Author Topic: Expectations about the future of spaceflight: optimism or pessimism?  (Read 21950 times)

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
We are not certain what will happen in the spaceflight industry in a couple of years, let alone decades. The major things that have yet to be realized are manned Mars landings and the major reduction of costs for space access. People have various expectations for what will happen, ranging from the optimistic to the pessimistic.

Some people believe that in a few decades, SpaceX will be successful in revolutionizing launch by not throwing away the launch hardware, thus reducing prices by at least half, or maybe reducing it by an order of magnitude or even more. Some expect that the first Mars mission will happen some time in the late 2020s, and it will not be delayed. Robert Zubrin expects Mars Direct to have its first mission in 10 years if people would just start working on it now. SpaceX's Mars Colonial Transport would be fully operational by the middle of the 21st century, and there will be enough demand for thousands of people to pay $500,000 a ticket to move to the Red Planet. An entire colony of people living together, some of them growing crops, or having babies.

Others argue that reusability will not be worth it due to low "flight rates" (i.e. not enough amortization for maintenance and development), and there won't be enough demand for those markets (a lot of commercial RLV concepts failed because the massive satellite constellations that were conceived in the 90s didn't materialize, but SpaceX is planning on solving that as well). Many times, the satellite can also cost more than the launcher itself, so will the launch market be elastic enough? Other revolutionary concepts such as space elevators will also have to deal with that. The phrase "chicken-and-egg" might get mentioned in these types of discussions (i.e. high flight rates are necessary for reusable launchers, and vice versa).

There might be the demand for mass space tourism, but we don't know if it will be just a flash in the pan for only a few millionaires. About 20 years ago, there was a concept for a mass space tourism SSTO by the "Japanese Rocket Society" called "Kankoh-maru." The ultra-high launch volume of "tens of flights per day," carrying 50 passengers each, was calculated to result in a price of $20,000 per passenger. This is kind of like the high volume (thousands of people per year) that Elon Musk expects for Mars colonization, except it's only for people who want to view the beauty of Earth from low Earth orbit, and maybe go to a space hotel. It was never built, probably because Japan was going through economic problems following the 1980s bubble, but who else would invest the time and money in developing a rocket with airline-like operations? Will SpaceX be successful in doing just that, or will it end up like Kankoh-maru - just a pipe dream? What if it gets built, but no one comes?

Solar power satellites? Japan is planning on building them, but Elon Musk thinks that the energy loss during transmission will make it impractical.

Unless SpaceX proves me wrong, I expect the first manned missions to Mars to occur by the middle of the 21st century (most likely late 2030s), and that they will only involve small crews of 4 to 6 people, spending their time scientifically exploring the surface of Mars. Mass colonization is for the next century. A lot of things still have to be considered and developed: EDL systems for heavy landers, radiation mitigation, etc. For MCT, will there be the demand for thousands of people to move to tin cans on a barren world, or will it just be a few dozen people like an Antarctic research station? Will the idea of a "multi-planet species" or "not having all our eggs in one basket" be moot because of always having to need some sort of a supply line from Earth, no matter how much a colonist "lives off the land?"

But some would even think that a manned mission to Mars won't happen in this century; it will "always be decades away" just like fusion power. Half a year ago, I asked a question on the Kerbal Space Program forum about when people expected for humans to land on Mars. A lot of them thought it would happen after 2040. Some even thought 2040 was too optimistic, and that it won't happen until the 2100s, because there won't be enough will to do such a mission for a long time. I'm guessing that these people are just disillusioned by how a manned Mars program has been delayed several times already. This kind of attitude came from a forum of spaceflight enthusiasts (of a game that is a semi-realistic, albeit silly, simulation of spaceflight), yet on this forum, people can speculate for hundreds of pages about how mass Mars colonization would work.

So, what do you expect the future of spaceflight to be in the next few decades, or in this century?
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 09:11 pm by Pipcard »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I think it really boils down to economics, including the world economy and reduced launch costs.

If the government threw money at Mars exploration, just as they did for Apollo, the first landing could be in ten years. Of course, that is not going to happen. It's too expensive.

If the world economy sputters along for decades then we might not go to Mars this century.

Since we can't control the world economy or world events, the best bet is for innovative companies and engineers to lower costs. Then governments or even private companies could afford the cost.

Offline nadreck

Personally I think it depends on the will and actions of a few erratics who will get us past a tipping point after which it will have a net positive economic benefit.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 434
  • Likes Given: 72
About 20 years ago, there was a concept for a mass space tourism SSTO by the "Japanese Rocket Society" called "Kankoh-maru." The ultra-high launch volume of "tens of flights per day," carrying 50 passengers each, was calculated to result in a price of $20,000 per passenger. This is kind of like the high volume (thousands of people per year) that Elon Musk expects for Mars colonization, except it's only for people who want to view the beauty of Earth from low Earth orbit, and maybe go to a space hotel. It was never built, probably because Japan was going through economic problems following the 1980s bubble, but who else would invest the time and money in developing a rocket with airline-like operations?
I remember readaing somewhere, that design of Kankoh-maru was accepted to be preliminary, without the proper mass fraction. They hoped that future progress would solve the issue. There were many other SSTO designs that time, but nobody considers them realistic today. Technological over-optimism is probably one of the reasons of the frustrations. 

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
I think the attitude "I'm going to see a Mars landing before I'm dead even if I have to contribute to making it a reality in whatever small way I can" is a good one to have. It's a mistake to think that anything will happen if people don't work for tech companies, people don't become scientists, people don't become welders, people don't become taxpayers, people don't become space positive politicians. It certainly won't happen if people believe that it won't - human aspiration is self-satisfying. Nobody lifts a finger for something they don't believe will happen - in fact, they will that none-happening into existence.



Tech is advancing at a faster rate than ever before, since we first started gathering data. Our understanding of the universe is advancing at exceptional rates. Our lifespans are expanding. Everyone reading this who has been alive since the 1990s has lived through a time of technological and cultural revolution so massive we can barely appreciate it - those who have been alive since the 1950s have lived through about five, depending on where you are.

In 45 years into last century we went from horses to nuclear fission. In only three years last century we went from hot air balloons to the fix-winged, heavier than air planes that grew rapidly to outfly the fastest falcon and fly higher than highest albatross. In 36 years we had rotary winged aircraft that could hover like dragonflies despite weighing in the tonnes.


As for technology directly relevant to space travel, space technology has advanced at ludicrous speed. Between 1926 and 1969 we went directly between just having figured out how to make (tiny and terrible) liquid fuelled rockets and liquid fuelled rockets landing two test pilots on the lunar regolith. Humanity didn't exactly go to sleep with regards to space after that - over time, we have honed and refined the space station right here in LEO - living and working in space is now something we understand how to do. We have sent up telescopes of all shapes and spectrums and are right now charting Earthlike planet candidates outside of our solar system. We have recorded data from probes we have sent out into interplanetary space. We have experimented with capsules, planes and lifting bodies. We have built and tested nuclear rocket engines. We have Ion powered space probes with ridiculous ISPs. We have landed probes on comets, made hazardous EVAs to save derelict space stations and fix the optics of telescopes. We may not have gone to Mars yet, but we keep trying something new practically every year and eventually one of those seeds is going to break the topsoil.


We're right at the beginning of the a new millennium, this is a terrible time to be pessimistic about anything with the word future in it.

Edit: We are now at the phase where future progress is no longer needed. The technology is already here, the science has been here for decades. The last steps involve a whole lot of moolah, humans in suits and some darn' smart engineers to get their heads together - we are approaching these final steps.


I expect to see no less than six humans mars before I'm forty years of age. That gives me only 22 years to avoid being disappointed.


Edit: I happen to be rather young, but the thought that I was alive in a time before The Open Directory Project existed completely baffles me - how on earth did people exercise their human right to freedom of information before that? How did anybody find where anybody else was? How did the global financial system work for crying out loud? I have no conception of an internet free world. Technology induced culture change is rapid and you never realise it when you're living in it. The same will happen to space.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 06:14 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I happen to be rather young, but the thought that I was alive in a time before The Open Directory Project existed completely baffles me - how on earth did people exercise their human right to freedom of information before that? How did anybody find where anybody else was? How did the global financial system work for crying out loud? I have no conception of an internet free world. Technology induced culture change is rapid and you never realise it when you're living in it. The same will happen to space.

Use the power of the Internet to find out what things were like before the Internet. In many ways the same, but with physical movement of data instead of electronic. Of course, at a much slower pace and far more limited. Letters versus email, texts, or forums. You had to learn patience.

You want to do research you went to a library. You might have to order a book and wait for it to arrive in the mail. Further back, there was no such thing as next day delivery.

Before the advent of transistor mainframe computers in the early 1960s, an international company like American Express would have to wait nearly a year before they had quarterly results. Now they compile the results in days. It's only that slow because it's not worth paying the staff 24/7 to run the reports.

Before the invention of electronic communications the fastest information came on the fastest sailing ship. Reuters got their start by meeting incoming ships to the UK so they could get the news back to London faster than anyone else.

To me the biggest advantage to the Internet is the ability for like minded people from around the world to share information and ideas as we do in this forum.

Getting back OT, I hope you are not disappointed in 22 years. I've been disappointed for over 30 years. It's all about the money and the will to do it. The tech is close enough that with the cash we can go to Mars.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
"We are not certain what will happen in the spaceflight industry in a couple of years, let alone decades."

About a decade ago when one looked at the space industry things were much more certain.  There existed the shuttle and a number of expendable launch systems.  There was nothing on the horizon that promised any real changes to the space industry.  For the forseeable future most things were going to remain the same.  Manned spaceflight was going to limited to LEO.  We would continue to send satellites for various commercial and military activities in Earth orbit.   

Today led by SpaceX we are seeing a new generation of launch vehicles that promise to cut the cost of launch by more than half.  We have the SLS which promises to take humans beyond LEO. 

Will all of these endeavors succeed?  It is likely some will and some will not, but we can say pretty definitely that some hope is better than none.  Since I have seen such a large improvement over the last few years I am not more optimistic then ever.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
I'm just not sure what to accept more: the miraculous space future of extreme launch cost reduction and Mars colonization (like what is always being speculated about on the SpaceX boards here), or the "reality" of "low flight rates," "low demand," and spaceflight that is always going to be expensive.

Try to read this thread (debate) starting from here. One poster (Nibb31) is an insistent believer in the latter.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 03:46 pm by Pipcard »

Offline nadreck

I'm just not sure what to accept more: the miraculous space future of extreme launch cost reduction and Mars colonization (like what is always being speculated about on the SpaceX boards here), or the "reality" of "low flight rates," "low demand," and spaceflight that is always going to be expensive.

Try to read this thread (debate) starting from here. One poster (Nibb31) is a prominent believer in the latter philosophy.

But it isn't a binary answer, reality is probably neither of those, nor is it directly on a line between them.  I have a very long list of possible activities in space that would get the volume of launches up, but several of them are bootstraps to making BLEO activities cheaper even though they are BLEO activities themselves.  Some desire for exploration and scientific study has to be involved, as does some capitalist philanthropy, however the only chance we have of making LEO access cheap is to spend a fair bit before it is with more expensive access.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Elon and Google appear to be making a major effort to crack the payload end of the equation in case you haven't heard.

They plan on launching a huge constellation of LEO Sats for Internet access.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Elon and Google appear to be making a major effort to crack the payload end of the equation in case you haven't heard.

They plan on launching a huge constellation of LEO Sats for Internet access.
I knew about that (I mentioned it in the opening post)
Quote
(a lot of commercial RLV concepts failed because the massive satellite constellations that were conceived in the 90s didn't materialize, but SpaceX is planning on solving that as well)

 but what if this is a yet another bubble with promises that fail to deliver?
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 04:04 pm by Pipcard »

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Pipcard, it will always be a bubble of some sort. Whether or not it is sustainable is the million dollar question. So far Space History post  WW2, has gone through several bubbles. Each with their own Financial Pump Characteristic as it were. Right now, The Commercial Space Bubble, is an exploration in a totally different direction, which we won't know how it worked out in real life until it has run it's course. Some will be pessimistic for sure. Years of hoping and wishing for the best, being washed down the toilet bowl by forces beyond the normal person's control. There will be those that are unrealistic, and want unicorns, even when pony's are staring them in the face. The supreme optimists. Whatever will be will be, as a song from my youth put it. We can only work hard, prepare for the future as best we can, with the knowledge in the present that we have been given. And, if by some miracle a Unicorn (ie Spitfire, Jet Engines, Penicillin) show up, then count our blessings, and carry on forging our way up hill ad Astra.
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
but what if this is a yet another bubble with promises that fail to deliver?
Even if the current newspace boom turns out to be a pure bubble and vanishes completely, which is very unlikely, that'll still lead to a huge influx of talented, experienced people from outside traditional aerospace culture into the industry. Look at the leaders in newspace companies today-a large proportion are alumni of dotcom-boom era companies like Kistler or Roton.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
I anticipate, in broad terms, a long-term continuation of the status-quo.  It includes the core space launch business provided by 1.) government defense, 2.) civil space, and 3.) commercial, mostly communications satellites. 

While the space launch industry is currently undergoing a shake-up (partly due to Russia issues, partly due to current SpaceX prices), I expect it to settle down again to something that looks not much different than what existed before.  Subtract a Sea Launch Zenit and a ULA Delta 4 Medium.  Add a SpaceX Falcon 9 and a Krunichev Angara.  And so on. 

Re-usability is en vogue, all the rage, etc., but since the last Shuttle no one has as-yet recovered anything!  If/when it occurs, I don't see it making a substantial price difference.   

ISS is the nexus of human spaceflight for the time being.  SLS/Orion and other things might supplant ISS years down the road.  Add one thing and subtract the other, etc.  Status-quo for all practical purposes.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Definitely optimistic. We are close to breakthroughs in fusion and materials science. These things will help spaceflight a lot. I expect NASA to land humans on Mars in the 2030's, with Spacex following with the start of a colony.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Alexsander

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
I'm just not sure what to accept more: the miraculous space future of extreme launch cost reduction and Mars colonization (like what is always being speculated about on the SpaceX boards here), or the "reality" of "low flight rates," "low demand," and spaceflight that is always going to be expensive.

Try to read this thread (debate) starting from here. One poster (Nibb31) is an insistent believer in the latter.

Low demand is a consequence of high prices?
High prices are a consequence of low demand?

Virgin Galactic has 700+ paying customers at US$ 200,000 for a short ballistic trip.
Musk said a few years ago he has a price goal of US$ 500,000 for a ticket to Mars.

5 years ago, the price-per-pound to ISS was US$ 10000.
Today SpaceX charges between US$ 2000-3000 per pound.
They say FH will break the US$ 1000/pound barrier.

So... wait and see.

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
If you look at all the billionaires in the world, you won't find much pessimism. Had Musk been a pessimist in the early 2000's when private spaceflight was basically illegal, SpaceX would never have gotten past the "brainstorm" phase.  Look at Virgin Galactic and XCOR, both of these projects have encountered so many issues that if NASA or congress was running them, they would have gone bust. However, they continue on, because of a small group of dedicated engineers and entrepreneurs.

You could find any company, technology, invention in history and find reasons to be pessimistic. Many projects will fail. SpaceX might be defunct in 5 years. Virgin Galactic might become the 21st century Pan-Am. SLS and Orion might be cancelled in 5 years, and send us back to the drawing board, billions poorer. However, we are at a point in spaceflight, where the momentum of change is too great to maintain the status quo. I don't know if we'll get to Mars by 2050, but I do know the momentum, skill, and determination to do so is present, if not at NASA, in private industry.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
I think we might finally see spaceflight become routine because many different companies are trying several different concepts.
Which one will be the winning concept who knows.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 07:03 pm by Patchouli »

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 49
There is a notion, especially prevalent in early Star Trek TNG, that it is human nature to explore and expand. It is not a universal human feature, it is that the most successful societies where the ones that chose this path. Also, we ought to note that there is also the phenomenon of over-expansion and overreach, empires start crumbling when they can no longer manage the weight of those they rule.

Sputnik was actually announced as an afterthought of weapons testing. Khrushchev realized its propaganda benefits only AFTER every country sent congratulations and the American public trembled. Hence the Space Race, the only time when both side were willing to spend real national money for space. The race ended when the USSR realized that it did not have the know-how to build a manned moon rocket and the US had reaffirmed its superiority, and no longer had the need to prove it. Since then governments have been muddling through; enough money to do the achievable (Space Station, unmanned probe that does interesting thing) but not enough to do the truly inspirational. In this public funding environment the inspirational will come when it becomes achievable, not when it is desired. Example of this: Mars Sample Return. MSR mission have been studied since the JPL Purple Pigeons of the 1970's as a follow up to Viking. Before its cancellation with the bust of the Faster, Cheaper, Better philosophy the 2003 MSR mission is the only one that got anywhere near cutting metal. Now it seems that one may be coming in 2024, after we solve the problem of actually launching from Mars.

Unless the Chinese decide to conquer Mars soon (instead of say building a North European style comprehensive welfare state for their citizens) governments alone will not get people to Mars before the 2030s the earliest. The big question is can the private sector move us forward? SpaceX has managed to drop launch prices by optimizing production methods. If they or their competitors can conquer reusability, and that is a big if, we can see a further drop in price that can put bring things forward by decades. Let's take note though of the timeline: if all goes well SpaceX will refly a Falcon 9 firs stage no earlier than in a couple of years, more realistically three. If it does not go well it can take longer. I am optimistic that with New Space things in the next 20 years will move faster than the last 20 years. This does not mean however that they will move as fast as we would like.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
I have some optimism it may take off this century as opposed to the last.

As a child-of-the-(19)80s', I felt that the monotony of the space shuttle robbed my generation.  One example: I visited space camp twice in my youth; once during the experience we were given an assignment to makeup an imaginary space station.  When I suggested trying to put it near the moon, one of the camp counselors commented "There's no point since we won't be going back to the moon until the 2020s"  That struck me hard.  It pretty much killed 99% of my faith in the manned half of NASA.

I find it ironic that, if it weren't for the death of Columbia and it's crew back in 2007 the current revival in spaceflight through SLS might never have happened because of the lethargy NASA still had (coupled with crappy budget).  For better or worse it often take a disaster to force people in actual power to change course...in this case out of LEO where our astronauts were doing experiments an unmanned pod could easily duplicate at half the cost.

I think the next President and Congress will hold sway over NASA's directive, but one way or another I think they will at least insist on either returning to the Moon or landing on Mars.  Either might be possible with the upcoming generation if not my own.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
I was 12 at the beginning of the Space Age and saw hope blossom into the Apollo landings and the great manned spaceflight desertification that followed.  Stuck in LEO for decades post Apollo.  Then the DC-X and Roton false dawn of the 90s.  SpaceShipOne then the over a decade hiatus.

All said what's different now is the billionaires.  Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon"  Future History come to pass. Musk with SpaceX.  Google's investing.  SpaceX's attempts at reusability have caused a paradigm shift. Look at ULAs next gen recovery plan.  And the Europeans as well.  Things are changing as someone will be successful crashing costs to LEO access.  Maybe a bad choice of verbs.

As always SpaceX's aggressive goals will see continued schedule slips caused by technical difficulties and of course limited by funds.  However I expect to see* a SpaceX/NASA joint manned mission to Mars in the early 2030s.  Nearly 10 years later than Elon's goal but it will happen.

Meanwhile China will be on the moon.  Somebody will probably buy rides on the F9 Heavy or in the late 2020s on the new delayed BFR for lunar missions.

* Somewhat of a hyperbole as I likely won't be here to see it.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 10:59 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
I think with Google giving SpaceX 1 billion to launch WiFi sats will keep SpaceX's launch rate up.  Also if they can get reuse going and prices drop maybe there will be more people wanting to launch sats. 

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Keep in mind anything dotcom related is going to be inflated over what would be realistic expectations at this moment as tech specifically web 2.0 is presently in a bubble that's very similar to the one that happened in the late 1990s.
I don't think Spacex will bet the farm like Rotary Rocket as Musk experienced the first dotcom bubble and will hope for the best but prepare for the worst as far as those contracts go.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2015 03:25 am by Patchouli »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626


All said what's different now is the billionaires.  Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon"  Future History come to pass. Musk with SpaceX.  Google's investing.  SpaceX's attempts at reusability have caused a paradigm shift. Look at ULAs next gen recovery plan.  And the Europeans as well.  Things are changing as someone will be successful crashing costs to LEO access.  Maybe a bad choice of verbs.


I'd say the growth of an a new side to the commercial space industry, which is something that is occurring and has partially occurred, has already stepped far beyond the 90s chimera.



Re-usability is en vogue, all the rage, etc., but since the last Shuttle no one has as-yet recovered anything!  If/when it occurs, I don't see it making a substantial price difference.   


New tech, new ways of doing things, much to prove, but none of the shuttle precedents are the right metric to use. It's blank page until somebody, probably SpaceX but honestly could be anybody after that, starts reflying significant rocket components regularly.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2015 12:56 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Right now, I'd suggest that we are, essentially, in the "Barnstorming" era of space flight.

     Our designs, while right now, are state of the art, will likely be superceeded by craft that are as much a kin to our current rockets as biplanes are to the P51 Mustang.  With advent of newer and more powerful propulsion systems, (likely not like anything we've seen or even imagined yet) the next generation after will be likethe difference between the P51 Mustang and the F16.

     Perhaps it will be some form of EM propulsion, or even the expansion and compression of space, but it will almost definately be unlike anything we have currently imagined.  (Ok, maybe it will be derived from things that are being worked upon today, but they will be vastly more refined).

     I expect, at first, there will be those who scoff at the utility of going into Space, but as destinations become more refined and costs of space flight come down, people will likely become as much enamored with space craft and space flight as they are with both aircraft and ocean liners.

     Fast trips between the Earth, Moon and Lagrange colonies will likely come within the next 50 years, while space liners, resembling the great Zepplines of past eras, if only in appearence and operational behaviors, will ply the way between Earth, Mars, the Major Asteroids and eventually, Venus.  As both transportation becomes faster and destinations become further out, the Spaceliners will be replaced with others designed for the farther reaches of the solar system.

     Eventually, social and political stesses will likely cause a rift between the governments of Earth and one or more Lagrange colony.  At this point, they'll either reconfigure existing colony structures or simply build new ones, attach both a comet and an asteroid to the front as both protection and raw marterials, (Asteroid front, comet rear) attach a powerful drive and fuel, and head out to another star system where a Terra like, uninhabited world exists, to start fresh.  They may even decide that Terra like worlds aren't really needed, so long as a supply of raw materials is available.  (This may, in my opinion, be a mistake as a world can have a MUCH more diverse biosphere as compared to a space colony, unless, of course, that space colony has an internal volume and surface area equal to or larger than that of a planet.  This is likely a second reason that Biosphere 2 failed, as the set of biomes that they used for the experiment were, by the very size of the experiment, limited at best).

     Over all, I would have to present myself as optimistic about the future of spaceflight, although simple human ignorance of what the future CAN be will likely slow the progress of what WILL be.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
It's never been about the ability to go to space.

It's always about the reasons. That determines funding and/or enthusiasm at the corporate, governmental or patriotic levels.

Space isn't the U.S. West. It's hostile, takes more energy to get there and will kill you without a place to stay and return. Those technologies are finally being refined and readied to be cheaper, easier to build and even reused.

In the end, as with the U.S. West migration, it wasn't the government that moved people. People moved people. You just have to keep giving them a reason to do that.

A home of their own. A place to work. Prosperity. It's no different in low Earth orbit as it is on the surface.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline warddw

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 1
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that though we all space enthusiasts, we are missing the forest for the trees, and reading this thread convinces me even further that's the case.

It's all about the money, finances and human motivation...not the technology.

In the long history of technology and humanity, the effect of technology has always been to free us from prior burdens and allow us to expand our horizons into other endeavors or do things more efficiently. The result is that we need ever fewer people to do the same job. Look at the world around you - its filled with examples.

15,000 tons tankers and manned engine rooms? Not today - 100K plus and automated engine rooms. Don't need all those people. Family farms? Nah - large 'commercial' farms and practice because they can produce the same crop far cheaper. Assembly lines? Nah - robotics and automation do away with much of the former touch labor (not all but a significant portion) Now we are at the cusp with vehicle operations. Truck drivers? Train engineers? Nah - cheaper and safer to do it with perceptive automation. Again - the end result is we don't need the people.

Now lets look the larger impact. The unfortunate truth is we have a huge population surplus now (educational, technological etc) that is simply not needed or involved in the production of wealth. The question isn't whether we can get into space - the question is what the heck are we going to do with all the people in the financial/social/technology evolutionary pressure cooker of the west. (BTW they all vote - remember that)

Less of an issue of you are in Africa and still worried about daily survival and subsistence farming.. you need the hands.

I haven't seen any vision or answer yet - the short term answer for some is treat the symptom - ever greater dependence on government and wealth redistribution. This will fail - as government simple redistributes wealth - it doesn't create it. This is also why the rolls of social programs will continue to grow without check in the short term. Paying homage to the electorate is also far more important to all politicians than any space vision.

How then to create enough wealth to do it all? How to grow your economy while taking care of all of its members AND move into space?

Free market economics used to self regulate this, and it still does to a degree. We can see that in the transfer of manufacturing to lower cost locations like China. The human cost of labor there is far cheaper than even the most minimal of western subsistence costs.

This is the bigger question...you will never garner more resources for space as long as this portion of the voting base displays unlimited growth. Their concerns are terrestrial...and they will vote accordingly.

So my vision for the future is, unfortunately, not much different than the present. We will have some focused exploration, but I see no imperative for more. Fiscal pressures in an evolving society will see to that.

How to escape? I see only one alternative financially and that's reduction of energy costs. 70% of the cost of modern goods is the energy required to manufacture it...not human labor. We talk about reducing the cost of access to space. If we are to solve the bigger problem - grow the economies to the point of supporting sustained efforts in space and increasing wealth, we have to attack the energy cost and issues closer to home.

Remember I'm saying all this as a space geek - viewing the world as it is and not as I might wish it to  be. 





« Last Edit: 06/11/2015 07:14 pm by warddw »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626

Remember I'm saying all this as a space geek - viewing the world as it is and not as I might wish it to  be.

A sound point, but within your lifetime you have seen staggering changes in the world "as it is". Revolutions have happened, countries have been formed and disappeared, regional blocs have formed and dissipated, wealth distribution has depolarised, manufacturing centres have shifted...

...and on top of that, a seizable amount of unprecedented progress has happened in space. Just because it's not literally a moonshot doesn't mean there haven't been moonshots.

The playing field for the 21st century in space travel is a completely different one to the superpower driven playing field of the 20th. We may be missing the forest for the trees - but what's the point in that when we're constantly driving through the forest and the car doesn't have any brakes? It is a mistake to assume any kind of established system, be it economic, political, social, ethical, what-will-have-you, is permanent, because there has never, ever been an instance in history where it has been permanent, even in states and agencies which work deliberately to counteract transience.

The very fact that we now have a global economic system shows just how fast the definition of what we call "capitalism" could veer unpredictably in any direction - and there are a lot of wealthy capitalist agencies investing directly in aerospace right now, beyond the obvious billionaires.

Musk was a millionaire when he started SpaceX. To date, he's the only person to become a billionaire off a space startup (regardless of what some people say otherwise, he did make his money out of SpaceX). Yet capitalism, like the legal system, loves its precedents. There are now precedents in existence - where a few come, more will follow and so on.

Space has the advantage of being functionally infinite. I'm going to coin a phrase from Andrew Gasser and call it "the infinite economy". Humans generally have a problem with getting to grips with the concept of infinite potential - we're used to seeing it as a marketing phrase. No, it's real, and it's existential. Once the idea that space = money filters through to the common consciousness, market forces by themselves will boost us into the skies.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
I was 12 at the beginning of the Space Age and saw hope blossom into the Apollo landings and the great manned spaceflight desertification that followed.  Stuck in LEO for decades post Apollo.  Then the DC-X and Roton false dawn of the 90s.  SpaceShipOne then the over a decade hiatus.

All said what's different now is the billionaires.  Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon"  Future History come to pass. Musk with SpaceX.  Google's investing.  SpaceX's attempts at reusability have caused a paradigm shift. Look at ULAs next gen recovery plan.  And the Europeans as well. 
You can look at von Braun's plans for reusability too.  Or General Dynamic's or Lockheed's plans for reusability.  Or Douglas's plans, etc.  Everyone had a plan, seemingly, and apparently everyone still does have a plan. 

Only Shuttle realized some of those plans, but it didn't pay.  SpaceX is trying its own unique version, but even if it works still won't recover the entire launch vehicle and still won't do recovery on most missions (the ones beyond LEO that really pay). 

I'm an optimist on future space flight, but it isn't a Bonestell future that I expect.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline UberNobody

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 55
-snip-
SpaceX is trying its own unique version, but even if it works still won't recover the entire launch vehicle and still won't do recovery on most missions (the ones beyond LEO that really pay). 

I'm an optimist on future space flight, but it isn't a Bonestell future that I expect.

 - Ed Kyle

Correction: SpaceX is upgrading the Falcon 9 this year 30%+ which will enable recovery attempts on all currently manifested launches.  Also, remember that the Dragon 2 is designed to be reusable. 

Second stage reusability will come in the "next generation" (presumably the Mars rocket is what Elon was referring to).

Offline nadreck

Only Shuttle realized some of those plans, but it didn't pay.  SpaceX is trying its own unique version, but even if it works still won't recover the entire launch vehicle and still won't do recovery on most missions (the ones beyond LEO that really pay). 

I'm an optimist on future space flight, but it isn't a Bonestell future that I expect.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, I think it is fair to say that if SpaceX is successful recovering cores, then expended cores that have been used once or more will bring the cost of a centre core expendable FH down to the point where there is a significant cost benefit on high energy interplanetary launches, and all 3 cores will be recoverable (albeit one with significantly more risk and cost going to a drone barge) when launching to GTO with payloads over 7,000kg. 
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline nadreck

Oh and that Bonestell reference filled me with nostalgia, however it will take until we get thermo nuclear thermal engines before we have his SSTOPAB (single stage to other planets and back) vehicles flying.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that though we all space enthusiasts, we are missing the forest for the trees, and reading this thread convinces me even further that's the case.

It's all about the money, finances and human motivation...not the technology.

In the long history of technology and humanity, the effect of technology has always been to free us from prior burdens and allow us to expand our horizons into other endeavors or do things more efficiently. The result is that we need ever fewer people to do the same job. Look at the world around you - its filled with examples.

15,000 tons tankers and manned engine rooms? Not today - 100K plus and automated engine rooms. Don't need all those people. Family farms? Nah - large 'commercial' farms and practice because they can produce the same crop far cheaper. Assembly lines? Nah - robotics and automation do away with much of the former touch labor (not all but a significant portion) Now we are at the cusp with vehicle operations. Truck drivers? Train engineers? Nah - cheaper and safer to do it with perceptive automation. Again - the end result is we don't need the people.

Now lets look the larger impact. The unfortunate truth is we have a huge population surplus now (educational, technological etc) that is simply not needed or involved in the production of wealth. The question isn't whether we can get into space - the question is what the heck are we going to do with all the people in the financial/social/technology evolutionary pressure cooker of the west. (BTW they all vote - remember that)

Less of an issue of you are in Africa and still worried about daily survival and subsistence farming.. you need the hands.

I haven't seen any vision or answer yet - the short term answer for some is treat the symptom - ever greater dependence on government and wealth redistribution. This will fail - as government simple redistributes wealth - it doesn't create it. This is also why the rolls of social programs will continue to grow without check in the short term. Paying homage to the electorate is also far more important to all politicians than any space vision.

How then to create enough wealth to do it all? How to grow your economy while taking care of all of its members AND move into space?

Free market economics used to self regulate this, and it still does to a degree. We can see that in the transfer of manufacturing to lower cost locations like China. The human cost of labor there is far cheaper than even the most minimal of western subsistence costs.

This is the bigger question...you will never garner more resources for space as long as this portion of the voting base displays unlimited growth. Their concerns are terrestrial...and they will vote accordingly.

So my vision for the future is, unfortunately, not much different than the present. We will have some focused exploration, but I see no imperative for more. Fiscal pressures in an evolving society will see to that.

How to escape? I see only one alternative financially and that's reduction of energy costs. 70% of the cost of modern goods is the energy required to manufacture it...not human labor. We talk about reducing the cost of access to space. If we are to solve the bigger problem - grow the economies to the point of supporting sustained efforts in space and increasing wealth, we have to attack the energy cost and issues closer to home.

Remember I'm saying all this as a space geek - viewing the world as it is and not as I might wish it to  be.

It has everything to do with technology.  Without it we are not substantially better off than animals. 



Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60

Optimistic. In 10 years we'll have 360° GoPros floating around in space and their feeds will go directly to my VR helmet. Finally "space for all".

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
I'm pretty optimistic, but I also have realistic expectations.

Today I think we are seeing a paradigm change in how we access space, specifically because of reduced costs, but also because it's looking very likely reusability in some economic form is close to happening - and that will likely drive the cost to access space down even more.

From a capability standpoint we still have quite a ways to go, but I've been very happy with the progress of the ISS.  Sure it could go faster, but considering all the reasons why it should have never become operational, and stayed operational for more than 14 years, I'm quite pleased.

However from a capability standpoint I'm also unhappy with the lack of progress we've made in creating the in-space transportation infrastructure we'll need to transport an increasing amounts of people through space to work destinations beyond LEO.  We lack proven fuel depot and autonomous tanker systems, space-only vehicles that can move people and cargo into LEO from beyond LEO as part of a normal route, and true spacecraft that are able to venture beyond the Moon for months at a time.

So I guess I see where we are today as two steps forward and one step back... and I don't need to identify what the one step back is, but that situation won't last too much longer.  So slow and steady progress, which at some point will prove to be "good enough" to ignite the next paradigm change - which we don't know what that is yet, but I'm optimistic that it will be good.

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
I saw a post on this forum, and similar ones, all by the same poster, that claim Lockheed did a study and concluded that a flight rate of only "6-8 flights per year" was necessary to amortize a rocket with only the first stage reused.

Can I get a link to said study? Does it even exist?
« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 06:05 am by Pipcard »

Offline SLC17A5

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • United States
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 62
I'm skeptical of the economics of atmospheric stage reuse.  SpaceX has been clever to build an expendable rocket that could be nudged in the direction of reusability, but as Ed says, the jury is still very much out.

If SpaceX is successful in drastically lowering the price to orbit with reuse, I expect the major immediate effect to be an improvement in telecom company bottom lines.  A whole space infrastructure will have to be developed and that will not come cheap or easy.  I do not expect existing rocketry organizations to go away -- some will adapt to new economics and others will be national champions used regardless of economics.  A wave of exploration will follow on but it will be largely unmanned for decades.

I'm pessimistic on super heavy lift.  Rockets lacking commercial missions fall into low flight rate traps.  Mission architectures proposing multiple launches of a dedicated super heavy lifter leave many unanswered questions about overall cost, pad flows, and on-orbit spacecraft endurance.

I'm pessimistic on manned Mars landings in the near term.  The mission architecture costs for manned Mars surface landing are too high to justify sustained Mars campaigns.

I'm optimistic on solar electric propulsion.  The mass fraction is unbeatable, the idea seems to scale, and the technologies have strong synergies with developments on Earth.

I'm optimistic on distributed launch.  It is a method of providing heavy lift equivalent services that achieves economies of scale, avoids low-flight-rate rocketry, and addresses the problem of on-orbit spacecraft endurance square on.

I'm optimistic on manned Ceres and Martian moon landings.  The landing and departure costs associated with these low-gravity destinations are hugely forgiving in comparison with Martian surface access and the technological capabilities to visit them are now entering our grasp.  Ceresian ice in particular is enormously exciting for space exploration.

My prediction for the first permanent settlement beyond Earth is an ice mining and launching facility dug into Ceres, populated by a few mild transhumans and a lot of robots.  The robots will not be able to resist jokes about humans finally deciding to land someplace for good.  The humans will try to survive in this brutal world of robot humor.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
We are not certain what will happen in the spaceflight industry in a couple of years, let alone decades. The major things that have yet to be realized are manned Mars landings and the major reduction of costs for space access. People have various expectations for what will happen, ranging from the optimistic to the pessimistic.

Some people believe that in a few decades, SpaceX will be successful in revolutionizing launch by not throwing away the launch hardware, thus reducing prices by at least half, or maybe reducing it by an order of magnitude or even more. Some expect that the first Mars mission will happen some time in the late 2020s, and it will not be delayed. Robert Zubrin expects Mars Direct to have its first mission in 10 years if people would just start working on it now. SpaceX's Mars Colonial Transport would be fully operational by the middle of the 21st century, and there will be enough demand for thousands of people to pay $500,000 a ticket to move to the Red Planet. An entire colony of people living together, some of them growing crops, or having babies.

Others argue that reusability will not be worth it due to low "flight rates" (i.e. not enough amortization for maintenance and development), and there won't be enough demand for those markets (a lot of commercial RLV concepts failed because the massive satellite constellations that were conceived in the 90s didn't materialize, but SpaceX is planning on solving that as well). Many times, the satellite can also cost more than the launcher itself, so will the launch market be elastic enough? Other revolutionary concepts such as space elevators will also have to deal with that. The phrase "chicken-and-egg" might get mentioned in these types of discussions (i.e. high flight rates are necessary for reusable launchers, and vice versa).

There might be the demand for mass space tourism, but we don't know if it will be just a flash in the pan for only a few millionaires. About 20 years ago, there was a concept for a mass space tourism SSTO by the "Japanese Rocket Society" called "Kankoh-maru." The ultra-high launch volume of "tens of flights per day," carrying 50 passengers each, was calculated to result in a price of $20,000 per passenger. This is kind of like the high volume (thousands of people per year) that Elon Musk expects for Mars colonization, except it's only for people who want to view the beauty of Earth from low Earth orbit, and maybe go to a space hotel. It was never built, probably because Japan was going through economic problems following the 1980s bubble, but who else would invest the time and money in developing a rocket with airline-like operations? Will SpaceX be successful in doing just that, or will it end up like Kankoh-maru - just a pipe dream? What if it gets built, but no one comes?

Solar power satellites? Japan is planning on building them, but Elon Musk thinks that the energy loss during transmission will make it impractical.
Musk and Japan are right and wrong.
Japan is wrong because we can't get SPS [1 GW] which is economical by 2030.
Musk is right because SPS is not practical now. But nor is Mars settlement practical now.
The problem of SPS has little to do transmission and conversion losses. the conversion is said be be 80% and 80% so lost of 36%.
If Earth were an airless world solar panel on the ground would have loss 50%. And Musk apparently think solar energy on the earth surface is practical.
If solar panels on earth only got a 50% plus addition 36% loss. So 1000 watts, goes to 500 then to 370 watts, **But** were a constant source of power, then solar panels on earth would be practical.

With an atmosphere instead of getting 12 hour average of solar energy, one gets about 6 hours.
With it's 50% loss, plus 50% loss. And then you got clouds in this atmosphere.
Clouds are not much of problem if you live below say 40 degree latitude and you live in a desert. But most people don't live in deserts or near them, and below 40 degree latitude. Half of the globe is below 40 degree latitude but that half of the world is mostly tropical [not desert areas].
So most of Europe is above 40 degrees latitude and it's not desert.
But even if below 40 degree and in a desert one is still only getting about 6 hours on average of useful solar energy a day [6 of 24 hours] which isn't a constant source of energy.
With solar energy one can store heat, and so extend the time of the amount available electrical energy- but this isn't PVs. One can also store the electrical energy in batteries. Which is expensive and you have conversion losses of the batteries and batteries have useful life of about 5 years. The best way to store large amounts of energy is pumping water up a hill- of course you need a water reservoir. And rains can fill dams with a lot less trouble.
But if you pumping water anyways and you could infrequently pump the water, that might be good thing for solar or wind energy to do.

The main problem with SPS is the cost to launch payload mass into GEO. Here's someone arguing about
how bad SPS would be:
Quote
This brings us to the tremendous cost of launching stuff into space. Today’s cost for putting stuff into geosynchronous orbit is about $20,000 per kilogram of launched material. We have a history of hope and optimism that launch costs will plummet in the future. So far, that has not really happened, and rising energy prices are not going to help drive costs ever-lower.  Meanwhile, the U.S. space program appears to be scaling back.

In 1999, NASA initiated a $22 million study investigating the feasibility of space-based solar power. Among their conclusions was that launch costs would need to come down to $100–200 per kg to make space-based solar power economically competitive. It is hard to imagine accomplishing a factor-of-100 reduction in launch costs.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/
So getting the cost of shipping some kind of solar collector to GEO is the problem.
Energy wise it take far less energy shipping to GEO from the moon than it is from Earth.
And it's fair bet that by 2030 no one going to making PV on the Moon at any price.
Now if need electrical power on the Moon [to make rocket fuel] and if make a power plant on the Moon
for less money than shipping from Earth, you could consider investing money to do this.
But in the beginning of lunar rocket fuel making on the Moon, your goal could be to have electrical power
on the Moon below $10 per kW hour.
So lunar problem of shipping to GEO is getting to point where electrical power was only say 10 times more expensive than Earth electrical power, so say 50 cents of kw hour. Rather than Earth problem of too high of launch cost. Or if you get electrical power on the moon at 50 cent per kg, then rocket fuel will cheap and launch cost will be cheap and making lunar PV would be cheap.
Of course another way to look at this is, if want to make 1 GW of electrical in space, if you put it on the Moon, one get more than 10 times [or 100 times] more per kW hour as compared to putting in GEO or you selling electrical power to people who are already getting the cheapest electricity in the solar system.
Or SPS for the Moon or Mars will pay more per kw hour of electrical power transmitted to the surface.
So if japan plan is to make SPS for Earth, is deception, and it's really going to provide power to the Moon,
the Japanese are clever.

Now to have settlements on Mars, one probably going to need Earth launch costs to be at or below $5000 per kg. And Musk imagines he going to make cheaper than that,
To mine lunar water and make lunar rocket fuel, it doesn't matter much what earth launch costs is. If 20,000 per kg or 2000 per kg it doesn't matter much. Or matter more if start mining lunar water when Earth launch costs are 10,000 per kg, and within 5 years it's 5000 kg- because you spend more to start lunar mining, and competitor can now do it at about 1/2 the costs.
But this also an inherent "problem" of lunar mining, it will lower Earth launch costs, but probably not as much as halving earth launch cost within 5 years- maybe instead it's 10 or 25% lower. Of course there are also obvious advantages with lowering Earth launch costs in regard those who first began lunar mining- just saying, it is one problem one will have to cope with.
So if Musk manages to lower launch cost dramatically, there is limit to how far this could go, and for lunar miners, it's one problem solved. Or it dramatically lower their launch costs, and the next competitor who enters, won't get an additional huge lowering of their start up costs.

Now what is needed for lunar water mining is lunar exploration.
And though few want to admit it, what needed for human settlements on Mars, is Mars exploration.
And hopefully NASA will do this exploration.
But exploration of Moon is mostly about lower finacial risk and the up front cost of requiring they spend
money to do the exploration to determine if and where there is minable lunar water.
In regards to Mars exploration, I think major thing would prevent a lot deaths from Mars settlers finding deadly surprises.
Or I think doing exploration first is good idea.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 10:33 am by gbaikie »

Offline warddw

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 1
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that though we all space enthusiasts, we are missing the forest for the trees, and reading this thread convinces me even further that's the case.

It's all about the money, finances and human motivation...not the technology.

In the long history of technology and humanity, the effect of technology has always been to free us from prior burdens and allow us to expand our horizons into other endeavors or do things more efficiently. The result is that we need ever fewer people to do the same job. Look at the world around you - its filled with examples.

15,000 tons tankers and manned engine rooms? Not today - 100K plus and automated engine rooms. Don't need all those people. Family farms? Nah - large 'commercial' farms and practice because they can produce the same crop far cheaper. Assembly lines? Nah - robotics and automation do away with much of the former touch labor (not all but a significant portion) Now we are at the cusp with vehicle operations. Truck drivers? Train engineers? Nah - cheaper and safer to do it with perceptive automation. Again - the end result is we don't need the people.

Now lets look the larger impact. The unfortunate truth is we have a huge population surplus now (educational, technological etc) that is simply not needed or involved in the production of wealth. The question isn't whether we can get into space - the question is what the heck are we going to do with all the people in the financial/social/technology evolutionary pressure cooker of the west. (BTW they all vote - remember that)

Less of an issue of you are in Africa and still worried about daily survival and subsistence farming.. you need the hands.

I haven't seen any vision or answer yet - the short term answer for some is treat the symptom - ever greater dependence on government and wealth redistribution. This will fail - as government simple redistributes wealth - it doesn't create it. This is also why the rolls of social programs will continue to grow without check in the short term. Paying homage to the electorate is also far more important to all politicians than any space vision.

How then to create enough wealth to do it all? How to grow your economy while taking care of all of its members AND move into space?

Free market economics used to self regulate this, and it still does to a degree. We can see that in the transfer of manufacturing to lower cost locations like China. The human cost of labor there is far cheaper than even the most minimal of western subsistence costs.

This is the bigger question...you will never garner more resources for space as long as this portion of the voting base displays unlimited growth. Their concerns are terrestrial...and they will vote accordingly.

So my vision for the future is, unfortunately, not much different than the present. We will have some focused exploration, but I see no imperative for more. Fiscal pressures in an evolving society will see to that.

How to escape? I see only one alternative financially and that's reduction of energy costs. 70% of the cost of modern goods is the energy required to manufacture it...not human labor. We talk about reducing the cost of access to space. If we are to solve the bigger problem - grow the economies to the point of supporting sustained efforts in space and increasing wealth, we have to attack the energy cost and issues closer to home.

Remember I'm saying all this as a space geek - viewing the world as it is and not as I might wish it to  be.

It has everything to do with technology.  Without it we are not substantially better off than animals. 




And a good part of humanity still exists at nearly that level of subsistence. Sorry but technology is not always the ideal social or material solution...

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Factories will move to Africa once China and India get caught up with the west and their labor costs increase.  Then there is really nowhere else for them to move to but automation.  Eventually there will be shorter work weeks and already is to some extent.  The way I see space exploration is it will go to people like Musk and Bezos.  It will be private and not much public support.  Eventually fossil fuels will be replaced with algae or even manufactured from sea water and air using cheap electricity once fusion is mastered or enough solar/wind/geothermal power is produced cheaper.  Energy efficiency is about double what it was in the mid 1970's.  Home heating/water heating is cheaper and more efficient.  Vehicles get higher gas mileage.  That is continuing to improve.  Space costs will have to come down with re-usable rockets, no question about it if we are to continue space exploration.  Also at some point the moon and Mars will have to be mined for rare earths and things earth that would cost more to obtain.  Man will have to expand into the solar system.   

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Factories will move to Africa once China and India get caught up with the west and their labor costs increase.  Then there is really nowhere else for them to move to but automation.  Eventually there will be shorter work weeks and already is to some extent.  The way I see space exploration is it will go to people like Musk and Bezos.  It will be private and not much public support.  Eventually fossil fuels will be replaced with algae or even manufactured from sea water and air using cheap electricity once fusion is mastered or enough solar/wind/geothermal power is produced cheaper.  Energy efficiency is about double what it was in the mid 1970's.  Home heating/water heating is cheaper and more efficient.  Vehicles get higher gas mileage.  That is continuing to improve.  Space costs will have to come down with re-usable rockets, no question about it if we are to continue space exploration.  Also at some point the moon and Mars will have to be mined for rare earths and things earth that would cost more to obtain.  Man will have to expand into the solar system.   

Necessity will do a lot of the push for those times idealism just isn't enough, yep.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
About 20 years ago, there was a concept for a mass space tourism SSTO by the "Japanese Rocket Society" called "Kankoh-maru." The ultra-high launch volume of "tens of flights per day," carrying 50 passengers each, was calculated to result in a price of $20,000 per passenger. This is kind of like the high volume (thousands of people per year) that Elon Musk expects for Mars colonization, except it's only for people who want to view the beauty of Earth from low Earth orbit, and maybe go to a space hotel. It was never built, probably because Japan was going through economic problems following the 1980s bubble, but who else would invest the time and money in developing a rocket with airline-like operations?
I remember readaing somewhere, that design of Kankoh-maru was accepted to be preliminary, without the proper mass fraction. They hoped that future progress would solve the issue. There were many other SSTO designs that time, but nobody considers them realistic today. Technological over-optimism is probably one of the reasons of the frustrations.
But what about just the idea of the Kankoh-maru, hundreds of thousands or even millions of passengers per year to hotels in low Earth orbit (lets say they use something like a super-Dragon with 50 passengers), compared to the idea of the MCT, tens of thousands of passengers per year all the way to Mars?

Are they plausible in the next few decades?

According to , we should've had space hotels five years ago.

(I remember seeing that Kankoh-maru/modified Shuttle launch clip on a documentary titled "Future Living 2025" on the (Discovery) Science Channel but I can't find it anywhere now. Does anyone else remember seeing such a documentary?)
« Last Edit: 06/20/2015 06:50 pm by Pipcard »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223

But what about just the idea of the Kankoh-maru, hundreds of thousands or even millions of passengers per year to hotels in low Earth orbit (lets say they use something like a super-Dragon with 50 passengers), compared to the idea of the MCT, tens of thousands of passengers per year all the way to Mars?

Are they plausible in the next few decades?

According to , we should've had space hotels five years ago.

(I remember seeing that Kankoh-maru/modified Shuttle launch clip on a documentary titled "Future Living 2025" on the (Discovery) Science Channel but I can't find it anywhere now. Does anyone else remember seeing such a documentary?)
50 passengers. The TSTO Falcon Heavy is expected to lift ~53 tonnes to LEO.

The 3 off first stage is reusable. Second stage is expendable. The capsule would need to be larger like the one in '2001 A Space Odyssey'.

Allowing 3/4 of a tonne per passenger and crew of 5 this becomes viable if the reentry vehicle masses

53 - 0.75 * (50 + 5) = 11.75 tonne

For comparison the 7 person Dragon masses 4.2 tonne

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
It's not about whether it will be possible to put 50 passengers on a 50-tonne vehicle launched by an FH; what I'm asking about is the ability of a private organization to fund a mass orbital space tourism or space colonization effort (tens of thousands of people a year like Kankoh Maru or MCT), and whether there will be enough demand from paying customers to make such an effort practical.

How do we go to that from our current situation: about a dozen people that go to the ISS every year?
« Last Edit: 06/20/2015 11:33 pm by Pipcard »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
If the tourists pay in advance the launch vehicles, capsules and spacestations are self financing. Or possibly need 5 year loans from a bank.

How many people want to visit space - I do not know. We will find out when they stop buying more tickets, the figure will be price dependant. We can assume exponential growth until near saturation.

The other unknown is the yearly growth rate. It could be a 100% or 10%. An initial estimate could be made by finding how many people went into space over the last 50 years. More up to date estimates can be calculated by looking at the number of tourists in the previous 2 and 5 years.

See the table below for a very optimistic growth forecast.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
It's not about whether it will be possible to put 50 passengers on a 50-tonne vehicle launched by an FH; what I'm asking about is the ability of a private organization to fund a mass orbital space tourism or space colonization effort (tens of thousands of people a year like Kankoh Maru or MCT), and whether there will be enough demand from paying customers to make such an effort practical.

How do we go to that from our current situation: about a dozen people that go to the ISS every year?

You may have heard of the Futron space tourism market study (just google it). Their forecasts are of course hopelessly optimistic in retrospective (for this year they were expecting 4350 suborbital and 28 orbital tourists).
However, their market research is still useful since it estimates the demand at a given price point. In any case, I'm not aware of any other publicly available study.

So their study predicts a demand of 60 orbital flights per year at a price of $5m per flight. For comparison, NASA expects to pay ~$60m per seat for commercial crew. Needless to say that figure doesn't include the cost of building a station or the operating costs (for the ISS ~$1.2bn per year without research and crew/cargo transport).

Still, with economics of scale and billionaires pumping money into it we might actually get there in the next 20 years or so.

As for space colonization, I hope you believe in reincarnation  ;).

Edit: Attached is my favourite space tourism vehicle  :)
« Last Edit: 06/21/2015 02:41 pm by Oli »

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Wow. We really are a hopelessly optimistic race. It is strange looking back at all these proposals and then see where we actually are today.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
After Apollo was cancelled I have used this "handy-tool" for all future space related questions...I belive it is the same one used by Congress...

http://www.ask8ball.net/
« Last Edit: 06/21/2015 01:20 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Ronpur50

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Brandon, FL
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 1884
I turned 6 during Apollo 11.  I remember it in great detail, all of the excitement I felt.  I have the newspaper clipping which I shared here last July.  One of those was a clipping quoting VP Spiro Agnew that Mars was the next destination.  And by the mid 80s we would have a manned mission to Mars.  Then I remember that was soon forgotten and talk of the shuttle appeared.  It promised routine access to space, a Popular Science article even said it would fly 500 missions, with turn around of just a few weeks( I think Von Braun was interviewed in the article).  I watched the Skylab missions as I got older, always wondering why more mission never followed.  Then Apollo Soyuz flew....and then I waited, and I grew up.  Finally in my senior year, Columbia flew.  I was very happy.  I knew that the frontier of space was about to burst wide open.  All sorts of pretty pictures of space stations, small shuttles, SSTO vehicles, and that passenger module shown above appeared in the magazines I subscribed too.  There were plans for a return to the Moon using the shuttle as a launch vehicle, plans to go to Mars by build a ship the same way.  And that big huge solar power station that would solve the energy crisis!  I went to college, shuttles flew, they failed, they flew again, and none of those other ideas ever happened.  I grew very pessimistic about the future in space.  I watched the politicians, to see what they wanted in space.  Most had no positions, unless they wanted it all cut.  It took months for a presidential candidate to even talk about space, and then it was just to say they would support it, and would set up a committee to study it.  All talk no action, the shuttle flew round and round.  More pessimism.

That changed a bit when Ares 1 and Ares V was announced.  But that rapidly collapsed.  And SLS or Mars, is just too far in the future for me to have much hope of seeing it.   

But, then this guy started his own rocket company.  I had my doubts about it at first.  I had seen a lot of pretty pictures of these types of private space flight before.  They were in my magazines or on floppy discs.  They weren't in space.  Then Elon Musk started getting them into space.   He had big dreams.  He didn't seem to care what it cost.  It was almost like he didn't care if he made money, he just wanted to do it.  And he is trying to do it.  Now I am optimistic about space travel again.   If NASA isn't careful, when they get to Mars, SpaceX will have a camera crew there to film the landing!!  LOL.

Governments were once said to be the only way to get into space, they were the only entity that could afford the risk.  Now we have a few people with the resources to dream big again.  I like it.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2015 01:07 am by Ronpur50 »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Thank you for sharing your life, Ron.  My life was rather similar, although I was seven years older than you.  For me, it was the later Mercury and the Gemini missions that caught my sense of wonder, such that I was in the height of the thrall of the moment, at age 13, when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

I grew up with the remainder of Apollo -- I like to relate certain numerical coincidences, like the fact that I was 15 years old when Apollo 15 flew, 16 when Apollo 16 flew, and 17 when Apollo 17 flew.  It was something personal to me -- it was like my life and Apollo were deeply, viscerally connected.

I couldn't conceive of becoming an adult and our space exploration program failing to enter its own adult years by taking mankind completely out of this little Earth/Moon system and on to the other planets, then eventually to the stars.

I certainly couldn't conceive that our human exploration program would just die.  That, by the time I reached 60 years of age (which happens this coming October, a timeframe made inevitable by the timing I mentioned above), we would not even have returned to the Moon, much less sent humans to Mars or the closer asteroids.

I had the same response to the Shuttle as you did, too, Ron.  By STS-4, my dreams were crushed under the weight of the time and expense this Shuttle design required to achieve its vaunted re-usability.  I began to understand that the Shuttle was not re-usable, it was refurshibable, and not easily or cheaply so.  And by that time, in my 20s and 30s, I was well-educated enough to see that this difference meant the difference between humans exploring the solar system, and humans creeping around the globe in LEO... indefinitely.

The experience of my life has left me cynical -- in the sense that all cynics are frustrated romantics.  I want to believe that SpaceX will be a game-changer and that Elon Musk has found a way to revitalize the dreams I was sure would become reality when I was younger.  I want to believe that Elon Musk will die on Mars -- and not upon impact.

I want to believe that, even at age 75, I could decide to emigrate to Mars and find that there is good, useful work for me to do there.

I believe that SpaceX has come closer than anyone else along these lines since 1972.  I believe that Elon will achieve at least some of his goals.  And that if he doesn't, someone else will.

But I am pessimistic that I will live to see it.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Actually, I am excited to know how the MCT will work. I realized that the speculation about it is merely asking "what would it take for this to happen?"

edit: but I mainly want to see it because it will finally be able to be picked apart.

I'll just say that I want to be optimistic, but I also have doubts because of the trends of today and the unfulfilled promises of the past.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 06:22 am by Pipcard »

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
It looks very good for space flight from now and for all future, actually. Ion thrusters is like a magic warp drive, 10 times higher exhaust velocity than chemical rockets corresponds to e^10 = 22,000 times more fuel per payload mass unit! Perfect for moving mass around in space for example to build and resupply a Mars cycler. Reusable launchers and prospects of fuel production from water or CO2 in space are soon becoming a reality. Technology advances faster and faster, it seems. Space flight has become reliable and safe, for example with a space station crewed during 15 years nonstop without any casualty. The private space sector is growing and new governments have ambitious space programs.

Planetary defense is a problem for humans to Mars. Some argue that astronauts could be infected by some unknown form of life and cause mass extinction when returned to Earth. It is a real concern, we don't know enough to estimate the probability for something like that happening. It is also hard to find out, especially if also sample returns to the huge biological laboratories on Earth is considered too risky for planetary defense. Maybe "Mars One Way" is not such a stupid way to start off human exploration of Mars?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
"We are not certain what will happen in the spaceflight industry in a couple of years, let alone decades."

About a decade ago when one looked at the space industry things were much more certain.  There existed the shuttle and a number of expendable launch systems.  There was nothing on the horizon that promised any real changes to the space industry.  For the foreseeable future most things were going to remain the same..
Uh, i think you missed a few things a decade or two ago. Towards the end of 90ies, there was a LEO constellation boom and bust, and associated exuberance about reusable launch vehicles magically materializing. Nothing significant really became of it, apart from a couple niche satellite services that went bust and were bought out and still kind of stick around.
Circa 2004, which is more a decade ago by now, there was this irrational exuberance about suborbital tourism somehow becoming the 'killer app' for things to really take off and progress beyond suborbitals all the way to orbit, moons and rings of Saturn. A decade went by, and absolutely nothing noteworthy happened except a couple of spectacular crashes and shovel recoveries here and there.
These enthusiasm waves come and go but really, since April 6, 1965 things have stayed pretty much the same.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Yeah, and the problem in both cases was no-one actually flying anything. At least this time SpaceX is around and actually flying. There's a huge cubesat buzz too, but at least some of those are actually flying too.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Yeah, and the problem in both cases was no-one actually flying anything.
Not exactly true. You can make calls on Iridium phones today as the constellation is obviously up there, mostly launched at exactly the peak of the boom in 1997-98. SpaceShip1 went up a couple times, Armadillo was flying heavy biprops up and down etc. All of it just ended up having much smaller impact on anything than the optimists were claiming.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline nadreck

There's a huge cubesat buzz too, but at least some of those are actually flying too.

Cubesats are doing a lot for the next generation of space initiatives:

1. they are recruiting and training a far larger cohort than ever before of people who will have experience designing space hardware. The vast majority of my generation who wanted to do that couldn't, now with more than a thousand micro and nano sat projects going on around the world tens of thousands of people are getting this sort of experience. This is a vital factor in being able to someday create a Mars Colony, commercial scale ISRU on the Moon, Mars, Asteroids where this expertise, and interest, will be needed.

2. New techniques as well as broad evaluations of techniques and materials to handle space conditions is being generated. It isn't just about what works and doesn't work, but all the data on how effective different materials, components and techniques are. When your 'bargain' interplanetary probe costs $500M you don't experiment with untested materials or propulsion systems but when you can build and launch a 3U cubesat for <0.1% of that yes all sorts of experiments will happen.  Hey, lets have a prize for the first cubesat to leave Earth orbit on its own!

3. New applications of space.  Communications, positioning and earth monitoring aren't the apps, they are simply tools that some brilliant geek will combine with something else to create a killer space app one of these days, and if it isn't at least demonstrated on a cubesat or micro sat I will be surprised.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
For me, I'm pessimistic.

It's hard for me to justify myself, even being a "space geek", the benefits of exploring our solar system. I do believe that space exploration will have many benefits! Selling the idea that these benefits are "out there" is going to be very hard. What benefits does exploring space actually have that have not been taken advantage of so far? Even if there are benefits that are "out there" that have not been utilized, how do you sell this to investors? Not saying you need to, but you will need to make money in the long run somehow to sustain exploration of the solar system. Getting financing for a spaceflight business is really hard, and even harder when you consider all the failed businesses and aerospace firms. Now, try telling people who are going to finance spaceflight missions that the benefits are "out there", but we don't know what they are yet! When it gets put like that, it sounds like a load of crap!

I also think that humanity has been not complacent enough. I think that SpaceX is doing some groundbreaking work with regards to reusability, but do I think it will prove economically? No, not in the near future. There are/is not enough payloads/high flight rate to support reusable vehicles in my opinion. Again, n my opinion, a mass produced expendable launch vehicle would be the best way to lower prices and increase flight rates. SpaceX has 4,000+ employees! I think a mass produced expendable launch vehicle could be produced with a fraction of SpaceX's employee count, and at a fraction of the cost! Reusability will come, but will more payloads really become available with a drop in payload price to orbit of $1,000/lb.? I don't think a lot! There needs to be a bridge to reusability IMO. I think SpaceX is taking on more than they can. They could use orbital rendezvous with Falcon 9 and mount a flag and footprints mission to Mars with a manned mission probably happening 15 years from now! Except they're planning on the BFR and MCT! I surely am rooting for them, but the cards are truly stacked against them if they take the BFR/MCT approach to Mars.

Another thing is the complication of spaceflight. It's complicated! That's one reason it's so expensive! Until getting into orbit gets less complicated, space will never be cheap and accessible.

Not sure if that made any sense haha, but I do welcome questions/critique haha. And I predict pessimistic results, but plan, work, and hope for optimistic outcomes! :)
« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 07:38 pm by ClaytonBirchenough »
Clayton Birchenough

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
In terms of exploring space being profitable, didn't some company a while back say that they could make a profit by mining precious metals from asteroids?

If humanity had a mining outpost on Phobos or Deimos, it would make mining asteroids in the asteroid belt a lot easier. To support that mining base on Phobos or Deimos, it would be easier to send food and other materials from the surface of Mars than from Earth, necessitating a colony on Mars...
e^(pi*i) = -1

Online TrevorMonty

The future of spaceflight is very optimistic.
 Most of the medium-heavy ELV are being replaced with lower cost versions, some with partial reusability.
Ariane 6, Vulcan, Angara, Japans H3. Most likely a large multi BE4 powered RLV from Blue Origin.

There are a lot of companies with very wealthy private vestors/owners who are in it for long haul. Planetary Resources, SpaceX, Bigelow, Blue Origin, Google, Vulcan Aerospace, Moon Express.

The up and coming small satellite LV companies maybe focussed on ELVs for now. If the launch rates they predict are there, then expect them to develop RLVs.

Smallsat and cubesat constellations are looking like big business with no shortage of investors. OneWeb and SpaceX constellations stand a chance of taking the internet to a new level, especially with increase demand for internet TV.

HSF is little behind but the CC vehicles will allow private companies to offer orbital flights.
Blue Origin New Shepard has given the sub orbital market new hope especially as Virgin keeps stumbling and XCOR are progressing ever so slowly.
I'm expecting some big surprises from Blue Origin in the orbital HSF market.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
I'm optimistic that humans will walk on Mars by the time this century is out, and will likely have set up small asteroid bases and perhaps even lunar resource utilization bases.

I am extremely pessimistic that I will see humans leave LEO again in my lifetime, and I turn 60 this October.  So, yeah -- I'm figuring the next President will decide to cancel all current Orion / ARM plans, set his/her sights on something else that will stretch out into the 2030s, and by that time I will be ashes in an urn somewhere.

Sigh.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
I understand completely the sentiment that things are not happening fast enough. All i can say is I will never give up, never surrender. This effort is not without setbacks, progress is undeniable. We are getting closer, other countries have joined us in new and exciting exploration. The human condition is such that greater understanding is inevitable. This is a great time to be involved in the business of space.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Sometimes it depends on the day you ask me. lol

I guess I would say that I am cautiously optimistic. ISS is still going strong. Commercial cargo has had some bumps but it has shown resiliency. Commercial crew is coming along (although slower than we all want due to funding). We have a human BEO program in place and funded to an extent. SLS/Orion are going strong and for the first time in almost 50 years humans will return to cis-lunar space.

If a pro-NASA/space president is elected in 2016 and we keep the basic structure from above I can see a grand next couple of decades for space exploration. The basic roadmap: NASA builds station, crews and resupplies it initially with NASA owned vehicle, contracts out cargo to commercial, and then contracts crew out to commercial has worked so far. I can see it being extended to destinations like the Moon, cis-lunar space, and eventually Mars.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1