Back in 86, I remember an essay in Science Magazine by Asimov, where he argued don't go to Mars. Go to the moon first, put a base there, then launch the Mars ship from the moon.That is actually a sensible idea given that the moons escape velocity is far lower than that of earth, allowing you to get by with much less fuel required to do so. Also you could take material from the moon (or for an even lower launch cost, a near earth asteroid) and launch it to the earth-moon or sun-earth lagrangian regions and set up permanent, spacebased colonies without having to even set foot on a planet or moon to establish a habitat. Some proposal for such are the Stanford torus and O'neill cylinder designs from the 1970s (and possibly other besides)
That's one of the main stumbling blocks is getting enough industrial capabilty up in orbit to begin building the spaceships and habitats for a true coloniation effort. However, if, as Asimov probably argued, we should take the time to build a robust capacity before reaching too far too fast. One problem with the Space Race that the US and USSR indulged in was it had one goal: Setting foot on the Moon. Everything was bent to that end, and once the goal was achieved, people felt like there was little else to do. The tools to get to the Moon weren't well adapted to getting us in space on a permanent basis.
And as for NASA. They might use private industry to build spaceships under 'government contracts', but that is the whole problem. When has a government military/industrial contract ever been on time or within budget? Yet the government can't built these things itself, so it is stuck with an aging fleet of expensive, easily-breakable orbit busses.
Once profit and private enterprise gets into space full swing, making things work will become a priority. There will be no pork-stuffed contracts, or Senator Proxmires cutting funding because he needs airtime or more dairy farm subsidies.
here's the problem then... WHERE IS THE PROFIT IN MANNED MISSIONS TO SPACE?
Well, if you had bothered to actually read my posts, I outlined several very profitable things that manned space missions could to. Once again, to wit:
- Harvest nigh-infinite resources (the asteroid belt-outer moons-Kupier Belt)
- Harvest nigh-infinite energy (Sol)
- Access to nigh-infinite living space (the planets and habitats in space, leading to eventual interstellar travel)
- Using environments of hard vacuum and zero-G to create things just impossible to do at the bottom of a gravity well. (room-temp conductors/new monomolecular products/microchips/etc.)
Saying that 'rich man junkets' are useless is as asinine as saying the Wright Brothers should've packed it in because their plane couldn't travel at Mach 1 or make a transatlantic flight. You have to DEVELOP the technology by USING it as best it can be used at the time. It was only 20 years from Kitty Hawk to Lindbergh and only 20 years from Lindbergh to Yeager. No one knew in the beginning where the technology was going to go, they just did the best they could and learned as they went.
And we all take advantage of what's been 'put out' by others. The military started the Internet, should we not use it because it was developed as a millitary-industral project? If private enterprise comes up with better spaceship designs, I would assume NASA would 'take advantage' of them as well. Or should private enterprise not use the information developed by the government? That's not subsidizing, that's just using what's out there.
The best thing about private enterprise in space is that it will move forward, no matter WHAT the government thinks about it. It's not the government's business anymore. They can keep playing with their 30-year-old shuttle fleet and making probes. That's about their speed.
~claps and cheers~
So I just want to know; when are we getting a Lunar Resort/Casino?
|
The best thing about private enterprise in space is that it will move forward, no matter WHAT the government thinks about it. It's not the government's business anymore. They can keep playing with their 30-year-old shuttle fleet and making probes. That's about their speed.
And the private enterprise successor is where? Pogo stick flights such as SpaceShip One and Two are nothing more than what was managed by Mercury-Redstone flights. Until private enterprise actually solves the engineering problems of Orbit and return, they're not even with NASA or the Soviet Union for that matter, much less ahead.
The problem with these resources you mentioned? they're out there and we're down here. Energy requires a medium of transport. A microwave beam that could radiate energy to power a city could cook it ten times over, not to mention the affects it would have on the environment since at best estimate the efficiency of beamed power from space is less than one percent with the other 99 percent just cooking anything in it's path. Any other method of energy transport still involves the problem of getting it from one place to another.
Moving resources around is an even bigger problem. Yes the stuff is out there, but is it even conceivable that it will do us any good this century?
I am not an Luddite anti-technologist. I'm merely pointing out the cold stone reality where it comes to utilisation of space. For the moment the only real return we've been getting for our buck has been in the unmanned programs, which need to be expanded, not sacrificed in the chasing of a fools dream.
The Wright Brothers plane is a poor example. The Wright brothers' flight used technology which was cheap and readily available to anyone with the skills, basic knowledge of the Bernoulli principle, and could lay thier hands on a good machine shop. (the only thing that had been lacking at the time were portable motors of sufficient power, something that was just coming down the pike) In...
Dude who peed in your wheaties today. DO you even read what everyone else is saying? Or do you just stick your head in the sand until people agree with you. Remember winning an arguement on the interwebz is just like winning the special olympics!
And the private enterprise successor is where? Pogo stick flights such as SpaceShip One and Two are nothing more than what was managed by Mercury-Redstone flights. Until private enterprise actually solves the engineering problems of Orbit and return, they're not even with NASA or the Soviet Union for that matter, much less ahead.
Never said they were ahead dude. But I'll bet good coin within 20 years they WILL be ahead. We ironed out orbit and return ... oh like FORTY YEARS AGO. Our government has done NOTHING with it since then.
I remember back in 1979 when the first Space Shuttle flew. I watched it in my sixth-grade class, and my teacher said, "I am so envious of the world you kids will see." Well, guess what? Nothing has changed since 1979. At least now private industry is taking a shot at making it work.
The problem with these resources you mentioned? they're out there and we're down here.
So? Lots of resources are in hard-to-reach places. Your point?
Energy requires a medium of transport. A microwave beam that could radiate energy to power a city could cook it ten times over, not to mention the affects it would have on the environment since at best estimate the efficiency of beamed power from space is less than one percent with the other 99 percent just cooking anything in it's path. Any other method of energy transport still involves the problem of getting it from one place to another.
So in effect since we don't have the technology now to make it work, we never will? Shit, might as well not dump all that cash into green energy projects folks! What's the point, it's not efficient enough to make a difference! Let's just build some more coal-fired plants!
Moving resources around is an even bigger problem. Yes the stuff is out there, but is it even conceivable that it will do us any good this century?
Yeah, it's very conceivable. A century is a long time dude. Check out what we were working with in 1910. And the technology curve gets ever steeper.
I am not an Luddite anti-technologist. I'm merely pointing out the cold stone reality where it comes to utilisation of space. For the moment the only real return we've been getting for our buck has been in the unmanned programs, which need to be expanded, not sacrificed in the chasing of a fools dream.
Nothing happens unless first a dream. -Carl Sandburg.
The Wright Brothers plane is a poor example. The Wright brothers' flight used technology which was cheap and readily available to anyone with the skills, basic knowledge of the Bernoulli principle, and could lay thier hands on a good machine shop. (the only thing that had been lacking at the time were portable motors of sufficient power, something that was just coming down the pike) In fact within a couple of years of said flight, people were doing just that. Just as almost 3 centuries prior, a bored French nobleman had built himself his own private zeppelin and used it to travel around Paris. Space travel on the other hand by far the most labor-intensive and expensive means of moving people from point A to point B ever invented, the differences in scale are so large the comparison between the two is ludicrous. A spacecraft Star Trek episodes nonewithstanding is never going to be something small scale enough that you can hide in a family garage.
OK, if you dont like airplanes, how about ocean-going ships? No one built one 'in their backyard.' In fact Christopher Cloumbus moved Heaven and Earth before getting funding for his expedition. And he wasn't even looking for 'new' lands, he was just trying to find a quicker route to the markets of Asia!
And if you want a cautionary tale about what turning your back on exploration can cost you, read up on the Chinese treasure fleet under Admiral Zheng He . They were very close to rounding the Cape of Good Hope and sailing into Europe's ports. Then the Chinese Emperor decided to burn the entire fleet and forbid further exploration travels. This allowed Europe to attain dominance in global trade, leading eventually to the downfall of the imperial Chinese. China thought it had everything it needed within its borders. That was a fool's dream.
Chinese Government: Ooh look, there's Tibet!
<snatch>
Even they come around, but not that we all agree as to their methods.
LazarX is right about the logistics of space travel in many ways, which is sad.
And just as an aside we're much more likely to see really good green energy help humanity than space travel now.
But, I'm not saying we should give up on space travel, not at all. Just that the government aren't the only reason it's only marginally improved since 1979, its really hard to do. We need a much easier way to get people into orbit, and I don't think that a space elevator is entirely feasible. Even with carbon nanotubes, etc. No, I think we need much denser energy sources/cells, someway to store a vast amount of energy in a relatively small light way. Then we can beat grvaity more easily and get equipment into orbit. From there we can build more advanced technology.
So the next step is actually getting consistently and cheaply into orbit, before we will ever harvest asteroids or so on. We need large construction and dwelling orbital stations first. And while they can be solar powered, we need something else to get us to that stage.
So while free industry will almost certainly improve and streamline existing space technology, its more likely that we'll see big improvements come from the government and energy industries until we're already orbital. Then I can see a jump in technology. But the next step after that will likely be machines again, maybe to harvest the nigh-infinite resources. But if we're very lucky, and energy technology advances suddenly, say we figure out fusion, we might see people getting serious about getting into orbit in our lifetime, but actual manned space travel to other planets is still a while away, and I don't think we'll see it.
Not that we shouldn't try, its just not a simple problem, and won't have a quick answer.
LazarX is right about the logistics of space travel in many ways, which is sad.
And just as an aside we're much more likely to see really good green energy help humanity than space travel now.
Well, I never claimed it was easy. Neither was sailing off into the Atlantic or taking the first flight over the Atlantic in a plane. But it can be done, and the only way things can be improved is by using them. Just as green energy will be improved as we put more effort into it, even if its potential is pretty sketchy now. That's all I was saying. Saying we shouldn't try to improve space flight is just as stupid as saying we shouldn't improve our energy creation methods.
But, I'm not saying we should give up on space travel, not at all. Just that the government aren't the only reason it's only marginally improved since 1979, its really hard to do. We need a much easier way to get people into orbit, and I don't think that a space elevator is entirely feasible. Even with carbon nanotubes, etc. No, I think we need much denser energy sources/cells, someway to store a vast amount of energy in a relatively small light way. Then we can beat grvaity more easily and get equipment into orbit. From there we can build more advanced technology.
Government has resources that enabled it to further space travel.. Government did so, then dropped the ball. Now private industries are trying to pick the ball up. This makes me happy, as I don't see the government putting any money into space besides a few feel-good science probes.
So the next step is actually getting consistently and cheaply into orbit, before we will ever harvest asteroids or so on. We need large construction and dwelling orbital stations first. And while they can be solar powered, we need something else to get us to that stage.
Totally agree. We need to do these steps first. But we still need to DO these steps before the real important works are even feasable. And it seems like the only people interested in beginning it are people like Richard Branson.
So while free industry will almost certainly improve and streamline existing space technology, its more likely that we'll see big improvements come from the government and energy industries until we're already orbital. Then I can see a jump in technology. But the next step after that will likely be machines again, maybe to harvest the nigh-infinite resources. But if we're very lucky, and energy technology advances suddenly, say we figure out fusion, we might see people getting serious about getting into orbit in our lifetime, but actual manned space travel to other planets is still a while away, and I don't think we'll see it.
Not that we shouldn't try, its just not a simple problem, and won't have a quick answer.
I think that free industry can do the job better than the government. I don't see the government moving forward on anything besides space probes, which are cheaper and safer than manned missions, and let them feel like they are doing something. And government provides funds for space development, but I think private enterprise will be able to do the same. The engineers won't really care who is footing the bill.
I suppose, my point is that while it should definately keep going ahead, and it should, I'm in physics, and know alot of astrophysics.
I was just making the point that it won't solve any current issues, not right away.
We're not at the building planes level of space travel, we're at the we can't build boats that are good enough to sail to East Asia from rome stage.
We're just about mastering the galley, the Bowing 747 is a way away yet. And unmanned missions are much more beneficial for us, they'll be what harvests the asteroids when we get that far. So I think being against unmanned isn't a good stance for the future of space travel. There's a vast amount of science you can do with them, that is immediate and useful. So their good money, so we want to increase the technology they use, and that will leak over into getting humans in space.
It's just a timeline thing, computer science, and possibly physics are going to slow down, while bioscience is still booming, but the advancment rate of future physics will mean it will simply take time for our great leaps.
All I'm saying is don't go out and buy a space suit, your grandshildren or great-grandchildren might be able to make use of it, and in a few hundred years we could land a man on mars, and start bases.
I'm not saying it shouldn't or won't happen, I'm sayiong it won't happen quickly and that stuff like the ESA is doing, certainly, is both useful to science in general and eventual manned flight, so having a negative stance on unmanned space tech is counter-productive. We should support the advancement of its tehcnology totally, more even, because its where the short term benefits can be seen, and its innovations in space flight and understanding will get us one step closer to getting out there.
It'll just take time.
It'll just take time.
Absolutely. I am just angry that 30 years of time have been wasted getting to the point where we are today. I am happy that someone is taking matters into their own hands.
I don't expect to go into space. I'd be surprised if my children did either. Still, I have hope that SOMEONE will go, now that free enterprise is involved, because it doesn't have to kowtow to a government like NASA does.
"The journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step." ~Lao Tzu
EDIT: And I really don't have a negative stance on unmanned probes. They have their uses and the data they collect is usefull. It's just that so many people say that is ALL we should be doing. I disagree.
Same with NASA, ESA, etc. I'm not saying kill them, just that I think private enterprise will be a better motivator to advance the technology to get us out there than these entities have been. That's all I'm saying.
That's fair enough, very reasonable.
And I do hope that commercail enterprise helps us get out there, at least there aren't any indigenous people for them to exploit on asteroids! :p
But seriously, I think we will definately get into orbit, its an energy question, as is everything, and if we don't keep improving our energy sources, civilisation has bigger worries than getting into space. logically though, I'd say manned space docks/stations here and on the moon are a certainty. How much further we get manned vesseld really depends on how much we can extend lifespans/preserve people. Because just as computer science is hitting its hard limit, so too will space travel. The speed of light means that from here to mars will never be a trifling distance for humans.
Hell, New York to China is already vast and impressive of you think about just how tiny we are compared to the Earth.
I predict Pr0n in Zero-G. Heard it here first, folks. ;)
I predict Pr0n in Zero-G. Heard it here first, folks. ;)funny discussion here
Damn you gravity!!!
I predict Pr0n in Zero-G. Heard it here first, folks. ;)funny discussion here
Space. The limpest frontier ....
@11 ur $p*c pr0n r b10ng 2 u$.
10100111001 FTW.
Space. The limpest frontier ....I predict Pr0n in Zero-G. Heard it here first, folks. ;)funny discussion here
Bah! It'll just make the pharma companies to try harder with the fourth or fifth generation drugs. They'll be previewing them on your latest NFL commercial time slot in the very near future. Mark my words. :P
Bah! It'll just make the pharma companies to try harder with the fourth or fifth generation drugs. They'll be previewing them on your latest NFL commercial time slot in the very near future. Mark my words. :PSpace. The limpest frontier ....I predict Pr0n in Zero-G. Heard it here first, folks. ;)funny discussion here
Swedish-made penis enlargers in space.
Hopefully we wil never need to consider this but The Physics of space battles!
As to the above "discussion" we evolved so that our heads would be above our hearts for the most part so the blood vessels transporting blood to the brain need to fight gravity to get it there; eliminate the effect of gravity and the blood just shoots up to the brain more readily and astronauts have reported having their faces get puffed up in space due to excess blood (eventually the effect diminishes as you get physiologically adjusted to the zero-g conditions)