Future of Space Flight

[XTF PBAsniper]

With the space shuttle retiring in 2010 and the Orion taking over in 2015, what is your take on the future of human space flight? The ISS will possibly be a permanent second home to humans and the U.S. intends to return to the Moon by 2020 and put a man on Mars by 2037.

Opinions?

[Reach]

Well, we could start by keeping crap like the above post out of critical thinking. I would really, really like to not get into the 2012 myth again, but no, the world is not going to end in 2012.

Anyway, with sufficient funding we should definitely get men to mars, which will be an incredible accomplishment. I'm not sure I have strong opinions on this matter otherwise, without further points of discussion.

Humans should probably concentrate on doing something with mars, i.e. populating it. Terraforming it seems out of the question right now, but who knows what the future will hold. Either way, this type of space exploration is necessary to ensure the survival of our species.

Space travel in the distant future will necessitate much faster methods than the ...outdated methods of simply strapping a tin can to a massive amount of rocket fuel and then letting it float away method we currently use.

[foilman8805]

Anyway, with sufficient funding we should definitely get men to mars, which will be an incredible accomplishment. I'm not sure I have strong opinions on this matter otherwise, without further points of discussion.

Incredibly difficult in and of itself, regardless of funding. Even with future developments in propulsions, the amount of time that astronauts would have to spend in space is tremendous. It would literally ruin their bodies. Humans are not meant to be in space - it's quite clear. In my honest opinion, technological advancement of the aerospace industry is not the only thing that is needed to make this mission a reality. Similar accomplishments must be made in materials engineering, biomedical engineering, and many, many other fields as well before such a giant risk like a manned mission to Mars can happen. I don't think 2037 is sufficient in terms of time either.

I know that to most everyone that sounds like a stupidly large amount of time, but it's not. Especially when so many things need to come together, funds, requests for proposals put in, contract bidding, research, development, testing...so many things. It literally takes years for companies to get everything in order just to launch a single satellite. There are so many hoops to jump through, that in my opinion, expediting the process in which we research, develop and launch satellites and space technology would be a greater accomplishment than a manned mission to Mars.

EDIT: I'd just like to say that I think a manned mission to Mars is just a bit more feasible than the space tether. So, needless to say, I have little hope for it.

[XTF PBAsniper]

I don't think humans like us are going to be populating on the Moon, Mars, or the ISS. They [NASA] will likely keep using astronauts and keep using shifts so that bone calcium doesn't dissipate because if the astronauts stay out of Earth long enough, they will begin to get used to it and find it extremely hard to inhibit the Earth's gravity.

[Reach]

Incredibly difficult in and of itself, regardless of funding. Even with future developments in propulsions, the amount of time that astronauts would have to spend in space is tremendous. It would literally ruin their bodies. Humans are not meant to be in space - it's quite clear. In my honest opinion, technological advancement of the aerospace industry is not the only thing that is needed to make this mission a reality. Similar accomplishments must be made in materials engineering, biomedical engineering, and many, many other fields as well before such a giant risk like a manned mission to Mars can happen. I don't think 2037 is sufficient in terms of time either.

I know that to most everyone that sounds like a stupidly large amount of time, but it's not. Especially when so many things need to come together, funds, requests for proposals put in, contract bidding, research, development, testing...so many things. It literally takes years for companies to get everything in order just to launch a single satellite. There are so many hoops to jump through, that in my opinion, expediting the process in which we research, develop and launch satellites and space technology would be a greater accomplishment than a manned mission to Mars.

EDIT: I'd just like to say that I think a manned mission to Mars is just a bit more feasible than the space tether. So, needless to say, I have little hope for it.

I certainly think it's worth it, and definitely possible, but I didn't say it would be easy.

You could get to mars in under a year with current technology. 9 months I would say.

I don't think this accounts for some super high speed transfer orbits that would speed up travel, which could probably get you there in 3. With current technology.

Serious advances in propulsion could dramatically cut down on this. Half it, or less. You have no idea how fast we might be able to go in the future, though I doubt massive leaps and bounds will be made by 2037.

Anyway, you're right, a lot of advancements need to be made in order to launch a successful mission. I don't see any problems with setting a date though. It gives us something to strive for. We all know how these things go - it will probably get postponed, but it gets the ball rolling and a lot of the technologies necessary for the mission started.


And let's hope that you're wrong XTF...humans need to populate the Mars, and eventually well beyond our solar system if our survival means anything to us. I won't pretend to know how much we have, but ultimately, resources on the planet Earth are finite. With a growing population, we will run out of ...all non renewable sources sometime in the future, probably before the next millennium. Let's also not forget the planet is heating up, and quickly, so who knows how much time we have. Centuries? Probably, but time can go by quickly, as foilman pointed out ;)

[Sullyman2007]

Personally, I feel that the concept of space exploration as a whole needs a lot more attention than people currently give it, and when I say people I mean the general public AND the government. If you asked for my opinion, I would say that a manned mission to mars could very well happen within the next thirty years. If you told me to be realistic... I would say not in my lifetime.

[slipstrike0159]

Talking about resources specifically, how would it be that critical to colonize mars? Unless some kind of special rule applies to growing food there (for example, being able to do it faster or more often) then there isnt much extra incentive to be living there. I'll buy that with a growing population we will need more space, but that doesnt account for the costs AND consumption of resources that would get us up there and living there anyway.
For scientific purposes i think its a great idea to be able to get there, however colonizing it i believe would cost more resources than it would produce. Until we could be self sustainable, we would have to strap all the materials we need on another rocket and send it there.

[kommisar[os]]

space flight is certainly something that needs to be more implemented in the future. after all i doubt humanity can live on earth forever at the rate we're trashing it.


Colonizing would be incredibly hard especially for mars since no living man has been there yet (they were thinking of making an exploration that would be a one way trip =x ). With the technology we have right now, it's simply not enough. For 6 months of travel to reach the destination, there are so many things that could go wrong. Hopefully with the speed technology is advancing, we can find a shortcut to mars and cut that time significantly.

Making the place suitable for human living would take centuries. Unless humanity can find a way to produce crops/sufficient food with what little they could bring to mars, they would starve within months. Also a renewable energy source would be useful since we don't know yet what mars has to deliver as far as resources go.


Mankind isn't ready to colonize another planet; we can hardly inhabit our own moon. Perhaps one day we'll find a way to create an atmosphere around mars, which would take eons, and have a climate that's more favorable (-22 isn't exactly tropical).

[Shaydow]

Talking about resources specifically, how would it be that critical to colonize mars? Unless some kind of special rule applies to growing food there (for example, being able to do it faster or more often) then there isnt much extra incentive to be living there. I'll buy that with a growing population we will need more space, but that doesnt account for the costs AND consumption of resources that would get us up there and living there anyway.
For scientific purposes i think its a great idea to be able to get there, however colonizing it i believe would cost more resources than it would produce. Until we could be self sustainable, we would have to strap all the materials we need on another rocket and send it there.


Unless or course robotics continues to expand along with space exploration technology. Then it would be more practical to just send mining robots to the planet to establish on and have them gather the recources we need THERE ahead of time, before people even arive. Asteriods have been spotted to have VAST amounts of recources in them, and that if in theory someone could come up with the funding to actually develope the needed technology AND to produce the needed equipment, that if they COULD mine one of those asteriods, they would make thier money back and oh boy then some ( the profit margine was HUGE as I remember it, but the cost to start operations are still just as huge and impossible with current markets ).

[Reach]

Talking about resources specifically, how would it be that critical to colonize mars? Unless some kind of special rule applies to growing food there (for example, being able to do it faster or more often) then there isnt much extra incentive to be living there. I'll buy that with a growing population we will need more space, but that doesnt account for the costs AND consumption of resources that would get us up there and living there anyway.
For scientific purposes i think its a great idea to be able to get there, however colonizing it i believe would cost more resources than it would produce. Until we could be self sustainable, we would have to strap all the materials we need on another rocket and send it there.

It would be critical because it's a first step. I don't think sitting on our asses and waiting for the technology to get us to far away stars is going to achieve anything.

Anyway, you could definitely create viable green houses there. There are probably some resources on the planet anyway, I'm not positive. Either way, the point here isn't to look at the short term benefit, it's to look at the long term.

[musicdemon]

Space Flight is a great concept and definitely should be explored in the future. I don't think we should be putting a lot of effort into it now simply because we don't have the money. We need to get things stable in the American economy before we fund large expeditions into space. I understand how important these missions are to science, but I just don't think we have the resources to devote to them at this time.

[slipstrike0159]

It would be critical because it's a first step. I don't think sitting on our asses and waiting for the technology to get us to far away stars is going to achieve anything.

Anyway, you could definitely create viable green houses there. There are probably some resources on the planet anyway, I'm not positive. Either way, the point here isn't to look at the short term benefit, it's to look at the long term.

Im not looking at just the short term benefits, im saying that the beginning costs might outweigh the long term benefits. Like i said, until we become self sustainable on mars we would have to either continually ship the resources needed to get a colony started from earth or try to send it in a HUGE one time trip. Either way we waste a LOT of resources in the process.

Its definitely possible, and it COULD provide a lot of positive scientific gain towards the advancement of our civilization, but 'could' doesnt quite cut it when you try investing in this project. So CURRENTLY we have no need to attempt the project, however in the DISTANT future we could find more reasons to make it more worth it as we develop the technology to make it remotely possible.

[Verruckter]

Space flight is probably one of the most useless ideas of mankind. It would take so much time and effort to colonize another planet, it probably wouldn't even be worth it. Instead of relying on such fantasies humans should look at themselves and think about making their own planet better before they start ruining other parts of the solar system.

[rade0110]

Mankind as a whole will never claim they are destroying the planet. There are too many naive people in the world that think everything will be fine. Not to mention the fact that so much damage has been caused by past generations, it would take AGES to repair. Even though companies are "going green" they are still emitting tons of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gooduphigh/good.html#3

Claims that natural ozone levels could return by 2050 IF countries stop producing ozone depleteing chemicals. Plus, that doesn't even take into consideration the massive amount of ground and water pollutants.

Plus Reach is right, there will come a time when we run out of critical natural resources and will have to look elsewhere for them. Will it happen in our lifetime? Most likely not, it will happen though. And when it does, we will have no choice but to look to other places to get them.

[Maid]

1st of all, we need massive funding for propulsion breakthrough(anyone with even slight common sense can see that Rockets are just not going to cut it, and most things proposed that are practically possible but too expensive to realize as well). As well as shielding from radiation.

[JKPolk]

anyone with even slight common sense can see that Rockets are just not going to cut it

uhhhhh lol wrong

[foilman8805]

Rockets are just fine. I think it's the fuel effectiveness that is critical.

[Maid]

uhhhhh lol wrong

Guess which category that places you in?

Rockets are just fine. I think it's the fuel effectiveness that is critical.

Fine for crawling around earth and maybe moon, with astronomical costs?

[foilman8805]

Well you said we'd need massive funding, so assuming we have massive funding I guess it's not really an issue if costs are 'astronomical'.

Do you know anything about space, Maid? Or are you just kind of thinking this through from an outside perspective?

[Bolth mannn]

Even if they manage this in my lifetime (which i doubt, i doubt everyone wants to do their daily lives in space suits...what are they gonna do, a dome?) im not leaving Earth. Earth is my home lol.

they should be realistic and look more to our own earth. underwater? underground? (this is definately feasible.).

am i the only one here whos read the pendragon series? the Never War gives a good example of life in the future, even if its fiction.

[dogdude84]

So in 2037 we're gonna be martians? Neat.

[dean_machine]

I'm more interested in having the Hubble telescope improved and having more satellites in space like the Hubble telescope.

[who_cares973]

cant wait till they launch the hubbles replacement woo!

[Tokzic]

Guess which category that places you in?

yeah you sure do know more about space flight than a ROCKET SCIENTIST

[Maid]

Well you said we'd need massive funding, so assuming we have massive funding I guess it's not really an issue if costs are 'astronomical'.

Do you know anything about space, Maid? Or are you just kind of thinking this through from an outside perspective?


I said, funding for a better propulsion. Not wasting it on dead end tech.

As for knowing about space, I do know a lot more than you. Rockets are basically stone age tech, that simply were a starting point. If humans plan to live and advance long term, we simply must embrace spreading out. Not to be a downer but the longer we are stuck to earth as sole tit, the higher chances we are gonna get wiped out or set back in the best scenario.

yeah you sure do know more about space flight than a ROCKET SCIENTIST

Doesn't take a scientist to see that Rockets are limited and are a dead end. :lol:

[funmonkey54]

As for knowing about space, I do know a lot more than you.

Pretty bold statement to propose against an up and coming aerospace engineer.

[foilman8805]

Even if they manage this in my lifetime (which i doubt, i doubt everyone wants to do their daily lives in space suits...what are they gonna do, a dome?) im not leaving Earth. Earth is my home lol.

they should be realistic and look more to our own earth. underwater? underground? (this is definately feasible.).

am i the only one here whos read the pendragon series? the Never War gives a good example of life in the future, even if its fiction.

Haven't read that series, no, but I do agree with you about learning more about the Earth itself, especially underwater. I'd venture to say we know quite a bit about what's underground...rocks, precious metals, oil, tectonic plates, magma, hot molten core, etc. Underwater is a totally different world though and still hasn't even been explored to a tenth of its potential, imo.

I'm more interested in having the Hubble telescope improved and having more satellites in space like the Hubble telescope.

JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) isn't necessarily going to replace the Hubble, but I basically consider it the Hubble 2. Should be launching in 2013 assuming all goes well with system integration and testing. I was talking about the JWST with bluguerilla the other day in IRC. He linked some pretty cool videos to me, but I don't have the links anymore. Hopefully if he sees this, he can post them for you to see.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

There's a link from NASA where you can dig around for more info if you're interested.

I said, funding for a better propulsion. Not wasting it on dead end tech.

As for knowing about space, I do know a lot more than you. Rockets are basically stone age tech, that simply were a starting point. If humans plan to live and advance long term, we simply must embrace spreading out. Not to be a downer but the longer we are stuck to earth as sole tit, the higher chances we are gonna get wiped out or set back in the best scenario.

Doesn't take a scientist to see that Rockets are limited and are a dead end. :lol:

So what exactly about the rocket is 'dead end tech'? Is it the way the fuel is combusted? Is it the propellant efficiency? Is it the chemical fuel itself? Is it the shape? Is it all of the above? (I'm thinking you're leaning towards the last question.)

I'm not expecting you to come up with the answer for future propulsion, but I am curious to see what you think is so critically wrong with rockets.

As far as I know, there's little we can do to harness the energy of space outside of utilizing solar pressure, which is smaller as you get farther away from the sun, and therefore less effective, or the free form ions and charged particles that populate space. Ion thrusters already exist, but they're probably not very effective for interplanetary travel as they only provide thrust impulses rather than the steady burn that you would need for orbital maneuvers.

I'm hoping that in the near future we figure out how to employ charged particles. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but I think they're probably the most powerful form of energy in space that we know of at the moment. We'd just need a propulsion system that converts the electrical energy of the particles into mechanical energy (not too difficult, I'd think), and we may have a viable solution to our current dead end technology.

Just tossing ideas around.

[Suzuru]

Whats so advanced and high tech about controlled burning of fuel. No matter how you dress it up, it's a dead end inefficient propulsion method, which is also very expensive and only feasible around the earth, in a very limited capacity. The title is, "Future of Space Flight" are you honestly telling me that our future is bound to stone age tech and that we going to colonize anything by using rockets when it comes to a larger scale?

Right now our space development is embarrassing, we are still using more than 50 year old tech for delivery and it seems like we are making 1 step forward and 2 steps backs so far.




So what exactly about the rocket is 'dead end tech'? Is it the way the fuel is combusted? Is it the propellant efficiency? Is it the chemical fuel itself? Is it the shape? Is it all of the above? (I'm thinking you're leaning towards the last question.)

I'm not expecting you to come up with the answer for future propulsion, but I am curious to see what you think is so critically wrong with rockets.


All of the above.

I want funding for alternative propulsion research, especially something that allows low cost delivery capability from earth surface. No matter how you improve rocket design. It will never be cheap.

[foilman8805]

No one has really defined 'the future' as of yet, so if you're talking 200 years from now, then no, I don't think we will be bound to our stone age technology.

If you're talking 20 years from now, I'm hard pressed to believe we won't still be depending on rockets as our primary propulsion method.