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.
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
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.
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".I don't think anyone is suggesting you go to the moon in order to get to Mars. You go to the moon because the moon is a worthwhile destination ion its own right.
And we have to get out of the habit of describing these places as "rocks". They are "worlds" with complex geologies and histories and will take centuries of detailed exploring for us to know and understand them properly.
The one thing we have learned from 60 years of manned and unmanned exploration of our Solar System is that the planets, moons, asteroids and comets are all far more complex and interesting than we once thought them to be.
And we have to get out of the habit of describing these places as "rocks". They are "worlds" with complex geologies and histories and will take centuries of detailed exploring for us to know and understand them properly.
The one thing we have learned from 60 years of manned and unmanned exploration of our Solar System is that the planets, moons, asteroids and comets are all far more complex and interesting than we once thought them to be.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting you go to the moon in order to get to Mars. You go to the moon because the moon is a worthwhile destination ion its own right.
Yes, ideally you'd go to both. But that will dilute resources. If Moon was a necessary step in getting to Mars, either for astronomical or scientific/technological reasons. But I don't think it is, and of the two Mars is the bigger catch. And if public support is a factor, there will be infinitely more for Mars.You are also assuming that exploring these places is a "one or the other" option. I can see different agencies and nations setting different targets for their programmes. It's perfectly feasible that the moon AND Mars may be targeted at the same time by different groups.
The moon has one huge advantage - it's near.
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.
So, no manned spaceflight?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.
Is space exploration purely a scientific exercise or are there all sorts of geopolitical reasons behind it. The history shows that the latter has played a vital part and will continue to do so - and having manned programmes is a massive part of that.
Columbus was not sent across the Atlantic for scientific reasons.
I'd prefer this discussion to concentrate on what humans will be doing in space over the next few decades - not whether they should be there in the first place.
No - it illustrates that we didn't put humans in the most interesting places.
It's not that we learned nothing from Apollo - we learned a huge amount. The problem was that the data from the Apollo samples was assumed to be typical of the entire moon. We now know that was a wrong assumption.
It's time to send some more humans to these other places.
It's not that we learned nothing from Apollo - we learned a huge amount. The problem was that the data from the Apollo samples was assumed to be typical of the entire moon. We now know that was a wrong assumption.
It's time to send some more humans to these other places.
Blackpuddin said:
Clearly the Columbus example is spurious as no alternatives were available back then.
No alternatives to what? Exercising political power and seeking new resources for exploitation before others did it first?THOSE were the reasons Columbus was sent across the Atlantic and these will largely be the reason for manned exploration of the Solar System. Science will have a part to play, but it won't be the major part. It never was.
So - humans are going to be are trapped forever on one vulnerable planet?
To be honest, I do not really want to discus the whys and wherefores of whether humans should actually travel places in space.
For the purpose of this thread I am assuming they will - because that is what is going to happen anyway, whether their motives are good or bad.
What I would like people to discuss is WHERE and HOW this will be achieved over the next few decades.
And maybe discuss what nations and/or agencies are going to carry this out.
To be honest, I do not really want to discus the whys and wherefores of whether humans should actually travel places in space.
For the purpose of this thread I am assuming they will - because that is what is going to happen anyway, whether their motives are good or bad.
What I would like people to discuss is WHERE and HOW this will be achieved over the next few decades.
And maybe discuss what nations and/or agencies are going to carry this out.
But not on going to the moon. As I keep saying, the moon is not a "dead" dull and uninteresting place.
It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
We've had 40 years of "non-competitive" co-operation in manned spaceflight and we are stuck in earth orbit.
We had ten years of competition and we reached the moon.
Despair if you will about how men are motivated, but competition gets the job done.
I'd prefer to go ahead on the basis of knowing the way people think and what motivates them rather than do nothing whilst we wait for humanity to become more enlightened.
We had ten years of competition and we reached the moon.
Despair if you will about how men are motivated, but competition gets the job done.
I'd prefer to go ahead on the basis of knowing the way people think and what motivates them rather than do nothing whilst we wait for humanity to become more enlightened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff