Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I was being mildly facetious in the sense that a civilisation that possessed massive engineering skills on a solar system or even galactic scale might very well also have developed technology and medical science to the point where they could live forever.
Oh well thats not the Human race we after all just mere Mammals with an over inflated sense of self importance and intelligence (some more than others) , we cannot even engineer our own existence in harmony with nature............. 
Eric Mc said:
No - immortality means nothing can kill you (a la Superman - Kryptonite excepted, of course) - so living in the vacuum of space with no food or water would be perfectly feasible. Although the quality of life might be a bit rubbish.
Might be immortal but I am used to this planet. And if if I were immortal, I would like a bar of chocolate or cup of coffee.Arguably Mars is in the OP's 30yr time frame but its not a solution to "save" humankind.
Its potentially easier (might be on the 30,000yr plan) to leave the solar system rather than try to fix an entire planet up, since the ingredients we have are not ideal and we are rapidly approaching the capability of finding a more ideal replacement.
I guess in that respect the issue is whether our species can survive here long enough to build a interstellar spacecraft to move a suitable amount of people/culture off the Earth... at our current rate that's got to be a doubtful.
Its potentially easier (might be on the 30,000yr plan) to leave the solar system rather than try to fix an entire planet up, since the ingredients we have are not ideal and we are rapidly approaching the capability of finding a more ideal replacement.
I guess in that respect the issue is whether our species can survive here long enough to build a interstellar spacecraft to move a suitable amount of people/culture off the Earth... at our current rate that's got to be a doubtful.
scubadude said:
Arguably Mars is in the OP's 30yr time frame but its not a solution to "save" humankind.
Its potentially easier (might be on the 30,000yr plan) to leave the solar system rather than try to fix an entire planet up, since the ingredients we have are not ideal and we are rapidly approaching the capability of finding a more ideal replacement.
I guess in that respect the issue is whether our species can survive here long enough to build a interstellar spacecraft to move a suitable amount of people/culture off the Earth... at our current rate that's got to be a doubtful.
Spot on and in line with NASA and other agenciesIts potentially easier (might be on the 30,000yr plan) to leave the solar system rather than try to fix an entire planet up, since the ingredients we have are not ideal and we are rapidly approaching the capability of finding a more ideal replacement.
I guess in that respect the issue is whether our species can survive here long enough to build a interstellar spacecraft to move a suitable amount of people/culture off the Earth... at our current rate that's got to be a doubtful.
Eric Mc said:
Which part of the quoted comment is spot on? Anything is possible within the next 30,000 years. I want to discuss the next 30.
All of it, I didn't think I needed to spell it out Eric but for the sake of clarity scubadude said:
Arguably Mars is in the OP's 30yr time frame but its not a solution to "save" humankind.
It is feasible that Mars is an achievable goal within the next 30 years and agree its not a solution to "save" Humankind e.g. this is in line with NASA and other agenciesscubadude said:
Its potentially easier (might be on the 30,000yr plan) to leave the solar system rather than try to fix an entire planet up, since the ingredients we have are not ideal and we are rapidly approaching the capability of finding a more ideal replacement.
Outlandish timespan but more feasible solution scubadude said:
I guess in that respect the issue is whether our species can survive here long enough to build a interstellar spacecraft to move a suitable amount of people/culture off the Earth... at our current rate that's got to be a doubtful.
A pragmatic view on the future possabilities and the dire issue of we may not be around long enough (this has a high probability)Toaster said:
Spot on and in line with NASA and other agencies
Thanks for the clarification.
Going to Mars or other destinations in the solar system in the next 30 years is nothing to do with saving humanity and I never claimed it was. It's about going places - which humans do.
Please, please, please stop trying to drag this thread into debates about the worth of human spaceflight, Start a thread on that yourself if you want to discuss that topic. This thread, I hoped, would be about the technology and the destinations that WILL be used and aimed for in the next few decades.
Going to Mars or other destinations in the solar system in the next 30 years is nothing to do with saving humanity and I never claimed it was. It's about going places - which humans do.
Please, please, please stop trying to drag this thread into debates about the worth of human spaceflight, Start a thread on that yourself if you want to discuss that topic. This thread, I hoped, would be about the technology and the destinations that WILL be used and aimed for in the next few decades.
Eric Mc said:
This thread, I hoped, would be about the technology and the destinations that WILL be used and aimed for in the next few decades.
Either we need to reduce the cost of launches from the current ~$4000/kg to LEO (Falcon 9 list price, as an example), or we need to use a much more efficient technology for the cruise to Mars.Ion drive sounds like one solution. It's already been used a couple of times on small unmanned probes. What are the technical difficulties of using bigger and more powerful ion drive engines for manned missions?
Are there any new technologies that need to be developed to allow this or would it just be a matter of using current technology engines but just making them bigger?
Are there any new technologies that need to be developed to allow this or would it just be a matter of using current technology engines but just making them bigger?
Eric Mc said:
Ion drive sounds like one solution. It's already been used a couple of times on small unmanned probes. What are the technical difficulties of using bigger and more powerful ion drive engines for manned missions?
Are there any new technologies that need to be developed to allow this or would it just be a matter of using current technology engines but just making them bigger?
Ion drives are slowly being made more efficient but the biggest obstacle is the power source; until a practical fusion reactor or perhaps a compact molten salt fission reactor is built we're stuck with powering ion drives from solar panels, RTGs or powercells, none of which have much power density compared to chemical rockets.Are there any new technologies that need to be developed to allow this or would it just be a matter of using current technology engines but just making them bigger?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff