Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
You are dragging the thread into an argument about maned v' unmanned space probes. Please don't. If you want to debate that, can't you start another thread with that as the theme?
I want to know what people think will happen with MANNED missions over the next 30 years. In particular, we have specific manned programmes already in place which may very well operate over that time frame - the Spacex Dragon, the Boeing CST-100 Starliner, the Lockheed-Martin Orion and, of course, the tried and trusted Russian Soyuz.
I want to know what people think will happen with MANNED missions over the next 30 years. In particular, we have specific manned programmes already in place which may very well operate over that time frame - the Spacex Dragon, the Boeing CST-100 Starliner, the Lockheed-Martin Orion and, of course, the tried and trusted Russian Soyuz.
hidetheelephants said:
rhinochopig said:
grumbledoak said:
I am with you, unromantic though it is. People need air and water and food and toilet facilities, none of which are in abundance on the nearby rocks. It makes any manned mission a very expensive picnic. We need faster spaceships.
You're way off the mark there. Lunar water is a very real possibility. Further, H3 is highly likely to exist in large quantities on the moon. H3 is an important element of fusion research. Should we crack fusion as tech then commercial mining becomes more viable. Plus with water you have air and food.That's why I suggested a molten salt reactor; the tritium self-extracts along with the xenon. There are at least 3 research programmes aiming to have a reactor in operation by 2025 so we shouldn't have to wait very long, certainly less time than it will take to invent a fusion reactor to burn the stuff.
Eric Mc said:
I want to know what people think will happen with MANNED missions over the next 30 years
Beyond Earth orbit? I'm going to say 'nothing' and wait to be surprised.As for mining minerals from the moon, people are forgetting the shipping cost. The only thing worth going for would be dilithium crystals... and they are fiction.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
I want to know what people think will happen with MANNED missions over the next 30 years
Beyond Earth orbit? I'm going to say 'nothing' and wait to be surprised.As for mining minerals from the moon, people are forgetting the shipping cost.
If you are using the minerals mined on the planet on which you are mining, the "shipping costs" are only the same type you would have on earth.
Eric Mc said:
If you are using the minerals mined on the planet on which you are mining, the "shipping costs" are only the same type you would have on earth.
That is true. What minerals do you have in mind and how is an expedition going to use them? The essential requirements are food, water and power.Water - looks like there's plenty there (in certain areas)
Power - loads available in the form of uninhibited and long term solar radiation ( a lunar day is 14 earth days). In some places it's 6 months long
Food - bring some and grow some - like we'd have to do anywhere else we go.
Crops have been successfully seeded in lunar samples brought back by the Apollo astronauts
As for minerals etc, there are bound to be plenty there out of which new stuff can be made. One of the points of prospecting and exploring is to find out what's actually there and in what quantities. No doubt, the compositions will be different depending on where you are on the moon - just like it does on earth, or any other planet/moon.
The Apollo samples contained numerous metals and other materials that could be useful. They even found that lunar dirt had a higher proportion of some metals - such as titanium - than earth.Even the lunar regolith itself can be made into bricks, concrete etc so basic construction work could be done just using this material with minimal processing required.
It also had other compounds that weren't known on earth which might be useful too. One was a titanium rich mineral called Armalcolite - named after Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin. It's since been found in very small quantities on earth - but it was first identified on the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalcolite
As I keep saying, the moon has plenty of "stuff" that could be used to help sustain humans living there.
Power - loads available in the form of uninhibited and long term solar radiation ( a lunar day is 14 earth days). In some places it's 6 months long
Food - bring some and grow some - like we'd have to do anywhere else we go.
Crops have been successfully seeded in lunar samples brought back by the Apollo astronauts
As for minerals etc, there are bound to be plenty there out of which new stuff can be made. One of the points of prospecting and exploring is to find out what's actually there and in what quantities. No doubt, the compositions will be different depending on where you are on the moon - just like it does on earth, or any other planet/moon.
The Apollo samples contained numerous metals and other materials that could be useful. They even found that lunar dirt had a higher proportion of some metals - such as titanium - than earth.Even the lunar regolith itself can be made into bricks, concrete etc so basic construction work could be done just using this material with minimal processing required.
It also had other compounds that weren't known on earth which might be useful too. One was a titanium rich mineral called Armalcolite - named after Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin. It's since been found in very small quantities on earth - but it was first identified on the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalcolite
As I keep saying, the moon has plenty of "stuff" that could be used to help sustain humans living there.
Eric Mc said:
Water - looks like there's plenty there (in certain areas)
Power - loads available in the form of uninhibited and long term solar radiation ( a lunar day is 14 earth days). In some places it's 6 months long
That's a good reason to not bother with solar; running a habitat and industrial processes off batteries for 2 weeks isn't happening. A reactor of some kind is a more practical means of powering a moon base.Power - loads available in the form of uninhibited and long term solar radiation ( a lunar day is 14 earth days). In some places it's 6 months long
Blackpuddin said:
By far the biggest limitations to space exploration IMO are the ludicrously delicate and demanding bags of blood and bones that we (apparently) desperately need to transport to other worlds.
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
I think you are probably right, I know that won't be popular by the OP but in terms of cost and risk it makes sense for autonomous systems to carry out the Science. There are benefits for Humans to explore a destination but a lot of research can be undertaken far cheaper and with just as much benefit and lower risk by Humans not being present. Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
A Forbes article said:
"It’s about $10,000 to put a pound of anything into a near-earth orbit. (Imagine John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, made of solid gold, and you can appreciate the enormous cost of space travel.) It costs $500 to $700 million every time the shuttle flies. Billionaire space tourists have flown to the space station at a reputed price of $20 million per head. And to put a pound of anything on the moon costs about 10 times as much. (To reach Mars, imagine your body made of diamonds.) We are 50 years into the space age, and yet space travel is just as expensive as it always was."
I cant imagine a huge change in human space flight until there are real technological changes the costs are just to high. Why place a Human on Mars when a Robot can dig for all the minerals it could carry.
Toaster said:
I think you are probably right, I know that won't be popular by the OP but in terms of cost and risk it makes sense for autonomous systems to carry out the Science. There are benefits for Humans to explore a destination but a lot of research can be undertaken far cheaper and with just as much benefit and lower risk by Humans not being present.
A Forbes article said:
"It’s about $10,000 to put a pound of anything into a near-earth orbit. (Imagine John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, made of solid gold, and you can appreciate the enormous cost of space travel.) It costs $500 to $700 million every time the shuttle flies. Billionaire space tourists have flown to the space station at a reputed price of $20 million per head. And to put a pound of anything on the moon costs about 10 times as much. (To reach Mars, imagine your body made of diamonds.) We are 50 years into the space age, and yet space travel is just as expensive as it always was."
I cant imagine a huge change in human space flight until there are real technological changes the costs are just to high. Why place a Human on Mars when a Robot can dig for all the minerals it could carry.
Perhaps - of "science" is the only criteria.A Forbes article said:
"It’s about $10,000 to put a pound of anything into a near-earth orbit. (Imagine John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, made of solid gold, and you can appreciate the enormous cost of space travel.) It costs $500 to $700 million every time the shuttle flies. Billionaire space tourists have flown to the space station at a reputed price of $20 million per head. And to put a pound of anything on the moon costs about 10 times as much. (To reach Mars, imagine your body made of diamonds.) We are 50 years into the space age, and yet space travel is just as expensive as it always was."
I cant imagine a huge change in human space flight until there are real technological changes the costs are just to high. Why place a Human on Mars when a Robot can dig for all the minerals it could carry.
And it's off topic.
ash73 said:
Construction of an advanced space station in high Earth orbit, above our atmosphere and magnetic field, to experiment with artificial gravity, protection from radiation, cosmic rays and micro meteors, and test elements of self sufficiency, i.e. the ability to generate the resources and grow the food required to sustain human life in deep space for long periods.
Flag planting missions to the Moon and Mars are pointless. What would you do when you get there? Pick up a few rocks and see how far you can hit a golf ball?
Explore, prospect and exploit - like you would on any moon or planet.Flag planting missions to the Moon and Mars are pointless. What would you do when you get there? Pick up a few rocks and see how far you can hit a golf ball?
The Solar System is where we will learn to be a space faring species. Look on it as the sand box. At some point, we'll know enough and be clever enough to leave the sand box, but we have to start somewhere.
Also, there is a lot to be learned about the worlds of our own star system. A lot can be learned using robot probes, which we are currently quite actively doing - but a lot more will be learned with boots on the ground, wherever that ground might be.
Also, there is a lot to be learned about the worlds of our own star system. A lot can be learned using robot probes, which we are currently quite actively doing - but a lot more will be learned with boots on the ground, wherever that ground might be.
ash73 said:
Eric Mc said:
What should the next goals for manned spaceflight be - and how would they be achieved?
Construction of an advanced space station in high Earth orbit, above our atmosphere and magnetic field, to experiment with artificial gravity, protection from radiation, cosmic rays and micro meteors, and test elements of self sufficiency, i.e. the ability to generate the resources and grow the food required to sustain human life in deep space for long periods.Flag planting missions to the Moon and Mars are pointless. What would you do when you get there? Pick up a few rocks and see how far you can hit a golf ball?
Werner Von Braun actually described the Apollo missions as the equivalent of the "husky and dog sled" era of lunar exploration.
It was 50 years between Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton etc and the establishment of permanent bases in Antarctica. I think lunar exploration will follow a similar pattern.
It was 50 years between Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton etc and the establishment of permanent bases in Antarctica. I think lunar exploration will follow a similar pattern.
Eric Mc said:
Werner Von Braun actually described the Apollo missions as the equivalent of the "husky and dog sled" era of lunar exploration.
It was 50 years between Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton etc and the establishment of permanent bases in Antarctica. I think lunar exploration will follow a similar pattern.
They'll have to hurry up to manage a mere 50.It was 50 years between Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton etc and the establishment of permanent bases in Antarctica. I think lunar exploration will follow a similar pattern.
I'd go for an early moon base as an experimental facility looking towards an eventual base on mars. The closeness of the moon has great benefits and it makes sense to me to learn there first. If something goes wrong on mars, you're stuffed unless you can fix it there.
The idea of a station somewhere further out to test long term living arrangements for mars trips sounds like it makes some sense, but in actuality I can't see much difference between being there and low earth orbit, apart from the expense of getting to it. Testing of radiation shielding etc is something we need to do but I don't know if we need to go into space in order to do that.
The idea of a station somewhere further out to test long term living arrangements for mars trips sounds like it makes some sense, but in actuality I can't see much difference between being there and low earth orbit, apart from the expense of getting to it. Testing of radiation shielding etc is something we need to do but I don't know if we need to go into space in order to do that.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff