Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
I'm not actually talking about technical "leaps forward". I m actually asking, what can we be doing right now to get is to interesting places beyond low earth orbit? I think we have the technology now to be going to some of these places.
It's just, should we be prioritising Mars, or the moon, or near earth asteroids?
Or should we be trying all three?
I think Simpo has hit it on the head, set up a programme and lock it into place for at least 10 years so that it cannot be cancelled on the whim of a politician.
It's just, should we be prioritising Mars, or the moon, or near earth asteroids?
Or should we be trying all three?
I think Simpo has hit it on the head, set up a programme and lock it into place for at least 10 years so that it cannot be cancelled on the whim of a politician.
Blackpuddin said:
I believe manned spaceflight - by current rocket-powered means at least - is a poor use of resources and a red herring and believe we should be investing our time and effort in more creative ways of getting about the universe.
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.Plenty of air and water on Mars. You just need to do a bit of simple chemistry to get at it (I've read The Martian - so I know).
Hanging around waiting for new technology is a bit like telling Charles Lindberg in 1927 not to bother trying to fly the Atlantic but to wait until Jumbo Jets get invented. The thing is, it's because of the exploits of people like Lindberg that Jumbo Jets got invented.
Hanging around waiting for new technology is a bit like telling Charles Lindberg in 1927 not to bother trying to fly the Atlantic but to wait until Jumbo Jets get invented. The thing is, it's because of the exploits of people like Lindberg that Jumbo Jets got invented.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 23 October 22:45
tight fart said:
We need a base in the moon for starters.
That really is a massive red herring. There's nothing there and it would serve little purpose except a drain on resources. Mars has real long term possibilities for self-sustainability.
Asteroids have got to be the other target surely because of the economic potential.
Plus we need to go an retrieve that crashed spaceship on Ceres.....
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.The moon is turning out to be a much more interesting world than had previously been previously thought. It does seem that, in at least some regions of the moon, many of the essential resources need to sustain a permanent presence are actually there.
The moon therefore is very far from a red herring. There is much to do there and much to learn.
The moon therefore is very far from a red herring. There is much to do there and much to learn.
grumbledoak said:
tight fart said:
We need a base in the moon for starters.
No. That really is one of the least appropriate places to put people. No atmosphere and no water. Just a gravity well with a rock at the bottom.MiniMan64 said:
And while we're at I think we need a few more unmanned missions to the Gas Giant moons.
There will no doubt be more unmanned probes to these outer regions of the Solar System. At least one is on its way at the moment (Juno to Jupiter). However, I'd prefer to keep the discussion on "manned spaceflight".Going to the moon when you really wanted to go to Mars...
Well, I look at it like this. If the objective is, say, Nottingham (I live in Essex BTW), and I want to get there, I will get in a car and drive there. The 'go via the moon' people want to head south for a picnic in Guildford, then head north. I'll be in Nottingham first.
I don't think a Mars mission requires much new technology; the main difference is flight time and extended life support. The crew quarters will need to be bigger. New things will have to be invented and tested, but that's not necessarily new technology, merely developments of what we already know. Or at least, what we used to know before 'tech' got in the way. We got to the moon with a set of brilliant and focused minds, a f
king great rocket and a pocket calculator.
Well, I look at it like this. If the objective is, say, Nottingham (I live in Essex BTW), and I want to get there, I will get in a car and drive there. The 'go via the moon' people want to head south for a picnic in Guildford, then head north. I'll be in Nottingham first.
I don't think a Mars mission requires much new technology; the main difference is flight time and extended life support. The crew quarters will need to be bigger. New things will have to be invented and tested, but that's not necessarily new technology, merely developments of what we already know. Or at least, what we used to know before 'tech' got in the way. We got to the moon with a set of brilliant and focused minds, a f
king great rocket and a pocket calculator.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff