The future of Space travel / exploration?
Discussion
I was thinking the other day, how we are at somewhat of a stalemate with space technology. Prior to the 20th century, mans realistic maximum cruising speed was in the order of say 40mph, on a steam ship, and as such, exploring our world was a slow and somewhat expensive undertaking. Until the completely new technology of heavier than air flying machines arrived, which opened up the potential for long global journeys to take hrs rather than days or even months. However, the people using those steamships probably didn't "see aircraft coming" i.e. that technical step was not one envisaged by explorers until it happened.
Shuffle forward a century and a bit, and isn't our current space technology a bit like that? i.e. we cannot yet cheaply harness and focus the enormous energies required to lift ourselves into orbit, and when there, we only have a very slow (relative) maximum speed, and so long distance planetary or interstellar exploration is difficult.
Whilst we work to improve rocketry and other propulsion technology, isn't this all just minor improvements, when we need at least a decade or two magnitude improvement to allow real space exploration to occur?
I would suggest that the current limitations to space travel are all almost entirely financial rather than technological at our current level of capability?
Shuffle forward a century and a bit, and isn't our current space technology a bit like that? i.e. we cannot yet cheaply harness and focus the enormous energies required to lift ourselves into orbit, and when there, we only have a very slow (relative) maximum speed, and so long distance planetary or interstellar exploration is difficult.
Whilst we work to improve rocketry and other propulsion technology, isn't this all just minor improvements, when we need at least a decade or two magnitude improvement to allow real space exploration to occur?
I would suggest that the current limitations to space travel are all almost entirely financial rather than technological at our current level of capability?
Bit of a dated graphic but...
I think the prospect of militarising space and willy waving gave us the biggest leap forward in terms of getting up there in the 50s and 60s. As you say the problem is probably mostly financial without any form of military backing for potential war e.g. the MIRV's and ICBM's.
I'm hoping all the space exploration that China is planning to do over the next few decades creates another space race.
We had pretty much this exact conversation the other night after a few drinks and everyone in my group of friends but me agreed that no budget should go to space exploration when we have problems here on Earth to sort. If taken as an average for the general population's view then it's a sad state of affairs for exploration indeed.
IIRC they've been testing ION drives for years now which could technically get us up to a decent speed if left to accelerate (for years in space), as could solar sails but nowhere near the speed of light, which I think we would need to get near to realistically achieve interstellar travel.
I think the prospect of militarising space and willy waving gave us the biggest leap forward in terms of getting up there in the 50s and 60s. As you say the problem is probably mostly financial without any form of military backing for potential war e.g. the MIRV's and ICBM's.
I'm hoping all the space exploration that China is planning to do over the next few decades creates another space race.
We had pretty much this exact conversation the other night after a few drinks and everyone in my group of friends but me agreed that no budget should go to space exploration when we have problems here on Earth to sort. If taken as an average for the general population's view then it's a sad state of affairs for exploration indeed.
IIRC they've been testing ION drives for years now which could technically get us up to a decent speed if left to accelerate (for years in space), as could solar sails but nowhere near the speed of light, which I think we would need to get near to realistically achieve interstellar travel.
Tell your friends that they are fools.
I'm so glad Christopher Columbus, Magellan, Drake, De Gama, Frobisher, Cook et al didn't hang around waiting for world poverty and illness to be cured before they started on their voyages of discovery.
If that is the criteria we are supposed to apply before we move outwards, we will get nowhere.
Do both.
Interstellar space travel is something for another thousand years in the future. There is plenty to be getting on with in our own Solar System that will keep us occupied for centuries.
I'm so glad Christopher Columbus, Magellan, Drake, De Gama, Frobisher, Cook et al didn't hang around waiting for world poverty and illness to be cured before they started on their voyages of discovery.
If that is the criteria we are supposed to apply before we move outwards, we will get nowhere.
Do both.
Interstellar space travel is something for another thousand years in the future. There is plenty to be getting on with in our own Solar System that will keep us occupied for centuries.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 2nd January 16:24
Coming at it from another angle. It currently costs something like $40,000 per kg of mass to get items into low earth orbit. What does that have to fall too, to make space a viable bushiness proposition?
(kinda like, you can fly to New York for a few hundred quid, so people do)
And what possible technology can harness millions of KJ of energy for such low cost?
Currently we fight gravity with massive chemical energy releases. There must be a better way, but what is it, and realisically, when could it mature? 50 years, 100years, 1000years?
(kinda like, you can fly to New York for a few hundred quid, so people do)
And what possible technology can harness millions of KJ of energy for such low cost?
Currently we fight gravity with massive chemical energy releases. There must be a better way, but what is it, and realisically, when could it mature? 50 years, 100years, 1000years?
Max_Torque said:
Prior to the 20th century, mans realistic maximum cruising speed was in the order of say 40mph, on a steam ship
On Turbinia perhaps - but you're forgetting about railways. Until then people thought that people would suffocate at over 30mph because they wouldn't be able to breathe! For 99.99% of civilised time man's fastest speed was that of a galloping horse.It's all about return on investment. Columbus et al started out because they were sponsored by risk-taking investors who knew there was likely a sizeable return in their lifetimes through plundering and general colonization.
Until we can reasonably expect to plunder and colonize the heavens for the (perceived) benefit of the earth-bound investors, I don't see the funds materializing for such a manned venture any time soon. I'd think robotic exploration, exploitation and colonization is more likely in the near future. Robotics are more g-tolerant and easier to keep fed and watered than us unreliable humans.
If you want a job done properly, give it to a computer!
Until we can reasonably expect to plunder and colonize the heavens for the (perceived) benefit of the earth-bound investors, I don't see the funds materializing for such a manned venture any time soon. I'd think robotic exploration, exploitation and colonization is more likely in the near future. Robotics are more g-tolerant and easier to keep fed and watered than us unreliable humans.
If you want a job done properly, give it to a computer!
There's room for both.
The moon and Mars are well within our capability for manned missions now. It's time we moved in that direction for those two targets. I agree that some areas of the solar system will remain the preserve of unmanned missions for some time to come. Some destinations will remain forever off limits to humans.
But there are lots of places worth going for human explorers.
The moon and Mars are well within our capability for manned missions now. It's time we moved in that direction for those two targets. I agree that some areas of the solar system will remain the preserve of unmanned missions for some time to come. Some destinations will remain forever off limits to humans.
But there are lots of places worth going for human explorers.
Eric Mc said:
Tell your friends that they are fools.
Oh I did, it turned into a slightly slurred drunken rant. In response to some of the above. How valuable a material do you think we would have to find on a planet or moon in our solar system to make it worth financially backing and setting up colonies and shipping it back to Earth? A la lots of SciFi plots.
There are 2 aspects to this:
1. Technical
2. Commercial
As Max_Torque covered, launch costs.
This is a combination of the above, no one has a working reusable space launcher.
There are concepts in the pipeline, such as Skylon and Musk's SpaceX are trying to make a reusable version of the falcon 9 v1.1.
But these are some time away.
It is technically possible for us to get to The Moon and Mars, but a manned mission doesn't currently have any commercial benefits. Purely political and scientific. The majority of the scientific missions being capable of being carried out by robotic missions (if over a longer time scale).
Now this will change over time, but it will take a change in the launcher situation to make it viable.
What the optimal launch cost will be, as we are in a capitalist society, will be determined by the market.
The Moon landings were an amazing technical achievement, but it was done on the limits of technology of the time.
Some of the requirements for a moon base have been achieved, but not all, certainly not for a sustained, independent presence.
Mars is a marked step beyond, partially due to the vastly varying distance, but also due to the radiation situation.
All these issues boil down to how much mass you can get into orbit. Which is fundamentally set by launch cost.
The next step is reusable launchers, which should in theory reduce launch costs (ignore the Shuttle, it was a technical and political nightmare, ruined by political infighting).
Beyond that, it will be a combination energy systems and deep space (beyond earth orbit) propulsion technologies.
Will we get there, if we don't destroy ourselves first, definitely.
In our lifetimes, is the real question.
1. Technical
2. Commercial
As Max_Torque covered, launch costs.
This is a combination of the above, no one has a working reusable space launcher.
There are concepts in the pipeline, such as Skylon and Musk's SpaceX are trying to make a reusable version of the falcon 9 v1.1.
But these are some time away.
It is technically possible for us to get to The Moon and Mars, but a manned mission doesn't currently have any commercial benefits. Purely political and scientific. The majority of the scientific missions being capable of being carried out by robotic missions (if over a longer time scale).
Now this will change over time, but it will take a change in the launcher situation to make it viable.
What the optimal launch cost will be, as we are in a capitalist society, will be determined by the market.
The Moon landings were an amazing technical achievement, but it was done on the limits of technology of the time.
Some of the requirements for a moon base have been achieved, but not all, certainly not for a sustained, independent presence.
Mars is a marked step beyond, partially due to the vastly varying distance, but also due to the radiation situation.
All these issues boil down to how much mass you can get into orbit. Which is fundamentally set by launch cost.
The next step is reusable launchers, which should in theory reduce launch costs (ignore the Shuttle, it was a technical and political nightmare, ruined by political infighting).
Beyond that, it will be a combination energy systems and deep space (beyond earth orbit) propulsion technologies.
Will we get there, if we don't destroy ourselves first, definitely.
In our lifetimes, is the real question.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Depends on the relative position of Earth and Mars at the time. The best that can be achieved is nine months.We know for certain that people can live up to twelve months in zero gravity (a number have already done so).
However, the trip would be probably a three year round trip altogether - giving 9 months there and nine months back - plus a long stay on the surface of mars to carry out the necessary exploring etc plus waiting for the planets to allign again for the nine month journey home.
Einion Yrth said:
The moon? Probably. I think however that Mars would be right at the very bleeding edge of our current capabilities, not that I wouldn't like someone to give it a bloody good go, mind.
Getting there and back is possible now with financial investment. As per moon landings.Doing it without someone dying, or at least suffering major health problems, would probably be the main issue.
Getting there and surviving there are a different thing.
Eric Mc said:
The solar system is where it is going to be at for a couple of centuries at least.
We got from the Wright brothers to jet fighters in 40 years and the moon in another 25. But perhaps the steps between each technology are getting larger. Certainly there is less motivation and no world wars to provide innovation/spin-offs.ash73 said:
Watch that graph flip round when they discover a big asteroid heading our way. It's all down to motivation; if we had a common enemy up there I reckon progress would be swift.
Global warming promised so much and delivered so little. 
It'll happen, I don't see it being in my lifetime though and probably not without large step changes in our political systems.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff