Venturing past Pluto.....

[Urwumpe]

PS: I think it wasn't Edison who invented the light bulb (Jehova!)

Don't start a flamewar here.

Edison did not invent the light bulb - but he made them last longer than a few hours.

 

[Talon1]

I don't think there will be manned missions beyond pluto. Apart from the technology aspect I cannot find a good reason to do so.

Ok, I kind of agree with this beacuase at the moment, there isn't any reason why we should go beyond Pluto.

Realistically, given current known means of powered acceleration, I'd say no. It would be a one-way trip; the astronauts would die in space and never come back. That's given current tech, though. Advances in the future (perhaps 000's of years from now) may allow for manned trips beyond our solar system.

Yes, I also agree with this.

There is a good reason - One day the sun will die.

Now thats a very good reason why we should go beyond Pluto.

Anyway, what i'm saying is that I can't answer this poll. If I were to answer, I would say that it would be possible, but at the moment we don't really have a reason to go beyond Pluto...

 

[astrosammy]

Maybe first back to Moon, then Mars (and maybe Venus flybys), and some decades later maybe Jupiter flybys. But I think Pluto not before 2100, we would need powerfull propulsion systems that allow Pluto travels in very short time if we want to get safely back to Earth.

 

[Ghostrider]

There is a good reason - One day the sun will die.

That's some billion years in the future. The human race will have been long gone extinct by then.

 

[eveningsky339]

Theoretically, if we find a way to "bend" the space-time fabric, interstellar travel will be nothing more than a domestic flight on an airliner.

Until then we have ramjets and the like.

 

[Kaito]

Is a manned Flight to pluto possible WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY: Probably
Is a manned Flight to pluto necessary today: Definitely Not
Will the Human race ever go past pluto: Of course, and here's why I think that:
We, as humans, are genetically "programmed" (Don't flame me for using that word. I know we aren't computers, but its just a metaphor) to want to go to places we haven't been. We look up at the stars and think, "That would be really cool to visit one of those stars." Why? Because we haven't seen them close up. Why do you think we went to the moon (Besides to beat Russia to it)? Because we haven't been there. Why do you think we want to go to mars? Because we haven't been there.

Another reason: Population expansion. In a space game I play (EVE Online), humans spread out "among the stars" (this is the day and age where ships that travel at .75 AU per second are slow) because of population expansion. They became so dense that they had no choice but to expand. Its like a water balloon. You keep filling the balloon with water, and it will be fine. But eventually, it will pop. Now, with that said, water molecules don't kill each other.

Last point: Propulsion. New Horizons is the fastest space craft ever built. It passed the moon in 9 hours. NINE HOURS! It took Apollo 11 3 days to get there. Now, I'm not sure on the propulsion system that New Horizons has, but it definitely had to get it cruising. Eventually, we WILL achieve that propulsion WITH a manned space craft WITH chemical fuel. It's just a matter of when. Why? Because it hasn't been done before, thats why.

I'm done with my input. I'll add more as I think of it

 

[to be]

Last point: Propulsion. New Horizons is the fastest space craft ever built.

It depends how you define fastest. At the distance the Voyager probes are New Horizons will be slower. Not to mention things like relative to earth, relative to the sun, etc...

 

[Epsilon]

Heh. I have to weigh in on this question, just because it's what I'm (sort of) working on.

I suggest that we'll eventually make it to Pluto and beyond, but we'll likely end up doing it in "generation" ships. I can't remember who came up with the idea, but it would essentially have to be built in space piece-meal, be provided with a nuclear reactor of some sort (more on that later), be provided with some sort of self-sufficient oxygen creation system (I recall a mention of greenhouses elsewhere - that's not too shabby an idea), strict population control measures, food (there's the greenhouses again...) etc. etc. etc.

Nuclear power is a dirty word in some books, but as far as I know, it's hands down the most efficient mass->energy conversion system we've got available to us right now. You can haul a relatively large amount of fuel for a much lower cost than say, LOX/LH. Assuming that future technology can miniaturize nuclear reactors, even scaling down to a tenth of the size for the same power, it can be made useful for an application like this. If the process can release more energy per unit of mass safely, it will be made even more useful. Keep in mind, the actual numbers are for engineers - I'm just a visionary here.

Propulsion can be handled in a couple of different ways. Ion engines would be a natural for something with a nuclear power plant, I'd imagine. Low delta-v of course, but you've got a crapload of ISP to work with. Another suggestion that I've been working with myself is picking up solid water in Saturn's rings. I've been toying with the idea since snwcrsh reminded me (indirectly) of Asimov's story, "The Martian Way". Of course, it'd take an absolute crapload of water to get out of the orbit, but the chunks are probably fairly sized in the first place.

Assuming a fixed amount of thrust for a water/steam/whatever rocket (which I have no clue what it'd be...), even with a craptastical ISP, you've got a massive amount of fuel to work with. It'd take a while to get going, but once it's there, wooooo. You're moving, and you're not stopping for anything. :lol:
You're a brand new comet in the sky.

Added bonuses for this is that you've got all the water for crew/colonist/engine/nuclear coolant/whatever use that you could ever need at that point, and it's one of the biggest worries on a long journey like that. Add in recycling measures, and you'll "never" run out.

The greenhouses would of course have to run on fake UV and whatever else plants beg for. I'm not sure how big it would have to be, and if there would be any other measures taken. One thing is for sure, everyone would be a vegetarian, and would have to like soybeans. The only meat on that ship would be Soylent Green. Another necessity would be rotation of crops.

I'm not entirely sure how protection from impacts, radiation, and whatever else the universe can throw at us would be handled. That's being covered in another thread IIRC, so hopefully the brain trust over there will come up with something useful to the issue.

A final thing to consider is the end of the journey. This thing would be absolutely freaking -massive-. You would either:

A: have to build it so it could be split into pieces at the end, and re-enter seperately, presumably with a drag chute of some kind. This would be a Bad Idea from a structural integrity standpoint most likely, but it'd be the most likely way that something would make it from orbit to the surface.
B: Provide some sort of cargo carrier so that bits and pieces can be taken down. This would be a crapload of round trips, not to mention the engineering problems that come about from stresses on the poor little cargo ships. I'm not even going to go into dealing with the landing area.

Another issue with 'endgame' would be that you'd have to basically start over. You'd have the knowledge, but you'd be lacking in the raw materials to start even a small village. Construction equipment (even if we're talking hammers and nails), more food supplies, etc. Personal experience tells me that building a base for 500 people (that's roughly what we had in Jalibah back when I was in Iraq) takes an absurd amount of logistical support. I don't honestly know exactly how much it was, but we had orders of magnitude more pieces of construction gear than we had communications gear (which is what I dealt with). Carrying this much materiel across the Atlantic was a fuss. Carrying it multiple light years would be a horror story.

On the more theoretical side of things, players of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri would have a feel for the problems of starting on a new planet from scratch if they read the tech descriptions - ol' Sid and his team had a pretty good handle on the problems, although he had a much bigger ship to work with.

... holy crap, I rambled. Posting now, 'kthx.

 

[Talon1]

That's some billion years in the future. The human race will have been long gone extinct by then.

HEY!!! Don't say that!!!!! *knocks on wood*


-----Posted Added-----

Why do you think we went to the moon (Besides to beat Russia to it)? Because we haven't been there. Why do you think we want to go to mars? Because we haven't been there.

Now, with that said, water molecules don't kill each other.

These are very good reasons.

Last point: Propulsion. New Horizons is the fastest space craft ever built. It passed the moon in 9 hours. NINE HOURS! It took Apollo 11 3 days to get there. Now, I'm not sure on the propulsion system that New Horizons has, but it definitely had to get it cruising. Eventually, we WILL achieve that propulsion WITH a manned space craft WITH chemical fuel. It's just a matter of when. Why? Because it hasn't been done before, thats why.

Ok, two points:

1. New Horizons pasted the moon in NINE HOURS?! Damn that's fast!
2. Were most likely not going be using chemical fuel for this mission because it's not very efficient. Were probably going to use ion engines like VASMIR (I just heared about it today form a show called "Daily Planet").

 

[Kyle]

I am pretty sure there will be a mission to Pluto, as well as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Why? Because of the same reasons we got to the moon, political reasons.

 

[pete.dakota]

I am pretty sure there will be a mission to Pluto, as well as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Why? Because of the same reasons we got to the moon, political reasons.

Oh how it easy it must be for people to say 'politics' and think that's a well made point.

Space flight - until SpaceX - was undertaken by superpowers; of course politics came into it. If humans go beyond Mars, primarily, it will be because we, as humans, wanted to. Politics would affect it, but in the same way that politics affect everything - certainly not directly.

We didn't go to the Moon for political reasons. Competition with the Soviets sped up the race, sure, but the initial idea of leaving the Earth and getting to the Moon existed long before politics. And it'll be the same for Mars and beyond.

 

[Kyle]

Oh how it easy it must be for people to say 'politics' and think that's a well made point.

Space flight - until SpaceX - was undertaken by superpowers; of course politics came into it. If humans go beyond Mars, primarily, it will be because we, as humans, wanted to. Politics would affect it, but in the same way that politics affect everything - certainly not directly.

We didn't go to the Moon for political reasons. Competition with the Soviets sped up the race, sure, but the initial idea of leaving the Earth and getting to the Moon existed long before politics. And it'll be the same for Mars and beyond.

That may have been some of it, but a lot of it had to do with catching the soviets. America was afraid of Russia putting up Nuke platforms in space to drop on America, just as Russia was afraid of the Space Shuttle dropping nukes onto Russia.

 

[pete.dakota]

That may have been some of it, but a lot of it had to do with catching the soviets. America was afraid of Russia putting up Nuke platforms in space to drop on America, just as Russia was afraid of the Space Shuttle dropping nukes onto Russia.

Those are political ramifications, not reasons for any undertakings.

What would you rather believe: regardless of nationality, a human sets foot on the surface of Mars because we, as a race, decided to go, or because Country A wanted to show up Country B and declare themselves the 'winner' of a political race. The latter has no soul or magnificence about it.

For the sake of your sanity, don't assume politics will be the reason humans endeavour again beyond Earth's bounds. It will be because we chose to. Politics will merely decide who gets there first; which isn't really at all important.

 

[Brad]

Given a "best case scenario" I don't see it happening unless there is developed a way to travel faster between the planets. We are talk at least a ten year voyage, let a lone the train up time, and other factors to consider in such an undertaking. I expect that without faster travel time Mars will be about as far as we will go.

 

[Kyle]

Those are political ramifications, not reasons for any undertakings.

What would you rather believe: regardless of nationality, a human sets foot on the surface of Mars because we, as a race, decided to go, or because Country A wanted to show up Country B and declare themselves the 'winner' of a political race. The latter has no soul or magnificence about it.

For the sake of your sanity, don't assume politics will be the reason humans endeavour again beyond Earth's bounds. It will be because we chose to. Politics will merely decide who gets there first; which isn't really at all important.

I'm not saying thats the 'whole' reason for it, but if thats really the full case why haven't we gone back, we've 'decided to go' many times after JFK. Ronald Reagan, George H. W Bush, and George W. Bush all said go to the moon, so far W Bush is the only one who's gotten far in that plan.

 

[pete.dakota]

No one has gone back to the Moon because of the immense cost. Apollo cost the US govt. somewhere in the region of $140Bn USD. Compare that to Mercury ($3bn), Gemini ($6bn), and with the Shuttle program estimated to cost around $175bn: but that's over 33 years and 133 flights, not 11 manned flights and 3 years.

I'm not sure to what extent Reagan and H. Bush said we should go back to the Moon. During both of their presidencies the Shuttle program still had a long, promising future. W. Bush has put forward the VSE because the Shuttle's retirement was impending (though not officially planned). However, I digress.

If you're making the point (I think you are) that 'politics' (i.e, lack of global funds for any nation, co-operative body) is the reason no one has been back to the Moon, then you'd be right.

 

[Scarecrow]

Will we ever get past Pluto? Ever is a LONG time. Look at how far we came technologically between 10,000 BCE and 0 CE. Then look between 0 and 1000. Then 1000 to 1900. Then 1900 to now. In each era of less and less time, we've made greater and greater progress. Think about the year 10,000. We probably won't have naturally evolved much in that time, but the possibilities are beyond imagining. How about beyond that? It's inevitable that we'll get past Pluto eventually.

Within the next 100 years, we could if we really really wanted to, but I find it unlikely that we will. Realistically, I don't forsee anything much more than a (possibly well established) lunar outpost by 2108. If I'm really really lucky, I'll get a chance to visit it.

 

[eveningsky339]

The way I see it, we have to venture past Pluto. As soon as we have the technology, we as human beings simply have to do it. It's been programmed into our nature either by evolution or God or both. When you have a bigger boat, you head for bigger seas.

 

[Kaito]

When you have a bigger boat, you head for bigger seas.

I like that quote.

And, realistically speaking: If we REALLY wanted/needed to go to Mars, we could when the next window opens. If we REALLY wanted to. Same thing with Pluto: If tomorrow, we found out that the world was going to explode in a matter of Months and we needed a way OUT of the solar system, we could do it. The whole world would have to work together, but we could assemble a "starship" and just send it on its way out of the system. Granted, hundreds, maybe thousands of generations would live with only that ship to know, but its better then the human race dying.

We have the technology to send a human past pluto today. Is it efficient: No. Would the person enjoy it: Hell no. Would they be coming back: Probably not

 

[HiPotOk1978]

Given a "best case scenario" I don't see it happening unless there is developed a way to travel faster between the planets. We are talk at least a ten year voyage, let a lone the train up time, and other factors to consider in such an undertaking. I expect that without faster travel time Mars will be about as far as we will go.

Don't know if anyone has taken the time to fly a DGIV or XR1/2 out past Mars... I know I haven't just because I hate to send some Ummu's on a 1 way trip. Getting to Mars and back is loads easier than getting to Mars, landing, hanging out for awhile, getting back into orbit and getting home.

The farthest mission I have been able to do that is a 2 way trip was Low Venus Orbit. Id hate to think about the stress that 2 real space explorers would have gone though that my 2 little virtual astronauts did not have to go though