| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/7/2007 10:30:36 AM | I'm afraid I ain't as well read or educated as ya'll are, so please bear with me.
Remember the Ansari X-Prize? 10 Million to prove you can build a ship...launch it into orbit, then come back and survive, then do it again, I believe. It was done...
http://www.xprize.org/xprizes/ansari_x_prize.html
Carl Sagan and his Planetary Society?
http://www.planetary.org/about/founders/carl_sagan.html
I, too, think the shuttle is in need of an update/repair/replacement...if you were watching a few months ago, the power that IS decided he would send it up with a known glitch, saying nothing should happen. Of course, he wasn't on it, and luckily nothing happened, but there are too many out there that think the program is a waste..any more accidents just adds to their belief.
There's a lot to be learned...and I for one refuse to be so small minded to think that we are the ONLY ones to be...
You may go back to your regularly scheduled program.... | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 52 | |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/7/2007 10:44:47 AM |
Remember the Ansari X-Prize? 10 Million to prove you can build a ship...launch it into orbit, then come back and survive, then do it again, I believe. It was done...
Not orbit. Just the altitude of 100Km or 62 and change miles. It was a sub orbital jump that was achieved by X15, some 50 years ago.
Developing technologies for space travel is expensive and way beyond the capabilities of private companies. They need government founding and that's not going to happen until people ask for it. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/7/2007 11:52:14 AM |
Developing technologies for space travel is expensive and way beyond the capabilities of private companies. They need government founding and that's not going to happen until people ask for it.
I don't know if it's so much cost-prohibitive as that it has (for the most part) a poor risk-reward profile. Government funding reduces the risk, so it can improve the equation. I don't think that tourism is ultimately going to be able to justify the associated costs - it's going to have to be the discovery of something that can be found, or can be done, "out there" that gives a cost savings over what can be done "down here" sufficient to offset the significant initial investment and ongoing expenses. Commercial satellite systems are an obvious first step, but there's probably a lot more to be discovered.
Whether it would be discovered as quickly without basic scientific research (which, these days, is mostly government funded), is an open question. In any case, I think the "manned" model of exploration can, in some cases, have potential, but (as was observed previously) it will usually need to be justified on an objective basis rather than as a PR move. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/7/2007 3:37:14 PM | | Arri, I stand corrected...and a little disappointed...why all the hoopla now if it had been done before? | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/8/2007 5:06:07 AM | Arri you said -
Developing technologies for space travel is expensive and way beyond the capabilities of private companies. They need government founding and that's not going to happen until people ask for it.
I do not believe that to be true, the issue is getting the right people with money to believe in the idea and then following through on the development. Paul Allen paid the entire $20 Million that it took to develop Space Ship one, and White Knight at Scaled composites, the winners of the $10 Million X-Prize. Burt had the idea and he approached the right people, and the goal was almost assured, none of the other competitors were nearly as close to a complete product when space ship one won the X-prize. A few of the teams continued to do the research and are working towards other goals like John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace.
There are other philanthropists and V.C. opportunities out there, I just think that the motivation, education, and determination of the individual with the idea has to be shown and the funding will happen.
Space has the ability to make people extreme amounts of money but the science that is needed to take advantage of the resources in our own solar system has not yet been done. In order to take advantage of the resources in our solar system, we need to figure out a way to make prolonged exposure to micro-gravity safe, right now strenuous activity over a few week exposure is the best we have done. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/8/2007 5:17:09 AM |
why all the hoopla now if it had been done
One of the rules of the x-prize contest was that you could not use any previously done government research. All of the technology used must be commercially available or independently developed. That is what all the hoopla was about. It was to try and get people to use other ideas. To prove that the commercialization of space was a viable thing that the civilian sector could do.
There is no need to be disappointed, I do not think that you should be. Government research has funding far beyond the means of most mortal men but there are a few civilians that have the kind of money available to them, the only problem is convincing most of them to let go of some of it. If you break it down though you and I and every other tax paying citizen had pitched in to do that research. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 57 | |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/10/2007 4:54:57 PM | I don't want to diminish the achievement of the spaceship one's design and development team. But it is a far cry from leap forward in astronautics.
At least, the government now wants a hypersonic anti terrorist missile. That might help develop some of the technologies needed for the next generation orbiter. | |
|
| |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/11/2007 6:13:02 AM | | Hey...don't take me wrong...I think space travel and potential colonization of other worlds should be priority number one for the survival of the species in the long term. I just don't think the Americans actually went to the moon. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/11/2007 10:19:44 PM | Neil Armstrong said, "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind."
I wonder what might of happen if, instead, he said, "I claim this moon for the United States of America."
Well, the Russians would not of let that stand. There would of been a rush to claim their "share" of the new territory. In order to hold their own claim, the US would have to of established a base on the moon; drawing boarders and bounders. Other countries would not of stood by while the US and Russia planted flags throughout the solar system. Soon, everyone would be eyeing Mars and beyond. Perhaps we would be on Titan by now. Who knows? The world might just be a far different place, today, if Armstrong had made the land grab for the US. Perhaps worse. Perhaps better. But likely much different.
Just a thought. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 61 | |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/19/2007 5:47:16 PM |
I wonder what might of happen if, instead, he said, "I claim this moon for the United States of America."
He couldn't have said that. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty recognizes celestial bodies as the legacy of humanity. Not to be claimed by any nation.
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not expressly prohibit the placement or use of weapons in orbit, so long as they are for peaceful purposes. It does explicitly forbid any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet since they are common heritage of humanity. Art. II of the Treaty states, in fact, that “[o]uter space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty | |
|
LBP
|
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 62 | |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/19/2007 6:03:25 PM | I haven't heard anything since August 06, but Planet Space was talking about building a space station in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and already made an agreement with NS Government for the use of the land.
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/index.htm
Space tourism is where the future seems to be heading right now. I'm all for the more pure science and exploration of it but you can't argue that its most likely going to be those business minded folks who are able to motivate space travel into more efficient and cost affective ventures which will ensure success.
Sometimes those who deal in the complex miss the simple solutions. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/22/2007 10:08:34 PM | | the only place that 'manned' space trips has would be in missions of SHORT duration..........manned trips for interplanetary travel is far too cumbersome...even a manned trip to Mars would not be possible/feasable given the myriad of hurdles that need to be overcome!.........i believe the future of space travel lies in ROBOTICS and nano-technology....................the 1st pioneers into distant worlds will be sophisticated robotic systems (similar to the Mars rovers, but far more advanced and miniaturized) that will have more capabilities and longevity........................once many such trips have been made by these robots and only if the propulsion technology is advanced enuff, only then will they consider sending out a manned crew.........but that won't be for quite a loooooong time!!!! | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/24/2007 11:20:36 PM | | the whole project is stuck in the mechanics of propelling. We are still using the obsolete fuel burning procedure to reach escape velocities. Once revolutionary ideas come around that enable a different and more self-sustained mechanism for that, the whole space-flight concept will be approached differently... | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/25/2007 1:21:59 AM | [QUOTE]Why did we abandon research in Nuclear Thermal and Ion Propultion?"[/QUOTE] Do you really need me to tell you the political reasons for abandoing nuclear propulsion? Ion propulsion was still under development (and was finally used b NASA in a comet-encoutering probe called "deep space 2") until the Bush administration cut all funding for everything except the propigandist Mars mission.
As it has been demonstrated in so many different fields, the space program should be left to private organizations. Everything govenment gets involved in never work out or becomes successful in the US. But then again, it is not what the government is for. Another myth in a post full of them. A simple example I recently looked at would be the recreation of wetlands in Florida. They are sometimes overseen by private organizations and other times by the State government. The government has a *far* better track record with successful conversion to wetlands when compared to private companies.
The moon landing was a PR stunt - not much to be gained from more visits relative to the problems of keeping people up there. The Hubble has produced much more valuable information than a few rocks off the moon. Last I heard Bush had decided that keeping Hubble functioning was inappropriate because "it's too dangerous to put a man in space".
[qoute]The physics of flight itself are the confining factors in space travel. Unless we learn to utilize wormholes, or attain actual light speed, or dimensional slip, we're stuck here in our neighborhood. You are slinging around jargon.
Where do you think we could get at light-speed that we couldn't get at half of light speed? Have you considered the possability that cryonics might be easier to develop?
I propose we privately fund organizations like SETI in order to make PUBLIC contact with extraterrestrials, not this filtered and covert contact our government possesses. SETI is primarily priavtely funded.
Project Archangel was proposed back in the 60's...but voted down. We can still do it though.(Using single megaton bombs to lift a huge "plate" with a payload on top....huge water tanks for cooling and steering with steam...all designed and worked out). Yes. Let's launch a ship full of nuclear bombs into space. That will be approved. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 66 | |
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 1/25/2007 6:54:24 AM |
Do you really need me to tell you the political reasons for abandoing nuclear propulsion? Ion propulsion was still under development (and was finally used b NASA in a comet-encoutering probe called "deep space 2") until the Bush administration cut all funding for everything except the propigandist Mars mission.
Nuclear thermal boosts the reaction suing heat and Nuclear Ion heats the propellant without a reaction. It's high performance unlike the current Ion propulsion.
I see your point about the political implications. However, this is a double standard.
There are several hundred nuclear powered submarines stalking around in our oceans where they can do the biggest damage to our ecosystem .. but nuclear power is space where it is already full of radiation is a no no ...  | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/20/2007 1:59:36 PM | I'd like to reiterate what several posters have said or alluded to: Technological advances occur due to the profit motive and/or gaining military advantage, and not simply because the technology exists or could be developed in the near term. We could have been on Mars by now if we had the will to do so (budget money and project management).
As to solving the problems of keeping humans alive for the very long journey to other solar systems, that can be avoided by simply fertilizing stored eggs and waiting until 20 years or so before arrival before even conceiving the flight crew. The most difficult problems associated with keeping people alive in space would not occur until arrival in the destination neighborhood. For all but the nearest solar systems, there would be no attempt to return the astronauts back to Earth. Future astronauts will not be visitors, they will be immigrants, and their spaceships will be moving vans as much as transport vehicles.
As to developing the capability to transverse wormholes and near speed of light velocities, the astronauts and the research information they generate would never make it back to Earth anytime soon. We would end up with centuries old data akin to a fossil record. And even if we could achieve speed-of-light travel, the passage of time would occur at vastly different rates for the astronauts compared to us here on Earth due to the variations in time/space itself when two observers (the astronauts interacting with Earthlings) are moving at near-light speeds relative to each other. Earthlings and astronauts would age at incredibly different rates, and both would likely lose track of each other "in no time".
After the initial, rudimentary phase of interstellar exploration, the descendants of Earthlings will not report back to Earth like in the Star Trek shows. Earth itself will probably not become a member of any political entity such as a "United Space Federation", but our descendants probably would (whether it's their choice or not--like "joining" a prison gang).
We will also have to abandon many of our pre-conceived notions about what we will find along the way--there are always many surprises popping up in the process of exploration. I strongly doubt we will ever have the equivalent of the Starship Enterprise--such a "mothership" would be simply unnecessary. (And I would think that in the next 20 years, male baldness will be cured. What's up with Capt. Piccard's dome? And some people actually believe that you can hear explosions in space--like in Star Wars movies--and that America's moon landings were hoaxes).
There will be no Starfleet University in San Francisco to train the Capt. Kirks and the Piccards since bio-technology will advance faster than space propulsion technology, and the ability to download a university education into a space cadet's brain will occur before we perfect propulsion technology. (Soon, you will be able to purchase a downloaded virtual reality vacation to Club Med--complete with brain probe stimulation--from your local cable company while you actually stay at home). Remember the movie Independence Day, when Will Smith pulled the alien out of the flying saucer that crashed? Part of the alien's body was a composite of tissue and machinery. That type of technology is already within sight and will arrive way before any gas-guzzling U.S.S. Enterprise gets built.
So space exploration will be very different from what many people presume it will be. Maybe any mothership will not be gargantuan like the one in the referenced movie, but merely a modest vehicle capable enough to carry "persons" who are little more than some brain tissue inside a life-support shoebox whose knowledge was largely acquired through data downloading instead of years of social experiences. (Talk about an elite class developing and suppressing underlings, while robot machinery does the physical work... Perhaps that's another thread). As we have observed in recent decades, technology solves AND causes problems, provides greater capabilities and productivity (with personal computers, faxes, etc., now your work follows you home at night and you have much less free time than cavemen did), but can also cause social isolation and eventual societal sea changes.
Time to go before I start sounding as wacky as I am... | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/20/2007 9:09:56 PM |
Developing technologies for space travel is expensive and way beyond the capabilities of private companies. They need government founding and that's not going to happen until people ask for it.
Actually several private companies are developing space technology right now. Let private industry get more involved and the prices will drop a great deal. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/23/2007 2:08:26 PM | If you could take about 10% from the military space program and apply it to the civilian program you could probably at least double NASA's budget.
If it was shown how much the military spent on space research and satellites the people would be totally appalled by it. Sure the US went to the moon (for about $25 billion), but that's miniscule that the military spent on it's own space system in the same time. The military had at least 10x that amount to spend, and they used NASA as a cover. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/24/2007 2:30:41 AM | Space Elevator is the way to go...
A space elevator is basically a car that travels on a carbon-nanotube-ribbon suspended from a counterweight (small asteroid maybe) 60 000 miles above the earth. It's a way to get stuff into orbit around earth for a tenth of the current cost. The biggest challenge is the ribbon, so far they have been able to make ribbons a few kilometres long, but a full length ribbon is needed. (This is the only thing strong enough to hold its own weight. 60 000 miles of carbon ribbon is heavy.
To get them started, Nasa could try building one on the moon first. See the link for an article with more details
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_space_elevator.html | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/24/2007 3:29:08 PM | Good point AugieDougie, the US military spends 47 times as much as NASA and leaves nothing to show for it.
A space elevator is a great idea which is within our reach, however the cost of such a program forces it to be the domain of governments, not the private sector.
Contrary to many of the gloom and doom statements by posters so far, the future of manned spaceflight is very bright. Many overlook the significance of SpacShipOne's historic flight because sub-orbital hops are nothing new. What is important to keep in mind is that this was a private venture performed for under $25 million dollars. Try going to NASA and requesting not one, but two new aircraft for $25M and see how far you'll get. You'd be lucky to get a R&D report for that price let alone two working vehicles.
It also may have slipped past everyone since the news networks rarely cover anything of historic importance, but we've also recently seen the first private station launched into space.
Russia is about to loft the 5th paying space tourist into space. They are also planning trips around the Moon in the next year or two.
Things ar elooking up because finally there is money to be made in manned spaceflight. The next 20 years will be very exciting, mark my words. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/26/2007 3:26:02 PM | you want to know the real reason Space flight has not been funded or properly implemented simple Governments would lose control over their people. Go with the colonization of mars the Asteroid belts and the rest of the solar system this leads to break offs into other countries and most countries dont want that.
AS for the US space program to get to the MOON what a waste of time and energy they Believed in the Soviet Hype of sputnik and stoped the way they were doing it which was a military based method which was scaring the Soviets in the technology department.
if NASA was not around and the airforce and other agencies had of been kept in charge of the space program we would have alot better things going on in space then there is now.
That is why there is no LUNAR base right now.
Mars would be a 5 month Journey with the way technology was going.
if privatised funding for space was around you would have alot more deaths but also alot more scientific breakthroughs since it would be about money.
also gravity is pretty easy to make just have super magnets rotating really fast around each other or have something rotating around the ship to create gravity | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/26/2007 5:46:37 PM |
Good point AugieDougie, the US military spends 47 times as much as NASA and leaves nothing to show for it. Lacrosse and KH-12 intelligence satellite systems , Navstar navigation satellite , a fleet of new Milstar satellites , imaging radar and optical imaging satellites, as well as a new geostationary signals intelligence satellite and a new Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System for global aerial and maritime surveillance. In addition, a new missile launch detection satellite is also under development.
Of course, GPS is a millitary endevour as well.
Nothing?
A space elevator is a great idea which is within our reach If you know how to build a 60,000mi long ribbon of carbon nano-tubes without joint or defect please share this process with the world. We've not figured it out yet.
Try going to NASA and requesting not one, but two new aircraft for $25M and see how far you'll get. Then go to Russia and watch them hand you some Soyouz.
They are also planning trips around the Moon in the next year or two. I call you out on that claim. Support.
you want to know the real reason Space flight has not been funded or properly implemented simple Governments would lose control over their people. Go with the colonization of mars the Asteroid belts and the rest of the solar system this leads to break offs into other countries and most countries dont want that. Gimme some of what you are smoking.
I think you are confusing SciFi with reality... not that colonization of mars or an asteroid is even technologicaly feasable... much less concieveable without billions in government backing.
That is why there is no LUNAR base right now. Because it's extremely difficult, rather dangerous, and has no millitary or economic use.
Mars would be a 5 month Journey with the way technology was going. Describe the technology please.
(BTW, a trip to mars isn't much longer than 5 months. A round trip is, however, more like two years beacuse of launch windows).
also gravity is pretty easy to make just have super magnets rotating really fast around each other or have something rotating around the ship to create gravity I just spewed soda on my keyboard.
While that wouldn't make any gravity, it would make a lot of electricity. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/27/2007 11:01:38 AM | I am not confusing reality with sci fi look at the new world and the old world how many colonies do you see still controled by the old world. Why because of the journey and the power needed to prevent break offs was not there and the communication and time spaced apart.
the super magnets by spinning around each other would create a magnetic field look at what the core of our planet is for an example of this.
A lunar base does have economic and Military Uses actualy
the economic would be the science you could do the studying of the moon you could do as well. the Military would be the use of it as a space launcher to other places.
the ION drive we have now works perfectly we just dont use it on space ships right now just our probes.
Actually the Colonization is pretty easy to do just go under ground work on wind based power and that does all the lights you have and the food processes you need.
the terraforming is another matter Just drop a couple nukes on the planet after dropping a few ice cubes from the Asteroids there. you could also drop the ice chunks onto venus and within 200 years its able to be colonized.
and why 60 000 mi any way all it has to do is get to the out regions and it will float which it can be then picked up.
and the Materials used would be buckyballs which would since you are spending more money on it become alot cheaper and have alot of uses on earth as well.
The Space industry would become more and more cost effective as u went as more companies would see the value in it. | |
|
| Future of manned space flight
Posted: 2/27/2007 2:39:28 PM | I'm not a scientist so I might be wrong about this (anyone is welcome to correct me), but . . .
Gravity is created when mass bends space around it. Magnetic force is something else altogether. Centrifugal force doesn't even create gravity, just the illusion of something like it.
The carbon cable currently won't work for the space elevator because the "bucky-balls" (carbon molecules) won't hold together for any usable length.
The man is correct about the two year trip. The length of time is dependent on where Earth and Mars is in their orbits. You might get to Mars in five months but then you've got to wait as they swing around the sun and catch up to each other again before you can come home.
You would probably have to drop more ice into Venus' atmosphere than could be produced in all of the Earth's oceans to make any changes on that planet. Even then, it seems to me, all that extra oxygen would make the place even hotter and more humid than it is now.
Currently, there is no economic benefit to colonizing a planet.
Currently, a lunar base would be a waste of money.
In my opinion, at the present time, NASA dollars are best spent on unmanned probes. If an individual would care to invest his own money on man space exploration, I'm open to that. The real push into space will come when individuals find ways to make money going there.
All that being said, I hope a way to make money from it is found as it seems pretty sad to me if mankind is destine to remain forever on Earth. | |
|
Home
login 
