Lumpy, either you have a very different definition of “basic” and “fundemental” thn I do, are the world’s foremost engineer/physicist, or you are really, really overestimating the capacity to do these things.
A lot of experiments HAVE been performed in space, including ones that don’t have any obvious militatry application. I’ve seen films or read accounts of things like lathes, zero-g dynamics, and even the infamous soda can in space. Various odd biology experiments (all in extremely well-packaged and contained experimental setups) have been performed.
Does anyone know if there’s a listing of space experiments? Most of this stuff got little to no publicity. I suspect there are a great many things that HAVE been tested in spasce that you don’t know about.
I’ve given much thought to the problem of the microgravity bong, and I believe that conventional water filtration may be unworkable. No matter how you slice it, you can’t get the smoke to bubble through the water on its own. I think a better solution would be some kind of system of cooling tubes where the smoke is brought down to body temperature without ever directly contacting the water. And then that’s ignoring the problems of open fire the cabin, exhaled smoke stressing the air filters, and the lack of convection which means that flame as we know it is not possible in space. I think the future is in vaporizers, which seem ideally suited to the zero gravity environment.
Or maybe just brownies.
Despite the Constitution of the United States directing Congress to invest in the arts and sciences, the public at large perceives space exploration and all that it entails as a waste of tax dollars. It’s quite pity we hold that view. Many of breakthroughs in physics and aerodynamics were a direct result of space research.
As another poster correctly pointed out, in order to get grants to do “risky” research, you’d need to convince the NSF or a private donor that it has a good chance of success. There are some ‘experimental’ R21 grants given by the NIH but the NIH gives grants to biomedical research, not physics.
If you find this a problem, both Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have pledged to increase the budget for the NSF and NIH.
- Honesty
> pump storable fuel from one tank to another
That’s done regularly, e.g. when the Progress capsule carries propellant to ISS. Fuel transfer between two unmanned spacecraft has also been demonstrated by DARPA’s Orbital Express satellites.
> studied long term cosmic ray exposure by sending some lab mice
It’s probably easier to measure cosmic rays in space, then recreate the environment in a lab and subject mice to it.
**> keep even the simplest closed-cycle system (algae and animals) going in **
What’s the advantage of doing it in space, compared to on earth?
> Long-term storage of cryogenic propellants
Vacuum cryogenic technology is very well established. Some types of space telescopes carry tens of gallons of liquid helium, which lasts the life of the satellites. (In fact, it usually defines the lifetime of the satellite.)
> Solar-thermal electrical generation
Doesn’t it usually involve moving parts (e.g. Stirling engine)? Moving parts in space is always risky.
> I would have added ion propulsion, but a lunar probe finally tried it out decades after the concept was first proposed.
Actually ion thrusters are used for attitude control on many commercial satellites.
The only thing I can come up with is that there seems to be no impetus to do anything not active-mission related.
Well, of course. Why should we waste money on things that aren’t related to the primary mission? For example, as a science research group, my colleagues may spend 5 years designing and building a space astronomical telescope. And the telescope itself will have new designs and features that weren’t used in space before, because that’s the purpose of the mission. But we wouldn’t risk the success of the mission by sticking an unproven solar-thermal generator on the satellite. We don’t even like to use a new electric motor or microprocessor - we prefer to use the same one that’s been used successfully on another satellite.
They’d ideally be moist, and bite-sized. Crumb generation is a potential problem. 
Send up some crumby brownies, then say that the experiment is about crumb mitigation. This could be done at the same time as dust-collection experiments. 'Cause if there’s some freaky new space-age way to collect dust that works better than naything before with only modest side effects, I’d like to know about it. I need to use it in my apartment.
From what I’ve read about Skylab, most unsecured stuff ends up being pushed by the ventilation system towards the filters. That’s where they used to look fiorst for anything that was “lost”. Brownie crumbs would be a LOT more likely to drift there rapidly than, say, a hammer. So i expect that the result of eating brownies in zero-G would be a lot of brownie crumbs on the filter, and not much anywhere else.
“Am I missing some reason why it isn’t as simple as it sounds?” 400 engineers and project managers.
I like brownies as much as the next guy—hell, maybe even a lot more than the next guy—but it is difficult to control your dosage with brownies since they take a little while to kick in. Inhaled cannabis, whether vaporized or smoked, is much better in this regard. I would suspect that would be a definite advantage in the already disorienting environment of space.
Sergeant Joe Friday : “The subject was booked under Section 601 - in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, or immoral life.”
Laugh now, but when future astro-slackers are toting their Vibrotronica-brand AstroBongs to the Robo-Grateful-Dead show at the L5 Performing Arts Spheroid, I’ll be the one laughing—all the way to the space bank!
The Space Bank, I tell you!
And then, for some strange reason, one might find oneself wanting to eat even more of them. This could go on and on . . .
Helps make sure it really is a closed cycle and there’s no cheating or accidental contamination from the outside environment. Besides, the point of doing it is to eventually make a closed-cycle habitat for humans, to be used in space – in permanent colonies or on protracted voyages – so it’s best to develop and test the basic steps in a space environment in the first place. You don’t want your habitat to be halfway to Jupiter before you find out that the level of cosmic rays in interplanetary space has an unexpected negative impact on the growth of your hydroponic plants and your shielding was not designed with that in mind.
I saw on Discovery Channel just yesterday that some researchers are consideringa much smaller centrifuge instead of spinning the whoole vessel.
The astronauts would each use it for about 45 minutes a day.
It’s cheaper, smaller and may do the job.
Cosmic rays kind of scare me. That’s really hard radiation. Only solution I’ve heard of that works is to surround the living quarters with things that contain hydrogen, like water or polyeurothane plastic.
Anything done in space costs a lot of capital and once you are out there you have only what you brought. Thinking of everything is impossible; space exploration is an onging learning experience.
I think you mean there may be trouble trying to “reproduce results” 
Remember the LDEF? I know that there’s been a couple of metal casting experiments on shuttle missions. I bet that these guys would be able to tell you if a list existed of experiments performed in space.
I didn’t think the water was used to cool the smoke since they aint really hot. I thought it was kinda of a filter.
How about a gravity bong in space?
A friend used mint flavored mouthwash.