, just makes it harder to get rid of the waste heat and causes more problems with powder handling.

Yeah different environments cause new exciting problems and solutions. That's how progress is made.

 

[Local Fed]

The "Moon" discussion is being privately funded by Null to gauge user reactions to his surname for potential future merch run ideas. Another day, another psyop.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

I like that my ideas on people not being able to handle that space is currently a big waste of money is playing out in real time.

 

[Agent Sandoval]

Reusable rockets means it's only a fuel cost.

And inflated labor costs, and the maintenance of reusable heavy lift rockets, and a wholeass space station. Even just the fuel cost is still greater than just doing it on Earth, the only thing you actually save any money on is the vacuum pump.

Until you need to make something that doesn't fit in your support structures.

You still need a support structure in space, especially for large prints like you're suggesting. As it progresses, the printer will lose mass to the print. You either need to tether the print or you need thrusters to compensate for the shift in momentum, either way, you need a support structure.

 

[Meriasek]

Until you need to make it in a shape a robot head can't get into.

And, uh, how is microgravity gonna fix that? The powder or wire and the laser energy still has to come from somewhere.

Reusable rockets means it's only a fuel cost.

Which is enormous and an unneeded addition since low gravity isn't required.

Here's one thing you can do in space that you can't on Earth. Scale. Without support structures against gravity, you can make things as big as you want. Which guess what? Makes building space structures easier and cheaper.

I don't think you understand the function of support structures. It's not necessarily against gravity, but they're to provide work surfaces for future additive layers to stick to. Not to mention that it all still has to be tethered and fixed in space relative to each other. The powder heads gas jet or extruder nozzle will move both head and workpiece unless they're fixed to each other.

Until you need to make something that doesn't fit in your support structures.

Again, that's not what support structures are. Support structures are the sacrificial little grids added to additive parts during manufacturing required as pseudo working surfaces.
It sounds like you wanna make megastructures with additive techniques. That is extremely uneconomical, since additive manufacturing is super slow and best used for unique parts with complex geometries. It's not great for mass production, either, and more for prototyping.

Again limitations of your thinking.

Please just tell me a concrete application. No "I told you already", no "you just lack vision", something concrete that you can think of right now.
Here's the thing, when you get past the initial excitement and you got more knowledge and experience with the physical limitations of how the world works, things get a bit more boring.

 

[teriyakiburns]

The "Moon" discussion is being privately funded by Null to gauge user reactions to his surname for potential future merch run ideas. Another day, another psyop.

This, but unironically. (Sell me more silver!)

 

[Ewan McGregor]

The "Moon" discussion is being privately funded by Null to gauge user reactions to his surname for potential future merch run ideas. Another day, another psyop.

He also has korean admixture and is related to a certain Sun Myung.

 

[Chromeo]

This, but unironically. (Sell me more silver!)

I want more Kiwi coins!! [bangs table like a sped]

 

[ZsaZsaBinks]

Quite a few no doubt. Can't pump the fetal alcohol full of stimulants, bill the parents and get kickbacks from the drug companies unless the kid's got something you can medicate.

@PhoBingas Also it’s so cool to have ASD and ADHD. It’s NOT cool to have FASD. And even after the person gets the FASD diagnosis, they still keep the diagnoses of the cool syndromes so that they get more services. Also because they’re cool.

 

[Bonesjones]

And, uh, how is microgravity gonna fix that? The powder or wire and the laser energy still has to come from somewhere.

Since you aren't fighting the force of gravity you can make your gantry as big as you need with extremely long arms, that can be incredibly light weight.

Which is enormous and an unneeded addition since low gravity isn't required.

It is to make infinite axis manufacturing to work, since you can spin the object however you want in a 3d space to do work to it.

I don't think you understand the function of support structures.

I don't think you do either. You don't need support structures when you can build things inside out instead of directionally. When you can automatically fuse them together instead of needing to weld or bolt them.

It's not necessarily against gravity, but they're to provide work surfaces for future additive layers to stick to.

Layered printing isn't 3d printing, it's 2.5d at best.

Not to mention that it all still has to be tethered and fixed in space relative to each other. The powder heads gas jet or extruder nozzle will move both head and workpiece unless they're fixed to each other.

Sounds like an engineering problem that you have to work on, I wonder how you'd get there?

Again, that's not what support structures are.

I'm thinking gantry systems and you are thinking build plates.

Support structures are the sacrificial little grids added to additive parts during manufacturing required as pseudo working surfaces.

Which you don't need in space, you just continue to show your myopic thinking.

That is extremely uneconomical, since additive manufacturing is super slow and best used for unique parts with complex geometries. It's not great for mass production, either, and more for prototyping.

It's slow on earth when compared to subtractive manufacturing. That's because most products we make and use can be done with simple geometries and fused together later if needed. The most complex parts we print now are turbine blades which have resulted in huge efficiency boosts. The new hot gimmick now is using two robot arms to press sheets into shapes you couldn't before without damaging the material.

Please just tell me a concrete application. No "I told you already", no "you just lack vision", something concrete that you can think of right now.

Infinite axis manufacturing is a concrete application. Spinning an object in any direction or orientation to do work to is a huge benefit. Printing inside out without needing internal supports allows you to design cooling and oiling passages you'd never be able to do otherwise. You could make 1 piece motors that would be extremely reliable compared to what we use now.

Here's the thing, when you get past the initial excitement and you got more knowledge and experience with the physical limitations of how the world works, things get a bit more boring.

These aren't pie in the sky ideas, they are basic consumer grade plans in space. Just look at how you think 3d printing is using bedplates and layers but in space instead of an entirely new creative principle.

 

[Meriasek]

Since you aren't fighting the force of gravity you can make your gantry as big as you need with extremely long arms, that can be incredibly light weight.

Practical limitations still apply. Long arms, especially if something as heavy as a laser head is attached to it, will have massive leverage. Gravity might be gone, but you still have inertia.

It is to make infinite axis manufacturing to work, since you can spin the object however you want in a 3d space to do work to it.

How do you spin the object? It still has to be attached to something to move it. In the end you'll end up with a setup of two six-axis robot arms that would work just as well on Earth.

I don't think you do either. You don't need support structures when you can build things inside out instead of directionally. When you can automatically fuse them together instead of needing to weld or bolt them.

You do, actually. Also, cold welding doesn't quite work with powders or wires.

Layered printing isn't 3d printing, it's 2.5d at best.

It's the standard process mainly because it's easier and a natural consequence of how powder bed fusion works. The end result is the same tho, and the achievable geometries are the same. Can't do powder bed fusion in space anyway.

Sounds like an engineering problem that you have to work on, I wonder how you'd get there?

It's an engineering problem that you only have to work on if you wanted to do additive manufacturing in space, for which I'm not convinced there is enough incentive to bother.

I'm thinking gantry systems and you are thinking build plates.

Gantry systems aren't really a big deal, anyway. One could make additive manufacturing arbitrarily large right now, but the reality is that there's no market for that. Making large parts takes a looooooong time, and accelerating build processes is still in R&D. Using multiple laser heads for example, which has the issue of putting more heat in, potentially influencing the process. Additive manufacturing is quite complex in those tiny details, my former colleagues were cursing about ten different things at once. New hotness for welding (both keyhole welding and additive welding) is melt pool control via beam shaping. Quite fascinating. Anyway, the point is that we're still very far off from where we'd potentially benefit from doing this shit in space.

Which you don't need in space, you just continue to show your myopic thinking.

Well, you only need them in powder bed fusion, which won't work in space anyway. In Direct Energy Deposition you don't need them on Earth either, but there you're limited by resolution.
Can't really do those cool fine internal structures with DED. But that's not the fault of gravity, it's just the process as it is right now.

It's slow on earth when compared to subtractive manufacturing. That's because most products we make and use can be done with simple geometries and fused together later if needed. The most complex parts we print now are turbine blades which have resulted in huge efficiency boosts. The new hot gimmick now is using two robot arms to press sheets into shapes you couldn't before without damaging the material.

It's pretty slow in general. There are certain physical limitations that you can't easily get around. Thermal buildup is a big issue that limits overall speed and scalability. Especially if you want to build fine structures, you can't ramp up the laser power and process speed arbitrarily since the process window (spot temp over melting, but not vaporising) gets smaller. So it just takes time.
None of this will be helped by doing it in microgravity. It'll be slow in space, too. I mean, what you want to do there? Dozen-meter-sized components with internal cooling channels and ultracomplex geometries? You can just do that on Earth if you wanted, which nobody does at the moment because there's no point to it. Some build rather large vessels with DED, but that's a rarity, usually it's using DED to add some parts to existing work pieces.

Infinite axis manufacturing is a concrete application. Spinning an object in any direction or orientation to do work to is a huge benefit. Printing inside out without needing internal supports allows you to design cooling and oiling passages you'd never be able to do otherwise. You could make 1 piece motors that would be extremely reliable compared to what we use now.

Again, how do you spin the object? Gotta touch it somehow. Wanna use EM pulses or gas jets to move it? In the end you'll have it on a robot arm again.
You can already do all of that on Earth, though.

These aren't pie in the sky ideas, they are basic consumer grade plans in space. Just look at how you think 3d printing is using bedplates and layers but in space instead of an entirely new creative principle.

No, I get what you mean, but I have practical experience in additive manufacturing, general engineering and physics. Layering isn't really a limitation for the geometry, it's just for simplifying calculations and more for powder bed fusion anyway. In DED you also do layers, but not in strict horizontal layers. Particularly with PBF we can already make insane geometries right here on Earth.
And it's not really consumer grade, let's be real. The costs would be ridiculous, and there'd be very few consumer grade applications for it in the first place.
Additive manufacturing is cool and all, but there are a few more decades worth of R&D left before we can worry about the limitations of gravity.
Which was my entire point from the beginning. There's not much point in doing shit in space right now. It's just expensive and for the most part adds more engineering problems than it solves. But some day we're gonna hit some limitations on Earth, and then it'll make sense to start doing it in space, maybe.
Look, I'm a physicist. I'm all for doing shit just for the sake of it, but I also have enough real world experience in various industries to know that money doesn't grow on trees, and that you need to explain why you want to spend insane amounts of money. Yes, sure, we can defund the third world and spend the money on SPAAAAACE, but even if all those billions would be available right now it'd be spent on more important things first.

 

[Bonesjones]

Practical limitations still apply. Long arms, especially if something as heavy as a laser head is attached to it, will have massive leverage. Gravity might be gone, but you still have inertia.

Except if you are only fighting inertia and your process, you are cutting the strength and weight of the components necessary, making everything lighter.

How do you spin the object? It still has to be attached to something to move it. In the end you'll end up with a setup of two six-axis robot arms that would work just as well on Earth.

Except in space you can make them a fraction of the size and weight for the same or better performance. The goal of doing things in space isn't "do what we can do on earth but in space" it's finding things we can't do on earth.

It's an engineering problem that you only have to work on if you wanted to do additive manufacturing in space, for which I'm not convinced there is enough incentive to bother.

Additive would be easier to start with since the facilities to make subtractive work are a lot messier. The goal would end up with open space gantries or free floating robots building things outside without the need for human involvement.

Anyway, the point is that we're still very far off from where we'd potentially benefit from doing this shit in space.

And sticking an adding box in every home had little potential in the 70s. The point is the technology from where we are to where we could be isn't large. Having working space manufacturing means 100 years from now, we have space built engines capturing asteroids and turning them into permanent settlements and factories.

None of this will be helped by doing it in microgravity. It'll be slow in space, too. I mean, what you want to do there?

What don't you want to do in space? You really do lack imagination. Why climb mountains? Why improve?

Dozen-meter-sized components with internal cooling channels and ultracomplex geometries?

Combining two ideas, but yeah why not?

Again, how do you spin the object?

You can use a laser if you want, that's the point, your options change.

The costs would be ridiculous, and there'd be very few consumer grade applications for it in the first place.

Yeah at the beginning, just like everything else.

Additive manufacturing is cool and all, but there are a few more decades worth of R&D left before we can worry about the limitations of gravity.

The point isn't competing with manufacturing on Earth, it's to improve space manufacturing for new ideas and products that can't be made on Earth.

There's not much point in doing shit in space right now. It's just expensive and for the most part adds more engineering problems than it solves.

Such a self defeating mindset. Solving new problems is progress. It's how you advance. Capturing one asteroid is worth the resources of 100 billion people, not that they are mutually exclusive.

But some day we're gonna hit some limitations on Earth, and then it'll make sense to start doing it in space, maybe.

Or we are land locked on Earth and everyone is covering it up. Space just isn't worth it kids, stop thinking about the stars, they aren't holes in the container lid.

Look, I'm a physicist. I'm all for doing shit just for the sake of it, but I also have enough real world experience in various industries to know that money doesn't grow on trees, and that you need to explain why you want to spend insane amounts of money.

Yeah you love science yet are actively against it. You also don't understand how money works at different levels despite physics being math heavy. Money literally does grow on trees, except in the US because it's linen. Yeah like how they justified the spending on the Hubble? Then it was broke and a whole department of government appeared out of thin air and said "yeah you can just use our spare parts".

Yes, sure, we can defund the third world and spend the money on SPAAAAACE, but even if all those billions would be available right now it'd be spent on more important things first.

What do you feel is more important? Funding the mole people wars or just giving more of it to Isreal. Maybe resurrecting Hitler?

Its not about immediate practical benefit it's about the stepping stones to revolutionary change.

 

[ExFoedere]

Mukbang-related content is shoved into the general public to weaken them physically (encourage overeating, mindless eating) and mentally.
Such content are allowed to stay on social media because big food and health industries have a say in social media companies and they want more customers and profit.

 

[Meriasek]

Except if you are only fighting inertia and your process, you are cutting the strength and weight of the components necessary, making everything lighter.

Nah, shit still needs to be sturdy.

Except in space you can make them a fraction of the size and weight for the same or better performance. The goal of doing things in space isn't "do what we can do on earth but in space" it's finding things we can't do on earth.

But you can't do them at a fraction of the size and weight. We don't need to actually spend billions to do things in space when we can just think about it first.

Additive would be easier to start with since the facilities to make subtractive work are a lot messier. The goal would end up with open space gantries or free floating robots building things outside without the need for human involvement.

Sounds like you never worked with actual additive manufacturing. It's messy af.

And sticking an adding box in every home had little potential in the 70s. The point is the technology from where we are to where we could be isn't large. Having working space manufacturing means 100 years from now, we have space built engines capturing asteroids and turning them into permanent settlements and factories.

And it's gonna happen in 100 years or so. There's just no point in spending the money now. We gain zero advantages and zero new insight.

What don't you want to do in space? You really do lack imagination. Why climb mountains? Why improve?

I'd love to do all sorts of stuff in space, but I also recognize that right now there's no point to it beyond cool-factor.

Combining two ideas, but yeah why not?

Well, you wanted to make big-ass components in space, and yapped about impossible and internal geometries. Isn't it what you wanted?
Reminder that DED can't really do those fancy geometries all that well, and PBF doesn't work in space.

You can use a laser if you want, that's the point, your options change.

Inducing that much momentum with lasers is kinda tough, will lead to significant ablation and heat transfer.
Have you put in any actual thought into this?

The point isn't competing with manufacturing on Earth, it's to improve space manufacturing for new ideas and products that can't be made on Earth.

There's no need to spend billions on that now, though. We already know the processes and limitations. Gravity isn't really the biggest issue, there are many other more fundamental problems to be solved first. *Then* we can start doing it all in space.

Such a self defeating mindset. Solving new problems is progress. It's how you advance. Capturing one asteroid is worth the resources of 100 billion people, not that they are mutually exclusive.

Not really, it's just not putting the cart before the horse. Asteroid mining is not all that useful when we haven't even started recycling metals on Earth properly yet.
Also, solving problems you created yourself isn't a great way to advance. It leads to convoluted overengineering.

Or we are land locked on Earth and everyone is covering it up. Space just isn't worth it kids, stop thinking about the stars, they aren't holes in the container lid.

We are basically land-locked by cost vs reward. I do think that the explanation to Fermi's paradox is that alien civilisations reasonably similar to humans either collapse before reaching the capacity to go for space colonisation, or transcend via a sort of technological singularity on their home planet/in their home system.

Yeah you love science yet are actively against it. You also don't understand how money works at different levels despite physics being math heavy. Money literally does grow on trees, except in the US because it's linen. Yeah like how they justified the spending on the Hubble? Then it was broke and a whole department of government appeared out of thin air and said "yeah you can just use our spare parts".

I'm not against it. I just don't see "throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks" as a good practice of science, especially not when it's overly expensive for very little benefit.
Stuff like Hubble or CERN are justified expenses, because they actively forward scientific endeavours, and there isn't really a way to do what they do without the massive expense. You can't do high energy particle physics without massive accelerators, and it's the only way to test our current theories reliably. Can't wait for cosmic rays all the time.
And yeah, they're expensive, but you get something in return. We already have a pretty good idea of what we'd get from doing additive manufacturing in space: Nothing we can't do on Earth for now.

What do you feel is more important? Funding the mole people wars or just giving more of it to Isreal. Maybe resurrecting Hitler?

Its not about immediate practical benefit it's about the stepping stones to revolutionary change.

I get that, but again, you're putting the cart before the horse. We have a whole lot of engineering challenges to solve before we gain any benefit from putting it in space. I'd love to put all the money put into worthless third world countries and tranny projects and kike wars into all sorts of scientific and engineering endeavours, and that would also involve space tech, but you gotta use the money efficiently. So first the basics like getting additive ready for efficient mass production, solving nuclear fusion (which has been criminally underfunded for half a century, and while there are many very promising startups now, we could have been a lot further now [expect maybe fast direct ignition interial fusion, the lasers for that only recently developed]), and so much more.
What needs to be done for space now is focusing on reducing payload costs. I.e. reusable stages, ideally going for SSTO tech. Jet to ram to scram to closed cycle. Once payload costs are down, doing shit in space will become a lot more attractive. Aside from that we should get back to nuclear tech for space. Chemical rockets won't get us anywhere, we need beefier specific impulse.
More near term I'd like to see a space station with a rotating section for gravity for researching long term travel tech.