Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
That is the kind of issue that surrounded Apollo 8. The original mission plan was a flight out to about half way to the moon and then an accelerated return back into the earth's atmosphere to test the heat shield. After due deliberation they decided, if we're going half way, we may as well go all the way.
The moon can be used as an very good astronomical base - whether we are talking about optical or radio astronomy. The far side especially offers a very good location for looking out into deep space.
Of course, remote automated observatories could be based on the moon so this doesn't automatically mean that humans would need to be on station all the time. But I can foresee a string of radio and optical observatories situated on the far side and humans visiting them every so often to repair and upgrade the facilities - along the lines of the way the Hubble Space Telescope was operated.
Of course, remote automated observatories could be based on the moon so this doesn't automatically mean that humans would need to be on station all the time. But I can foresee a string of radio and optical observatories situated on the far side and humans visiting them every so often to repair and upgrade the facilities - along the lines of the way the Hubble Space Telescope was operated.
If you land a spacecraft on another planet or moon, you need to use fuel to get off that planet or moon.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
ash73 said:
And bear in mind we're talking about sending a *lot* more mass than the recent Mars rovers, not just the lander but the fuel required to get home; aero-braking on that scale would be a massive engineering challenge.
Which is why NASA are in the middle of testing large "ballute" aerobraking system and large parachutes that can be deployed at supersonic speeds. So far the ballute system seems to work well but the most recent parachute test ended up with a shredded chute. It is an interesting period because for the first time, we do have parallel non-state run manned programmes. Obviously, these are all at early stages in their development and there is no guarantee that any or all of them will succeed. But it does at least provide an alternative path that is less reliant on the whim of the political mood.
And the other plus point is that it does look like the next 30 years will finally see us move away from low earth orbit only missions. What the destinations will be is still not quite clear, but at least it will be something different.
And the other plus point is that it does look like the next 30 years will finally see us move away from low earth orbit only missions. What the destinations will be is still not quite clear, but at least it will be something different.
I think after almost 60 years of launching things into space and sending items (manned and unmanned) through the various radiation belts that surround earth and experiencing radiation in interplanetary space, I would think we now have a pretty good understanding of the levels of radiation that are experienced.
All interplanetary probes and any craft that have to venture beyond the Van Allen zones are now radiation "hardened" to ensure they keep functioning. One of the prime goals of the Orion spacecraft test conducted last December was to give it a good soak in radiation to ensure its onboard electronics coped. They did with no problems.
All interplanetary probes and any craft that have to venture beyond the Van Allen zones are now radiation "hardened" to ensure they keep functioning. One of the prime goals of the Orion spacecraft test conducted last December was to give it a good soak in radiation to ensure its onboard electronics coped. They did with no problems.
Why do you not think they cannot be tested near earth or even on earth? We know the environment between earth and Mars quite well now. Dozens of craft have made that journey. Manned craft have been to the moon and back.
It's not an unknown environment.
We can replicate the radiation levels here on earth quite well I am sure - so protective materials can be tested here at much lower cost. We won't be testing the shielding methods on the first manned flight to Mars.
It's not an unknown environment.
We can replicate the radiation levels here on earth quite well I am sure - so protective materials can be tested here at much lower cost. We won't be testing the shielding methods on the first manned flight to Mars.
el stovey said:
So should we/they/you be concentrating on developing and using drones to go to Mars and deliver and build a habitable base there? The limiting factors are the systems for supporting humans. What do we want from Mars? If it's just resources, we can get them without even sending people there.
Why do humans need to go at all. Everyone was inspired by the first moon missions but even those lost popularity after a while. I'm all for manned space exploration but do humans just need to go into space when the earth is no longer a suitable home.
The main problem is funding and governments are now unwilling to fund manned expeditions into space just because "it's there" or "because it's hard" there needs to be a real use for human space flight. The previous need was because of the Cold War. What's the need now?
Who knows. All I know is that the human race is an "exploring" race and once a location has been identified a human being will want to get there. For the vast bulk of our existence the only way to experience a location was to be there in person. With modern technology we can, to some extent, experience these locations remotely. But I still think the urge to physically stand at a place - however remote - is literally part of our DNA.Why do humans need to go at all. Everyone was inspired by the first moon missions but even those lost popularity after a while. I'm all for manned space exploration but do humans just need to go into space when the earth is no longer a suitable home.
The main problem is funding and governments are now unwilling to fund manned expeditions into space just because "it's there" or "because it's hard" there needs to be a real use for human space flight. The previous need was because of the Cold War. What's the need now?
And it MAY BE the main reason we have been such a successful organism on this planet.
I feel that if we do NOT actually travel to these places in person, we are doomed as a species. It is fundamentally contradicting who and what we are by NOT going.
However, I am having a job stopping people raising the issue of whether man should be in space. That was not the point of this thread. Man is ALREADY in space and will be for the foreseeable future. The point of this thread was to chat about the technologies and targets for maned flight over the next few decades.
Toaster said:
Eric, you asked about manned space flight over the next 30 years, the answer if you choose to be rational based on current technology and drivers is very few, the majority will be autonomous.
Now starting from a rational standpoint where will man go and how many
and finally the topic should be spaceflight over the next 30 years
Start another thread if you want to to cover the unmanned spectrum. It's an interesting topic in its own right - just not as interesting on the basis that the unmanned programmes will be a case of a continuation and refinement of what we are currently doing.Now starting from a rational standpoint where will man go and how many
and finally the topic should be spaceflight over the next 30 years
I decided on this topic as there are lots of pretty new and imminent upcoming manned options. We haven't been in this situation for a long time - if ever. I actually think we are at the start of a new era for manned spaceflight and we don't yet know exactly where it will lead and how it will evolve over the next 30 years.
I selected 30 years as to me, that is about the life span that you will expect to get out of one particular class of space technology. The Shuttle operated for 34 years. Soyuz, in its various permutations, is now over 40 years old.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff