Future of manned space travel
Poll: Future of manned space travel
Total Members Polled: 105
Discussion
Re-useable space planes are not feasible at the moment. The Shuttle has shown how unecessary putting wings on a spacecraft is. You add a whole heap of complexity and weight onto the spacecraft for no other reason other than it lands in a more digmified manner.
A spacecraft works best when it is optiomised for its job in space, not for the mannner in which it returns to earth.
A spacecraft works best when it is optiomised for its job in space, not for the mannner in which it returns to earth.
The shuttles design was more a pr exercise than anything else.
Look here we can make a reusable space plane! Even though it had more risk, needed almost total rebuilds between launches and was much less efficient than a standard rocket would be.
Until we have a better way of getting into orbit a rocket with stuff on the top will be the best option. KISS.
Look here we can make a reusable space plane! Even though it had more risk, needed almost total rebuilds between launches and was much less efficient than a standard rocket would be.
Until we have a better way of getting into orbit a rocket with stuff on the top will be the best option. KISS.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html
Yes I am aware of the history of HOTOL - but the propulsion is almost there now as the supersonic heat exchanger is the most challenging part and has been acheieved. A reusable space plane in the ONLY sustainable answer for large payloads, the costs are far too great otherwise.
Edit -
just realized the question was manned space travel so SKYLON doesnt really count but there is no reason why a manned variant could not be made.
Yes I am aware of the history of HOTOL - but the propulsion is almost there now as the supersonic heat exchanger is the most challenging part and has been acheieved. A reusable space plane in the ONLY sustainable answer for large payloads, the costs are far too great otherwise.
Edit -
just realized the question was manned space travel so SKYLON doesnt really count but there is no reason why a manned variant could not be made.Best option:
Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
Talksteer said:
Best option:
Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
Not heard of the launch loop concept before - absolutely crackers to come up with an idea like that but pretty spectacular, wouldnt fancy a constant 3g acceleration along a 2000km bit of string!Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
RobDickinson said:
williamp said:
I would love to go into space...to say I've been. But really: what have we learnt which has improved things for us down here.
A huge amount of knowledge has been gained in during the reach to space that has had massive applications to the rest of the world.And did this need space travel to achieve, or could the same knowledge be done with funded research on earth.
Meldonte said:
Not heard of the launch loop concept before - absolutely crackers to come up with an idea like that but pretty spectacular, wouldnt fancy a constant 3g acceleration along a 2000km bit of string!
The acceleration would be in the upper atmosphere so would be virtually free of vibration and noise. The alternative is to sit on several hundred tonnes of explosives put together by the lowest bidder... 
williamp said:
RobDickinson said:
williamp said:
I would love to go into space...to say I've been. But really: what have we learnt which has improved things for us down here.
A huge amount of knowledge has been gained in during the reach to space that has had massive applications to the rest of the world.And did this need space travel to achieve, or could the same knowledge be done with funded research on earth.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
williamp said:
RobDickinson said:
williamp said:
I would love to go into space...to say I've been. But really: what have we learnt which has improved things for us down here.
A huge amount of knowledge has been gained in during the reach to space that has had massive applications to the rest of the world.And did this need space travel to achieve, or could the same knowledge be done with funded research on earth.
The things for which there is a decent business case for sending up into space are already being done. GPS, communications and earth observation satellites. Beyond this you have niche applications such as space probes.
For these applications the disposable rocket is entirely adequate, the volume of satellites we would want to put up does not justify any cleverer method of doing things. The question is if you did reduce the cost of space access what would you do with it?
The only applications that I think could justify the start up costs of something like the launch loop would be space solar energy, or mass space tourism. Beyond that a fully developed launch loop system could potentially put enough mass into space cheaply enough to make space habitation feasible for the wealthy.
But why would you want to live up there?
We only got the industrial revolution because in the UK we chopped down all the trees and had to dig up coal. That started you on the development of steam engines. I suspect that the development of widespread space access will be something forced on us rather than an opportunity.
Talksteer said:
We only got the industrial revolution because in the UK we chopped down all the trees and had to dig up coal. That started you on the development of steam engines. I suspect that the development of widespread space access will be something forced on us rather than an opportunity.
For the industrial revolution the reward was far greater than the price. Currently with space the opposite is true - but do you see the balance tipping for military reasons or the 'we've destroyed the Earth let's start a colony' reason?williamp said:
RobDickinson said:
williamp said:
I would love to go into space...to say I've been. But really: what have we learnt which has improved things for us down here.
A huge amount of knowledge has been gained in during the reach to space that has had massive applications to the rest of the world.And did this need space travel to achieve, or could the same knowledge be done with funded research on earth.
I refer you to this speech by JFK...........
"But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why thirty five years ago fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills. Because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."
Meldonte said:
Talksteer said:
Best option:
Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
Not heard of the launch loop concept before - absolutely crackers to come up with an idea like that but pretty spectacular, wouldnt fancy a constant 3g acceleration along a 2000km bit of string!Short term - cheapest most reliable disposable rocket.
Medium term - De risk the Skylon concept which is probably the only really credible space plane design to been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Long term - The launch loop, of all the non rocket space launch system that doesn't require unobtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
The principle issue is what economic reason have you got for going there
I think the wikipedia article also covers a critical point with the economics of the device, unless you are launching 10,000's of tonnes a year it's not economical.
Simpo Two said:
Talksteer said:
We only got the industrial revolution because in the UK we chopped down all the trees and had to dig up coal. That started you on the development of steam engines. I suspect that the development of widespread space access will be something forced on us rather than an opportunity.
For the industrial revolution the reward was far greater than the price. Currently with space the opposite is true - but do you see the balance tipping for military reasons or the 'we've destroyed the Earth let's start a colony' reason?There are also potentially economic benefits, such as He3 from the moon for Fusion power (still fairly theoretical) and zero G manufacturing.
grumbledoak said:
There doesn't seem to be many resources 'up there' that we can use. And no life-supporting planets that we can reach.
There doesn't seem to be much point in bunging men into space.
There are a great many reasons for being "up there" that we are aware of already of. The REAL benefits, of course, won't become obvious until we ARE up there and getring more and more familiar with the territory.There doesn't seem to be much point in bunging men into space.
PW said:
http://news.yahoo.com/peta-sponsored-vegan-mars-co...
The idea of manned spaceflight suddenly gains another compelling argument - ridding this planet of PETA.
They are attention seeking wotsits. Rhymes with a garden implement. Send them to Venus.The idea of manned spaceflight suddenly gains another compelling argument - ridding this planet of PETA.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff