Discussion The next 100 years..

[Artlav]

In fact, rip the whole damned-thing apart and start over.

Why?
There are new, better airplanes right now. Did somebody destroy ALL old ones to make them work?
Did anybody destroy all cars to make the modern ones work?
Do the military dump all their hardware to get better one?

Why should there be ONE space program with ONE vessel in it?
Why can't we have a lot of different spacecraft, changing and evolving constantly?

Tear down and rebuild...
Tearing down is easy, but are you sure there will be anybody willing to build?

Anyway,
:threadjacked:

 

[orbitingpluto]

Do things *MY* way.........

Do things my way and we all get ponies.:thumbup:

 

[T.Neo]

First off, the Starship Enterprise is not a load of BS. It is the style of ship we're gonna need if we are to do any serious exploring. Granted we don't need EVERYTHING the Enterprise has. But our craft should be of similar size and have similar propulsion capabilities. Perhaps not warp drive, but something much better than chemical rockets. Much better. Not phasers, but perhaps terrawatt lasers which is almost doable now. Forget the transporters, if we can build a ship similar to the Enterprise, surely we can build SSTO and similar landers.

:uhh:

No offence, but I actually have looked into (present and futuristic) spacecraft design. And I've looked into Star Trek 'spacecraft design'.

Suffice to say, unless you reject reality and substitute it with Star Trek, it doesn't work.

And we have had an SSTO lander. Ok, so it wasn't single stage... but it did ascend on a single stage.

And why from here to Mu Arae do we need terawatt lasers? For wiping out Klingons, what? Personally I prefer antimatter weapons with a total destructive radius of 0.16 AU! :dry:

20 years from now we'll *STILL* be farting around in LEO.

If we go by your logic of "we'll be ready when we're ready" and not actually do anything about it, we sure will be stuck in LEO in 20 years time.

Humans have too many issues when you stuff them in a zero-G tin can. Radiation, fluid redistribution, exercise, sanity, clarity of thought for creative and critical thinking. All that goes out the door for the common man. Hell, it even goes out the door for well-trained professionals such as scientists and pilots and other professions where you need to have it together. Today's astronauts, or lack of, now, are a special breed that have had the best training and ground support we can muster. And that's just for screwing around in low Earth orbit. Imagine a trip to the outer planets or Kuiper Belt.. ??

Yes, there are issues. Yes, they are difficult to solve. That doesn't mean you just give up, it means you actually try to solve them.

And I think you misunderstand human psychological limits. People have gone through things far worse than spaceflight (not the same, mind you, but arguably far worse psychologically) and survived.

We don't know how people will react psychologically to BEO spaceflight, that's why we have to find out, not give up. :facepalm:

It's too costly and risky with the toilet-paper-like materials we have today.

And what do you, Uber Engineer Rocket Scientist, suggest to replace these "toilet-paper-like" materials?

Unobtanium?

Handwavium?

"Force-tensor fields"?

Sorry, but all three do not exist. If you actually tried to research what the real unknown problems in spaceflight are, you might make good points and not "We don't have nonsensical sci-fi ships, therefore we should give up".

Yes, we don't know enough yet. That's why we have to figure it out. And to figure stuff out you actually need to do things. Not sit around and moan.

Personally, I'm very disappointed in the space program currently... because we are not doing enough to fix those problems and actually develop to the point where Mars missions and such are indeed possible.

And no, spaceships that don't exist and never will exist, will not make Mars missions possible.

 

[jangofett287]

There's a very good reason no ship is built like the Enterprise. When you fire your engines, 'gravity' appears in the opposite direction to the thrust vector. If any spacecraft was built like the Enterprise, everyone would be pressed against the nearest rear bulkhead anytime you fired the engines. Please see this page: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/misconceptions.php
Especially the section: "Rockets Are Not Boats"

 

[Sky Captain]

Lack of technology isn't the problem. Main problem is lack sufficient motivation and funding to really develop deep space flight capabilities. If NASA have had Apollo levels of funding whole time and some competent far sighted managment that ran the whole thing efficiently then humans already would have permanent research base on Mars and robotic probes crawling all over the solar system.

We don't need sci fi propulsion to go to Mars and to outer solar system. There are plenty of propulsion system concepts that are based on real science and real engineering capabilities that could take manned missions to outer solar system and back in reasonable timeframe.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I have more fodder for the pro-unmanned space program. Man does not belong in space, not yet.

I'm sure Man doesn't "belong" in a hospital surgery either, performing complex operations that save people's lives. Nor does Man "belong" in a giant tin can filled with 900 fellow passengers, doing 500 mph at 35,000 feet. Does this mean that we shouldn't do these things?

The fact that something may be difficult is not an excuse not to do it - if anything, it's more of an excuse to do it. How do you propose to solve the problems humans experience in space if we stop HSF?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against unmanned exploration - I'd like to see an equal balance between manned & unmanned exploration, and both should complement each other.

I also agree that we need to do more to solve the problems of humans in space - and the new NASA Technology Program, together with the facilities on the ISS, would be a great way to do this. Stopping HSF, would not.

 

[T.Neo]

the new NASA Technology Program

You mean the one that the US Congress only gave 250 million dollars? :dry:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

You mean the one that the US Congress only gave 250 million dollars? :dry:

Actually, it was 650 million dollars - but I agree, it should have got 1 billion dollars.

 

[T.Neo]

Actually, it was 650 million dollars - but I agree, it should have got 1 billion dollars.

I guess I must have confused "Exploration Research and Development" with "Space Technology". :tiphat:

 

[Ghostrider]

Personally I prefer antimatter weapons with a total destructive radius of 0.16 AU!

Ha! Your puny weapons are no match for then might of my arsenal of scientific terror! Imperial Battleship, halt the flow of time!

 

[Keatah]

The actual physical layout of the Enterprise, from Star Trek was little more than a sign of the times. Look. It has the three most popular themes of sci-fi and science in general; all rolled into one spaceship. We're talking Radar Dishes, Rocketships, and Flying Saucers. All those elements combine together to give the Enterprise have its recognized-the-world-over shape.

An actual ship, made by us, in the near future will undoubtedly have a different plan form. Deck configurations will be different, that's for sure. But nevertheless it will need to be roomy and fast, as well as durable and long-range. Not the puny nonsense of a spam cans with few km/s delta-V like we have now.

 

[T.Neo]

An actual ship, made by us, in the near future will undoubtedly have a different plan form. Deck configurations will be different, that's for sure. But nevertheless it will need to be roomy and fast, as well as durable and long-range. Not the puny nonsense of a spam cans with few km/s delta-V like we have now.

Do you actually want to acknowledge the difficulties of such a vehicle? Or at least try to learn about them?

"Roomy, fast, durable and long-range" is probably worse for exploration than what we have now.

And modern spacecraft are not "puny". There's a 400+ ton station in LEO that would probably object to being called "puny". :lol:

 

[Keatah]

The ISS might not be exactly really really tiny. But small? Yes!

Let me set U straight here. Now, some the magic materials I'm talking about are metals that can take an additional 500 C over what we have now. And something, for arguments' sake here, say a basic bracket of a sort.. One that can support 1000kg - increasing the strength so it can support 1300kg while maintaining the same weight; that would be almost magical and engineers would be all over it.

Something with a 25% improvement in ductility and malleability above and beyond our best alloy would be almost handwavium by comparison, but I believe it is achievable with the right research program.

Has anyone ever thrown 10 billion at a project whose sole purpose is to produce one single material? I didn't think so.. And it is EXACTLY THAT which we need to do.

With new materials will come new propulsion concepts. OR at the very least, make our existing systems so much better.

We need those fundamental advancements badly. They are so basic, yet they are overlooked and not even considered by high levels of government. And it's the government that provides policy and funding to make it happen.

 

[T.Neo]

Current materials work fine, thank you very much. And no, it isn't wise to spend a whole $10 billion just on some alloy. What about the spacecraft you supposedly build it out of?

Also, in many cases our current materials reach the theoretical limits of what is possible (in other words, "25% stronger" is indeed handwavium).

If you actually looked at the problems facing spacecraft design, you'd realise that the materials spacecraft are built out of count for relatively little, and the way those materials are made and fitted together into a spacecraft counts for pretty much everything.

 

[Codz]

He obviously has no idea about what he's talking about. Throwing money at something doesn't make reality go away.

 

[RisingFury]

Do things *MY* way and we'll undoubtedly have Rama-sized cruise ships sailing the Solar System!

What exactly is your way?

The only thing you've made clear so far is that you want star ship Enterprise. You haven't even told us which version of the 8 that appear in series and movies you want

 

[Tychonaut]

First off, the Starship Enterprise is not a load of BS. It is the style of ship we're gonna need if we are to do any serious exploring.

If you're going to promote a ship that will never, ever be built, you should at least shill for this, which has the advantage of being based in physical reality, unlike the Enterprise, which is made from 100% Certified Organic California Handwavium. You would still be talking about an insane idea, but at least it would be Gloriously Insane.

Perhaps not warp drive,

That's good, because it's pure fantasy.

but something much better than chemical rockets.

Such things have been proposed - ones we might be able to build some day if we did the engineering - but you don't seem interested in learning about them. In any case, we don't need them to explore Mars and some of the nearer asteroids, at least.

Not phasers, but perhaps terrawatt lasers which is almost doable now.

Are you seriously advocating that we deliberately export the idiocy that is war into space? I'm sure once enough humans are out there, it will find us on its own, but that doesn't mean we need to wish for it.

Humans have too many issues when you stuff them in a zero-G tin can.

Did artificial gravity through spin never make it into any Star Trek episodes? It won't be trivial to engineer, but again: based on actual physics, as opposed to "gravity deck plates."

None of it will happen until we get the shop in order.

Message from reality: the shop will never be in order. As long as there are humans, there will be politics, conflicting agendas, vested interests, egos and plain stupidity. We can only try to herd the cats in the general direction of a sensible space program.
Honestly, you sound like some sort of space Kurzweil. "Immortality and cheap interstellar travel - we can have it all! Now if someone would just find the magic seed that grows the AI that will create it all for us...I'll be by the pool."

 

[T.Neo]

If you're going to promote a ship that will never, ever be built, you should at least shill for this, which has the advantage of being based in physical reality, unlike the Enterprise, which is made from 100% Certified Organic California Handwavium. You would still be talking about an insane idea, but at least it would be Gloriously Insane.

But... Project Orion is the Super Death Blaster! Noooooooo...

:lol:

That's good, because it's pure fantasy.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive"]Wrong.[/ame]

I disagree with "pure".

In any case, we don't need them to explore Mars and some of the nearer asteroids, at least.

Some may argue that we need nuclear for Mars, to reduce trip time.

Even if you solve the gravity problem, you still have the radiation problem. If you solve the radiation problem, you still have psychological and risk problems.

Are you seriously advocating that we deliberately export the idiocy that is war into space?

Sadly, war is not necessarily idiocy. But exporting it into space by encouraging the existence of utterly pointless terawatt lasers... I will refrain from name-calling...

Honestly, you sound like some sort of space Kurzweil. "Immortality and cheap interstellar travel - we can have it all! Now if someone would just find the magic seed that grows the AI that will create it all for us...I'll be by the pool."

:rofl:

 

[Tychonaut]

Wrong.

I disagree with "pure".

Interesting link. Still seems to have a lot of hurdles to jump to prove it's even theoretically workable.
I hope ATK, or any other "shuttle-derived" contractor, don't take an interest in Alcubierre's work, or it will suddenly become a mandatory component of SLS. Though it would be easy enough for the graphics people to replace the SRBs on the side with warp nacelles.
But I won't be holding my breath waiting for any of these things to fly.

Some may argue that we need nuclear for Mars, to reduce trip time.

Even if you solve the gravity problem, you still have the radiation problem. If you solve the radiation problem, you still have psychological and risk problems.

Nuclear, whether NTR or other, could certainly speed up the trip, but I worry developing it would slow a Mars project down to the point it never launches. Better to go with what we have, and develop only the things we don't, for now. Which isn't to say research shouldn't be done on nuclear. If repeated Mars missions or a long-term base prove viable, there would be the option of switching to nuclear propulsion at some point.
Of course, we'd still want an all-up testing mission in near-Earth space, like this, lasting as long as a full Mars mission. This could settle a lot of questions about how fast we need flight times to be.

 

[T.Neo]

Interesting link. Still seems to have a lot of hurdles to jump to prove it's even theoretically workable.
I hope ATK, or any other "shuttle-derived" contractor, don't take an interest in Alcubierre's work, or it will suddenly become a mandatory component of SLS. Though it would be easy enough for the graphics people to replace the SRBs on the side with warp nacelles.
But I won't be holding my breath waiting for any of these things to fly.

:rofl:

Yeah... an Alcubierre Warp Drive is really... far fetched.

But it is not just a fantasy concept; it is a real concept, with various things that look like they would make it very unworkable.

Nuclear, whether NTR or other, could certainly speed up the trip, but I worry developing it would slow a Mars project down to the point it never launches. Better to go with what we have, and develop only the things we don't, for now. Which isn't to say research shouldn't be done on nuclear. If repeated Mars missions or a long-term base prove viable, there would be the option of switching to nuclear propulsion at some point.
Of course, we'd still want an all-up testing mission in near-Earth space, like this, lasting as long as a full Mars mission. This could settle a lot of questions about how fast we need flight times to be.

The problem is, you might just end up needing NTR. The chemical-driven mission durations give you an awfully long time to wait, and that's the problem.

And that sort of duration could prevent the mission from being successful. Radiation, microgravity exposure and this recently apparent papilledema-like condition are all examples of issues with long-term human stays in space.

The idea of that lunar mission is exactly to figure out what sort of durations and conditions are indeed possible for manned spaceflight- all while having a nice Earth only a few days away if problems arise.

The thing is, nuclear propulsion would be an incredibly useful thing to have. If you push for it enough, you can have it. If you don't bother and you discover later on that you need it, then your Mars mission just got delayed another 20 years (funny thing, human Mars exploration, just like fusion power, has been 20 years away for the last 50 years).