What is the future of human space travel?

Freejack · February 2003

I figure this would be a good point to start a new topic.

What are your opinions and what is your visions of future of human space travel, both in the imediate future and several decades from now?

Jake

Messiah · February 2003

I think the immediate future would be bases on Luna, to check if we have the necessary technology to make a base on Mars. Mining on Luna? And tourists in the upper atmosphere.

At a later point... tourists on Luna.

------------------
Talk is silver, but violence is gold.

Talon Mistsong · February 2003

No one's going anywhere in space until we've got a good orbital station from which to launch a long-range expidition. With present tech., the moon's just too far away.

------------------
There are 3 things in life I never forget: my friends, my enemies, and my access codes.
Never put gasoline in a fire extinguisher.
"No government, no dictator can hold an imprisioned population by force of arms forever. There is no power in the universe greater than the need for freedom. Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies [i]cannot stand[/i]." - G'Kar, [i]The Long Twighlight Struggle[/i]

PJH · February 2003

Yes, we definitely need a space station in orbit, which to use as a waystation from where to launch ships further away.

My future visions: Moonbase + mining, manned trip to Mars, new generation of space craft which would be faster, more reliable, safer, cheaper and reusable and which would be able to take off, land and dock with space station(s) and other similar vehicles. Also we need to have a "construction/repair ship" ala the Fury's seen in B5, which NASA in fact has considered already. Vehicles and machines should also be done for moving and working on the Moon. Tourist trips to the Moon should be done and available for everybody, not only for rich.

The moonbase would operate as a test bed for technology and science plus would have a giant observatory. And of course the mining industry would work there as well. Maybe the long range missions could be carried out from there as well, such as Mars missions etc. Satellites could also be sent from there to other planets and moons.

All this should be done in a 20-30 years timeframe absolute MAX.

In 30-50 years we should have a base and mining industry on Mars and yet new generation of space crafts which would be much more advanced. Maybe they could even have the "artificial gravity" ala B5/Omega style to prevent the weightlessness problem. Also by then we should have people living on the moonbase(s).

And preferably do that all even sooner.

- PJH

Keyan · February 2003

Personally, I think first we need a new low orbit vehicle. I think an idea using a single piece with a detaching orbiter is best..i.e., 4 h/o engines with 2 SRBs all in one body that can auto-pilot down...you could land the thing at white sands...although transporting it to the cape could be a challenge. From there, a lighter orbiter would simply detach..it wouldn't need the main engine stuff at all.

Biggles · February 2003

Primary targets are a new launch vehicle/method and finishing the ISS. After that comes further launch enhancements and a new, larger space station that can be used as a starting point for out of orbit missions.

I think that it will be the corporations and/or China who achieve these goals. Governments don't consider space travel important enough to achieve them.

------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras

JackN · February 2003

We could have had a base on the moon years ago...

It's not all that hard to reach the moon. Mars yes, but the Moon, no...

Government is the big problem with rate of change and exploration. Budget cuts being the biggest part.

Corporations in control scares the hell out of me...

[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]

Freejack · February 2003

Let me ask some of you interested in physics and aerospace, is there a non-combustion method for propelling an object into space? Is there a propulsion system that does not carry the huge fuel penalties that using traditional rocket power does?

To me that would be the secret to really opening up space is to get rid huge amounts of very explosive, very dangerous fuels needed to launch a vehicle up into space. A simpler propolsion system will speed turn around times on the groud and make launches safer.

Jake

Biggles · February 2003

Yes, there is, and strangely enough it's suddenly [url="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html"]getting attention[/url] again.

------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras

Jon_S · February 2003

FreeJack There are a couple of theoretical methods for getting to orbit without having to burn rocket fuel. Or at least to drastically reduce the fuel required.

The old sci-fi standby of a large electromagnetic launch system. Stick a capsule in a giant mountainside sized tube of electromagnets and hit the switch. The problems are sonic boom buildup; thermal issues; and required G forces. You have to get the capsule up to > mach 25 in the length of your launch tube, which means a lot of air has to get out of the way, which slows the capsule down and heats it up. So this doesn't seem to be a practical solution. But it might be used as a 1st stage to reduce the required fuel for a rocket.

The more elegant method is a space elevator. Basically a ribbon or tube of very high testile strength material, probably carbon nanotube, that stretches from the earths surface out past geostationary orbit. The tube is held in tension by the spinning of the earth and modules can be driven up and down it electrically. However we don't yet have the ability to construct carbon nanotube of sufficent length to assemble such a device.

Keyan · February 2003

One cool one that I have seen is to actually use a laser to ablate a propellent material, causing thrust. The cool part about it is that the material isn't generally explosive in it's own right, it's simply vaporized by the laser. The problems are accuracty and keeping enough laser power to keep it going into orbit (the laser is ground mounted).

[This message has been edited by Keyan (edited 02-05-2003).]

Captain,Simmonds · February 2003

NASA Will be Replaced by an Internation Space Agancy..... And Space(Around Earth) will be in the hands of the nations of the earth. Instead of two ir three nations.

bobo · February 2003

I'm usually an optimist, but I don't think any real colonization will happpen for at least 100 years. There's just no incentive.

There is no equivalent in human history of a people moving voluntarily from a life supporting environment into a life-hostile environment. The closest think might be the settlement of penal colonies (g'day to all our Aussie mates!), but even that is not the same since a person could survive and with hard work florish.

Until there is a strong economic (e.g., natural resource depletion) or societal (e.g., shipping political prisoners to a lunar gulag or relocating "excess" population) motivations, I just don't see enough people willing to go.

------------------
bobo
<*>
B5:ITF

Argone · February 2003

Damn Good Question;

First part, I see a new type of launch and recovery vehicle coming soon. Maybe Hydrogen, Nuclear or some other new source, gravitational, that we have not yet worked out.

Second part, In my lifetime I would have thought from the moon in the 60's and 70's that by now we would have been on Mars. But now with the right help and the combination of all the world's space agencies maybe we are finally on the right track. Within 25 years I hope we are on the way to settling Mars and Mining many other moons and astroids. As someone else said {bobo} Their is incentive, reasources, we are running out of and other planets have in abundance. Think of the money to be made by finding some new exsotic material that can do everything.

------------------
[b]May You Live Forever, and The Last Voice You Hear, Be Mine! [/b]

shadow boxer · February 2003

you forget people like Edmund Hillary....

"Why did you climb mount Everest?"

"Because it was there."

We should be shooting materials and equipment to the Moon right now, autonomously on unmanned vessels, (perhaps in vessels purposely designed to be cannibalised once they are on the surface), build up a nice stockpile of assorted space base building shite and then send the crews in to actually build the base... the ISS is a great idea but as far as it being a primary goal... bollocks to that.

why 'hang shit in the air' when you can build on an existing sattelite with buckets of very raw materials right outside your lander door?

With the right kind of dirt we have the tech to build stuff which carries four stories here on Earth at 1.0G... at 0.14 G* on the moon ? Hell... all you'd need is the mother of all sealants and a few airlocks... the moon soil itself would make great walls... brilliant insulative properties, with careful construction I cant see pressurisation being a problem either.

no hairsbreadth adjustment of orbit... no docking problems...no spindly arrays of solar panels, no bullshit...

*probably quite wrong but I'm sure Sam will provide the correct number.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] )

shadow boxer · February 2003

also... as far as the urge to colonise.... its there... and you watch as the human race makes this world a toxic mess... then the moon will be quite attractive... even for those with feet of clay/lead.

people left Europe BECAUSE where they lived was harsh and not conducive to good living.... Irish Potato famine... religious persecution ( there is quite a large German Lutheran heritage here in South Australia)...

Would you like to live in whats projected for South Africa ? One person in three having AIDS...

This petri dish of a planet is only so big... and we'll run out of agar very soon at this rate...

JackN · February 2003

Still a problematic thing on a rock where you can't just step outside the door and breath.

The water is probably there, but all the work to get it and breathable air is going to be a big priority...

[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]

samuelk · February 2003

[quote]the ISS is a great idea but as far as it being a primary goal... bollocks to that.

why 'hang shit in the air' when you can build on an existing sattelite with buckets of very raw materials right outside your lander door?
[/quote]

The ISS was never a "primary goal". But it is the next logical step in the evolution of space exploration. You have to crawl before you can walk.

[This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-06-2003).]

Randy · February 2003

If we don't irradiate, or biologically contaminate ourselves back to the Stone Age, we'll go to other star systems. It’s just a matter of time. How will we get there? It’s impossible to say without precognition, because we don’t know what sudden scientific breakthroughs there will be, or whether or not we’ll suddenly get outside help.

E.T · February 2003

If nations would have used as much money to space technology as they use for military (or at least half of that), bases on moon would have been reality for many years.

------------------
[i]No one here is exactly what he appears[/i]

Biggles · February 2003

[quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
[b]We should be shooting materials and equipment to the Moon right now, autonomously on unmanned vessels, (perhaps in vessels purposely designed to be cannibalised once they are on the surface), build up a nice stockpile of assorted space base building shite and then send the crews in to actually build the base... the ISS is a great idea but as far as it being a primary goal... bollocks to that.[/b][/quote]

You can't just shoot random materials to the moon. You need to plan your base, then work out what it will need before you can start sending it. This planning can't just be done on the basis of "We need to get materials to the moon, what shall we send?". You need to do long term planning, work out what the base will be used for, how it will be built, who's going to live there, in other words you need to plan the whole thing.

[quote][b]why 'hang shit in the air' when you can build on an existing sattelite with buckets of very raw materials right outside your lander door?[/b][/quote]

Because you need a staging post to get the materials that can't be found on the moon there easily. Materials like oxygen, water, etc.

------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras

[This message has been edited by Biggles (edited 02-06-2003).]

shadow boxer · February 2003

and your point is Biggles ??

did I say 'send random stuff to the moon"... lots of kleenex, lots of play doh and four thousand tonnes of used cutlery ?

C'mon Biggles... gimme SOME credit...

"Crawl before you can walk ?"

So you think hanging something in orbit is easier than building things on the moon ?

Thats like building a floating platform on the Ocean in preference to building something on an island...

you tell me which is easier of those two...

samuelk · February 2003

[quote]So you think hanging something in orbit is easier than building things on the moon ?[/quote]

It's not that it's harder or easier. It's the next step.

[quote]So you think hanging something in orbit is easier than building things on the moon ?[/quote]

Go back to the crawling/walking analogy. Do you think it's really easier to crawl than walk? You try crawling everywhere for a day and see how tired you are.

Regardless, it actually IS easier to put something in orbit than it is to put something on the moon. Keeping an object in orbit isn't that hard. Gravity and Centrifugal force do most of the work.

As for putting something on the moon, you've got to figure out a way to get into orbit, transfer to the moon and land. Which do YOU think is easier?

By putting a space station in orbit, you can use it as a staging area for eventually putting stuff on the moon.

You can transport materials and assemble them in orbit (that way, you don't have to worry about delicate structures or equipment breaking during launch).

You can use the space station as a rescue facility, in case something goes wrong on the moon habitat, and you need to wait for a window to return to Earth (what happens if you have to leave the moon quickly (meteor hit, for example), yet you can't get to Earth because of bad storms over your landing areas?).

The space station can act as a monitoring station, keeping an eye on the moon Habitat when it might not be possible to monitor things from Earth.

[This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-06-2003).]

bobo · February 2003

[quote]
you forget people like Edmund Hillary....

"Why did you climb mount Everest?"

"Because it was there."
[/quote]
But Hillary came back down and returned to England. He didn't stay (nor has anyone else, voluntarily [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] ).
[quote]
Gravity and Centrifugal force do most of the work.
[/quote]
Centrepital acceleration, that is [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]

------------------
bobo
<*>
B5:ITF

JackN · February 2003

Hmmm... 10 times is better than 1 eh?

[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]

samuelk · February 2003

Jeez, and I thought I looked bad with my centripetal acceleration error.... Double posting is one thing, jeez. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-07-2003).]

Argone · February 2003

Uhhhh....... bobo have you developed a slight studder?

------------------
[b]May You Live Forever, and The Last Voice You Hear, Be Mine! [/b]

Biggles · February 2003

[b]*Biggles sighs, and begins cleaning up the mess*[/b]

[quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
[b][snip]
So you think hanging something in orbit is easier than building things on the moon ?

Thats like building a floating platform on the Ocean in preference to building something on an island...

you tell me which is easier of those two...[/b][/quote]

Considerably easier. Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be floating something on the ocean compared with building a base at the bottom of the Mariana Trench without a support base up top. Sounds suicidal to me.

------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras

shadow boxer · February 2003

sigh... I really am beginning to think that I speak another language entirely...

Did I freakin say anything about completely abandoning the space station ?

Did I say anything about putting all our efforts into moonbase ?

Sigh....

To follow your analogy.... Biggles... so theres something wrong with having the odd container ship dropping supplies and so forth into the trench for the guys to use when they get down there ??

You can guide those supplies into a safe landing... and cubes of ice, bundles of aluminium strut etc dont give two tosses about high G landings...

Bobo : Yeah Hillary went home, but theres five permanent base camps on the slopes of Sargamantha.... (dont you just hate it when an analogy comes back to bite ya :D)

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

What is the future of human space travel?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

What is the future of human space travel?

Comments