Quote from: high road on 07/03/2015 11:33 amWe're only at the very beginning. The past twelve months have shown we haven't really figured out how to get cargo into space safely. Let alone human beings. We have. The problem is that you can't reuse a "perfect" launcher once it's demonstrated itself. QuoteThis risk is very costly. But I'm confident this will be resolved (well, mitigated) within the following decade. With the right design the word you're looking for is eliminated from routine service.QuoteOnce institutions can get experiments into space more affordably and reliably, demand will increase, progress will increase, general interest will increase because of faster progress, which increases demand yet again, and we're off to a glorious future.The question is what is the price point that cause that step change?People have tried to halve the price of launch.Makes no major increase in number of payloads launched. Belief is it needs to be around 1/10 of current levels.
We're only at the very beginning. The past twelve months have shown we haven't really figured out how to get cargo into space safely. Let alone human beings.
This risk is very costly. But I'm confident this will be resolved (well, mitigated) within the following decade.
Once institutions can get experiments into space more affordably and reliably, demand will increase, progress will increase, general interest will increase because of faster progress, which increases demand yet again, and we're off to a glorious future.
Unless there will be a real breakthrough, and that is unlikely as far we know, we are just toying with rockets and that is a dead end.
I think no, there is not money to be done nor resources to be harvested in the tiny part of "space" we can realistically reach. Except for satellites in Earth orbit there is no business case.
Materials to build rockets are not expensive. Fuel to fly rockets is not expensive. Find out why rockets are expensive to fly. If you can slash that, then space is not expensive.
People are using short-term reasoning to answer a long-term question. All the difficulties listed with space travel are only difficulties because there doesn't currently exist a standardized commodity infrastructure to manage it. Given enough demand, that infrastructure will be built. The demand is the hard part, but there are many ways to increase it, Musk's satellite internet initiative being just one early ingredient.So the answer is the one that's been mentioned, but seemingly only in passing, several times this thread. Humans will become a space-faring civilization, IF civilization doesn't self-destruct before the capability develops. And that's the trick. Self-destruction is a real possibility. Not guaranteed, but very possible within the next century.
People are using short-term reasoning to answer a long-term question
Chemical rockets aren't such a bad deal getting into LEO. As other's have pointed out, fuel is relatively cheap. To date, the expense has been in the custom handbuilt nature of expendable rocketry, and the labor-intensive process of payload integration and launch operations. All of these tasks can be mass-produced and commoditized in principle.NASA's 90's research has, I think, already been turned on its head by the more recent concepts of reusable rockets. But even NASA realized that prices could come down dramatically with a high enough flight rate. It just couldn't find a way to get the flight rate up.None of the other concepts you mentioned are practical for getting a payload up through the atmosphere, and none of them address the conundrum of launch rates. If the traffic increases, economies of scale can kick in, and chemical rockets will be perfectly practical.For BEYOND Earth orbit, then the EM or SEP-type propulsion systems will have to be advanced, because they have a lot more potential than do chemical rockets. But even those machines will need conventional propulsion to get them off the ground.
No we are basing it on the technology now and the price we are working with. Many private space companies say they can put people into space for a price of 1 million per person!! So if you have million you can get up into space!!!Cost of a one way ticket to get to mars would be in the hundreds of millions!!! And this is with good very god optimistic price reduction cost that has not been demonstrated technology but theory base.
Asking for the price to come down for the middle class American or the upper middle class American can afford seems very unlikely. Even the price of ticket going down to $500,000 to get into low earth orbit seem very unlikely.And I just don't see that is possible with chemical rockets.A laser propulsion,EM Drive,launch loop or space elevator or some unknown technology may bring the cost of ticket to get into low earth orbit of say $500,000 or less. But I just don't see that is possible with chemical rockets.
But NASA did lot of research in 90's into space planes and SSTO's and they where very costly over a simple rockets used in past. One reason not go with new replacement of space shuttle or space plane.
Going into space and then what? Float around aimlessly watching earth from above and the stars not blink? Most middle-class Americans would get bored out of their minds in about half an hour. They're not going to pay a million for it even if they had that kind of money. You'd be hard pressed to find hundreds of people who want to spend 100000 of their hard earned money on such a limited experience. So there's only a very limited market.
They're not going to pay a million for it even if they had that kind of money.You'd be hard pressed to find hundreds of people who want to spend 100000 of their hard earned money on such a limited experience. So there's only a very limited market.
EM drives don't get you off the ground.
Have you noticed that our airplanes look quite different than the Wright brothers' plane? And they weren't the first to experiment with propellors. They were only the first to figure out how to control a plane during flight. And even those controls have been replaced with fly-by-wire since then.Have you noticed that modern bombers no longer have gun turrets on them? And drones that don't even have the pilot on them?There are thousands of years between the first concept of an airplane (or flying machine in general) and a vehicle that could stay airborne for a few hundred meters. There are hundreds of years between the first drawing of a helicopter and the first test version that did more than hop and shake. While there are only years between those test vehicles and fully operational machines. Followed by decades of reinventing the wheel. (which is another technology which has in fact been reinvented dozens of times to fit the changing operating environment).
So yes, SSTO's have needed and will need more reinventing before they become a success. But the only thing that can stop people from trying to perfect them, is if conventional launches can overcome the difficulties associated with staging. Either one that happens first, has a competitive advantage.
Quote Going into space and then what? Float around aimlessly watching earth from above and the stars not blink? Most middle-class Americans would get bored out of their minds in about half an hour. They're not going to pay a million for it even if they had that kind of money. You'd be hard pressed to find hundreds of people who want to spend 100000 of their hard earned money on such a limited experience. So there's only a very limited market.The technology and cost will determine what we can do in space or not.
Has of now space mining is prohibited!! Some start up companies think they can bring cost down enough for it to be profitable. If private space companies bring the cost down enough than space mining may be profitable. But this is very optimistic views that I have my debuts.
Space colonization is pure scfi because it beyond profitable.For space colonization to take place the price of ticket would have to be some thing the middle class people can afford!!
Quote They're not going to pay a million for it even if they had that kind of money.You'd be hard pressed to find hundreds of people who want to spend 100000 of their hard earned money on such a limited experience. So there's only a very limited market.Mars would have to be the next Las Vegas the holiday retreat, retired rich people living on mars ,scientists and engineers on mars that pave way for market that is needed before immigration seeks jobs!!
QuoteEM drives don't get you off the ground.EM drives have not been proven other than rumors and claims. NASA is looking into EM drives, if it true it would change not only space travel but air travel.
QuoteHave you noticed that our airplanes look quite different than the Wright brothers' plane? And they weren't the first to experiment with propellors. They were only the first to figure out how to control a plane during flight. And even those controls have been replaced with fly-by-wire since then.Have you noticed that modern bombers no longer have gun turrets on them? And drones that don't even have the pilot on them?There are thousands of years between the first concept of an airplane (or flying machine in general) and a vehicle that could stay airborne for a few hundred meters. There are hundreds of years between the first drawing of a helicopter and the first test version that did more than hop and shake. While there are only years between those test vehicles and fully operational machines. Followed by decades of reinventing the wheel. (which is another technology which has in fact been reinvented dozens of times to fit the changing operating environment).But it did not cost millions of dollars on a one way trip from New York to London. If it did airliners would not be possible.
QuoteSo yes, SSTO's have needed and will need more reinventing before they become a success. But the only thing that can stop people from trying to perfect them, is if conventional launches can overcome the difficulties associated with staging. Either one that happens first, has a competitive advantage.I'm not sure what you are trying say here. NASA tried SSTO's and space planes in the 90's and lots of other cool programs but it was more costly in the end.
The more complex your build your craft the more costly it is. That is why we are back to the basics.
If NASA had trillions of dollars growing on trees by the NASA building they would had other space shuttle by now probably a bigger one. A bigger ISS and be building spaceship in space to go to mars!!!
With space elevator you could almost go into space for free. You pay to ride the elevator.It would cost billions to build the space elevator but than people can pay to ride the elevator. You could have people going up every hour into space.
No. Colonization starts where value can be created. Most importantly in the form of (expected) profits. People going by themselves to look for a better place to live is only one form of colonization. And even in that case, most early attempts are paid for by the upper class/government/community.
Next time I checked, plenty of people are employed in Vegas, and the jobs in industries that cater for the increasingly affluent elderly are becoming ever more prominent. I would say immigration starts immediately if such an activity starts on Mars. It's far less expensive to leave employees on Mars, rather than have them return home.The employees' trip to Mars would have to be paid for by the employers. Not entirely unlike American companies paying for the costs of the green cards of their more permanent European workers.
Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible, and 400 in the late 1930's. The average annual income per capita was 223.87 somwhere in the 20's, compared to well over 30,000.00 today. So yes, international airlines were very much possible even though 99.99% of the population could not afford them. When comparing money, you need to compare real values, not nominative values.
Oh, and a single Dreamliner still costs 200 million. Divided by the number of seats, that's about 500,000. Reusability is what makes international travel affordable for average incomes.
I'm saying that people have tried to build planes for thousands of years, but couldn't crack it, until the Wright brothers added in-flight control systems. Planes were more costly then lighter-than-air aircraft for quite a while, but were better at getting where people wanted to go. And balloons were safer for decades.
Every next attempt at doing something, improves the design. We're only at the beginning of space travel. There are at least two engines being researched that might revolutionize launch vehicles: the Sabre engine, and SpaceX's methane engine. Even if Skylon turns out to be a dead duck, the next generation of SSTO will already be on the drawing board. There are two systems of spacecraft recovery being researched/reinvented: horizontal landing and propulsive landing. Exciting times. If you're not expecting to take a ride to Mars next year, because you'll be in for some disappointments.QuoteThe only thing we know is: if it would be possible to reuse a rocket, there could be major cost reductions. How to do this best, is still up for grabs.You've missed out the word economically between the to and the reuse. Shuttle SRB's were recovered but I'm not sure how many were reused as their refurb cost = their new build cost. QuoteYou need demand first. We could spend those hundreds of billions researching space hotel technology and industrial processes that require/benefit from microgravity. That would be earned back overnight, even without reducing launch costs to ridiculously low levels. And then maybe build that damn space elevator, before those nasty competitors price us out of the market.Yes. The basic answer is "When enough people with enough money say they want to do this and someone comes along with a viable way to do it." Unfortunately the 3 variables in that sentence are very difficult to quantify.
The only thing we know is: if it would be possible to reuse a rocket, there could be major cost reductions. How to do this best, is still up for grabs.
You need demand first. We could spend those hundreds of billions researching space hotel technology and industrial processes that require/benefit from microgravity. That would be earned back overnight, even without reducing launch costs to ridiculously low levels. And then maybe build that damn space elevator, before those nasty competitors price us out of the market.
No. Colonization starts where value can be created. Most importantly in the form of (expected) profits. People going by themselves to look for a better place to live is only one form of colonization. And even in that case, most early attempts are paid for by the upper class/government/community.If people only look for a better place to live, Mars, or space in general, is the last place to go.
Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible, and 400 in the late 1930's.
Well, we're back to basics because launches need to be cheap. Big-ass trailers aren't cheap. Whether 'less complex' means 'preloaded, single stage, low temperature return' (Skylon) or 'stack vertically, two stages with twice as much failure points and heat shield, extra mass and failure points for recovery' (everything else) is still being debated. In another thread, mind you.The only thing we know is: if it would be possible to reuse a rocket, there could be major cost reductions. How to do this best, is still up for grabs.
I think that robotic colonization mush precede to human colonization.
$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!
space planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.