Author Topic: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?  (Read 112355 times)

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #20 on: 07/03/2015 12:39 pm »
Zero G and low G sports: both team franchises and public facilities.

Raquet ball. Squash. Tennis. Something similar to basketball. martial arts matches. Some earth bound sports would be easily adaptable to zero and low G environments. Some would be a little more resource intensive like low G indoor ski jumps and so forth.

And add in extreme sky diving from LEO and LMO with minimalist reentry gear.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #21 on: 07/03/2015 01:03 pm »
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.
We have. The problem is that you can't reuse a "perfect" launcher once it's demonstrated itself.
Quote
This 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.
Quote
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.
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.

Does that take into account that:
1) it takes a few years between ordering a launch and building the cargo?
2) it takes even longer to get that cargo from back-of-a-napkin idea to fully funded mission plan?
3) it takes even longer than that to make new investors/thinkers aware that the declining launch costs are opening up opportunities to turn their ideas into reality?
4) it takes far longer than that to develop the technology up to the level where you can do something the average Joe gives a sh*t about? But we'll eventually get there, no matter how slow.

I'm thinking long term here. The tipping point might be little over a decade away if somebody comes up with a good business plan, or it might be hundreds of years away. We might already be seeing it happen, but are wrongfully assuming that the tipping point has to mean that average people get to launch, rather than scientific institutions and companies. We've become so used to seeing progress, that we're no longer aware that the basics are being laid at (and for) a much higher pace right now, even though the result of all that work is still quite a few years in the future. We're complaining about 6 week gaps in SpaceX's launch rates, lamenting a few months (hopefully) of crisis management as 'no Falcon Heavy for the foreseeable future', etc. We're spoiled. That's all.

There are plenty of examples of goods and services that nobody needed, but were completely dependent on a few decades or even years later. I'm frighteningly useless without my smartphone, and I can't even remember the time before internet, while I was a teenager when it matured. I'm hoping this can happen for space too.

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #22 on: 07/03/2015 04:14 pm »
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.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #23 on: 07/03/2015 09:52 pm »
 


 
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. [/quote]

With today's technology no. It would cost more money doing space mining than what you would profit by what you would gain from it. For this to happen you need to bring the cost down or deplete supply of raw materials on earth for space mining. Where there is no raw material on earth by year 2050 or 2080.



Quote
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.

Unless private space companies can bring price of ticket down to $500,000 the upper middle class it is is  very unlikely.

 Unless they switch over to laser propulsion,EM Drive,launch loop or space elevator or some new way of getting into space.

But there would need to be lot of R&D into laser propulsion, EM Drive, launch loop or space elevator to test to see if it would even work and go from theory to reality.

nuclear rocket or fusion rocket would probably be way more costly than chemical propulsion.  So would not be used to send people and cargo into space.

 
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 09:53 pm by nec207 »

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2015 09:54 pm »
 
 


 
Quote
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.

With today's technology no. It would cost more money doing space mining than what you would profit by what you would gain from it. For this to happen you need to bring the cost down or deplete supply of raw materials on earth for space mining. Where there is no raw material on earth by year 2050 or 2080.



Quote
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.

Unless private space companies can bring price of ticket down to $500,000 the upper middle class it is is  very unlikely.

 Unless they switch over to laser propulsion,EM Drive,launch loop or space elevator or some new way of getting into space.

But there would need to be lot of R&D into laser propulsion, EM Drive, launch loop or space elevator to test to see if it would even work and go from theory to reality.

nuclear rocket or fusion rocket would probably be way more costly than chemical propulsion.  So would not be used to send people and cargo into space.

« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 09:56 pm by nec207 »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #25 on: 07/03/2015 09:58 pm »
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.

Not entirely true.

      The fuel, that is fairly cheap.  The structure, not quite so cheap as many exotic metals and manufacturing techniques are required to make the materials.  Avionics not as cheap as they theoretically could be, but considering the environmental variables, cheap for what they are, the engines? Whoa Nelly!  Making a system that takes highly volatile gases, chilled to a liquid state, hundreds of degrees below zero, pumping it through a system that is burning those gases at thousands of degrees above zero and keeping the whole thing from blowing apart?  That's both an art and a science!  (In other words REALLY EXPENSIVE!)  Things like the programming and actual construction costs, THAT'S where even more expense comes in.

      This is a point that's also applicable to airliners.  The fuel is relatively cheap, the materials they're built with, not quite as much.  The engines, while not pumping cryogenic fuels through the system, still deals with high heat loads and volatile fuels, (Not cheap) as well as avionics that are no less complex than that of a typical rocket.

      So, throwing away the equivalent of a Boeing 757 for each launch get's REAL expensive.  If we can figure out how to build spacecraft that are at least 90% reusable or more, (not including fuel, though that WOULD be a neat trick) THEN spaceflight would become a LOT cheaper.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 09:58 pm by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 252
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #26 on: 07/04/2015 07:16 am »
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.
My impression is that the really big expense is manpower to build rockets and maintain the launch facilities.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #27 on: 07/05/2015 09:56 pm »
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.

If civilization does fail, the fall will be catastrophic both for the population and for the technology base.  If that base disappears, it will be very, very difficult to rebuild, much more so than it was during the first industrial revolution.  So there's a good possibility that this is our last and only chance.

It's sooner or never.  Not later.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #28 on: 07/05/2015 11:14 pm »
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.

Quote
People are using short-term reasoning to answer a long-term question

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.

This not asking for price to come down it would have to remarkably and extremely come down for the middle class American or the upper middle class American can afford it.

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.

Well may be if 90% reusable spacecraft or more could bring the cost down to $500,000 or less.

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.
 

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #29 on: 07/06/2015 01:08 am »
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.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #30 on: 07/06/2015 01:40 am »
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.

Like others have said the reason chemical rockets are very costly is you build this very costly rocket and you throw it away. It like building a 747 and using it once and throw it away. It would be very costly.

It takes 90% to 95% rocket fuel to get that 5% of payload into space that is throw away hardware.

NASA has been researching ways of reusable spacecraft for some time now but it turns out it is more costly.

If you had working laser propulsion,EM Drive, anti-matter or launch loop you have SSTO and 100% reusable spacecraft and no fuel or power source needed to get into space.

Yes a 100% reusable spacecraft.

And the space elevator you just pay to ride the elevator up.

But again these technologies need R&D lots of R&D to see if it would work or not.
 
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 01:43 am by nec207 »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #31 on: 07/06/2015 08:21 am »
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.

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.

However, companies aren't shy of investing billions to open up new oil wells, mines or mega buildings. Find something for these companies to do in space, and you'll be seeing great advancements. The current private industry boom in space launch services was preceded by a boom in private satellite networks. There's plenty of business potential left in LEO. As it gets more crowded, it'll get ever more worthwile to put multiple services on a single platform, and to clean up the mess. Which means it gets ever more worhwile to keep a crew up there.

Once we've finished researching how to keep people alive in LEO, which is mostly what we've been doing since ISS was launched, we might get to concentrate on putting material and bioresearch to good use. And space station running costs will come down to. More people will be willing to spend a million dollars on a weekend in a partial gravity recreation centre, than they would be willing to spend half a million on 30 minutes of fun.

Quote
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.

EM drives don't get you off the ground. Launch loops make scrambled eggs out of the crew, as the centripetal force is much bigger than the acceleration, regardless of the size of the loop. A space elevator is so horribly expensive (the insurance cost alone needs to cover the damages by the coil wrapping itself around the world) it would take an increase in the number of launches by a few orders of magnitude, to break even when charging the same prices as chemical launchers. Unless you have more to offer than what you can currently do in space, there can be no increase in demand, and no company will invest in a space elevator with that kind of risk.

While there is plenty of margin on chemical launchers. Let's see how demand reacts over the next decade, as the people who (would be willing to) pay the bills get used to the new prices. Maybe then, if demand has increased enough, we can get to the more crazy cheap launch ideas. Demand first, as explained in the first part of my response.

Quote
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.

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.

The same goes for the Space Shuttle: taking the entire garage with you isn't a requirement for space planes. Since the space shuttle was designed, pretty much all technology has decreased in size by one or more orders of magnitude, depending on the type of technology. In an industry where size and mass are so important, it's only natural that the spaceplane concept is up for reinvention: do more with less.

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #32 on: 07/06/2015 10:28 am »
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 tourism are here to stay and will increase in the future for really wealthy billionaires!! And may be millionaires.

Space colonization is pure scfi because it beyond profitable.

For the scopes of this thread we will leave out things like zero-gravity harm to the body, space radiation, space debris, water and food needed and infrastructure needed. Say some how this is solved to focus on cost issue in this thread.

For space colonization to take place the price of ticket would have to be some thing the middle class people can afford!! At present it would be cheaper and easier to build floating city,underground city or underwater city on earth than space colonization!! It could boost many times more people and ease overcrowding.

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!!

Any space mining would need housing for the workers. Such cities and markets would bloom.

Quote
EM 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.

 


The device uses a magnetron to produce microwaves which are directed into a metallic, fully enclosed conically tapered high Q resonant cavity with a greater area at one end of the device, and a dielectric resonator in front of the narrower end. The inventor claims that the device generates a directional thrust toward the narrow end of the tapered cavity. The device (engine) requires an electrical power source to produce its reflecting internal microwaves but does not have any moving parts or require any reaction mass as fuel. If proven to work as claimed, this technology could be used to propel vehicles intended for all forms of travel including ground travel, marine travel, sub-marine travel, airflight and spaceflight.[3][4][5][6][7][8]
The device, its mode of operation, and theories attempting to explain it are all controversial. As of 2015, there are still arguments about whether the EmDrive is genuinely a new propulsion device, or whether its experimental results are simply misinterpretations of spurious effects mixed with experimental errors.
The proposed theories of its operation have all been criticized on the grounds they violate the conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of physics, though Shawyer asserts that EmDrive does not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

Quote
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).



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.

Quote
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.

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.

 

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #33 on: 07/06/2015 12:52 pm »
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.

I'll rephrase a bit: Technology, cost and expected cashflow will determine what we will do in space or not. Exactly. And technology takes time. If ISS is kept running long enough, ceteris paribus, the technology might be advanced enough for Bigelow to launch a (relatively) low cost space station that can be rented by research institutions directly, instead of going by NASA. Most of the ISS running cost is related to figuring out how to run a space station safely. Most of the construction cost is related to the I in ISS, and the unpronounced 'G's in that I.

The question is still if those research stations can get the required funding to make this profitable. But if they do, billionaire space hotels and crewed central hubs/maintenance depots are the next step. Continue the same increase in income as we have seen over the last fifty years, and space will be open to average Joe's in a hundred years tops. (That's quite a lot of ifs).

Quote
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.

I agree with your doubts. Prices have to come down a LOT before they are competitive with resources on the ground. The only market for space resources is space itself. Until we have refineries, production chains and assembly lines up there to turn raw materials into finished spacecraft, there is exactly 0 demand for space mining.

Quote
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!!

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.

Quote
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!!

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.

Quote
Quote
EM 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.

They'll improve air travel by making pigs fly. But that's for another thread.

Quote
Quote
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).

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.

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

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.

Quote
The more complex your build your craft the more costly it is. That is why we are back to the basics.

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.

Quote
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!!!

The consensus on this forum seems to be that with trillions of dollars available, Nasa would start billions of projects (to the sun, to every planet and moon in the solar system, and to 5000 of the nearest stars, pixiedust engines, improbability drives, the list goes on) at once, and still take a long time to get humans to Mars. But that's for another thread.

Quote
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.

To go up into space and do what? How are you going to convince enough people to ride the elevator in order to pay back the hundreds of billions of dollars required to build the thing and insure it against the risk of being cut by space debris, failing and damaging every building to the east for thousands of kilometers? Most people don't care about space. They will once we've got some comfort and activities up there, but not as it is.

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.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #34 on: 07/06/2015 02:41 pm »
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.
True.
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.

Actually several hundred people have signed up for Virgin Galactic.

Which suggests they'd like full orbital, but can't afford it.
Quote
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.
Except most of these indentured servants would be involved in caring for elderly people, not software developers.

More like the servants of wealthy middle eastern families who travel on their employers passport  :(
Quote
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.
So between 1/10 and 2x an average person's annual income of the time.
It might be interesting to compare that with a similar journey today.
Quote
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.
So quite a few flights before break even, never mind profit.
Quote
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.
They also realized the textbooks of the time were wrong.
Quote
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.

Quote
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'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.

Quote
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.
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.  :(
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 03:10 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Spaniard

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #35 on: 07/06/2015 02:58 pm »
I think that robotic colonization must precede to human colonization. New robotics and basic generic AI (not neccesary at human level, only as a "dog level") with massive IRSU is enough to start a exponential growth on space infrastructure. Human travel is not so expensive at all. We have launch already hundreds of people on space but with an automated and remote control of a robots army, expand a colony without constantly suplies from Earth is the key to break the space barrier. The problem is the supplies and the fuel because rocket law. With a distributed automated infrastructure on solar system, a number of launches not so different to actual ISS should be enough to start a new human branch of civilization. The key is that all suplies come from space as well.

All we need is to make sustainable on Earth, so the space program could be sustained for centuries without problems. And make a branch for the space program focus on colonization instead exploration. All robotic at first, exponential based on space industrialization using only the same launches per year (so decreasing exponentially on the Earth dependence).
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 06:53 am by Spaniard »

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #36 on: 07/06/2015 11:28 pm »
Quote
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.

You mixing two things up here that you can elaborate on.

Reason for space Colonization

1 Market or profit ( what you talking about)
2 better place to live 

America was better place to live over Europe.  You could own a home and vehicle than paying rent living in rooming house and walking or taking the city bus.

Lack of Jobs and overcrowding and low income many reason Asians move to the US.

For space Colonization has to be cheap enough, higher living standard and better quality of life for massive of people that would want to move!!

If it cost millions of dollars to go by sea to America the Spaniards or British would never gone. And America be just home today of Native Indians!!



Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #37 on: 07/06/2015 11:43 pm »
Quote
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.

$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!

So it is like some one saying you got two option. One way trip ticket from New York to LA for $20,000 or buying new car.

And $400 in the 1930's is cheap.
Quote

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.

It not Big-ass trailers or big spacecraft aren't cheap it is that space planes and SSTO are more costly than a rocket with two or three stages with space capsule.

space planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 11:56 pm by nec207 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #38 on: 07/07/2015 12:15 am »
I think that robotic colonization mush precede to human colonization.
Second that.. and it might not require any AI. We could probably master the lunar poles (or a rock tugged into high lunar orbit) with teleoperation and that recipe would apply to most of the icy worlds of the solar system.. and I have seen estimates of thousands of dwarf planets if you include the Oort cloud.

To the OP:
Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
Yes, definitely, unless we make ourselves extinct in the next few centuries, or become something other than human.

It does not matter if we never find any particular worth in going, beyond what we have already identified such as basic curiosity. Eventually the worth/cost is going to approach infinity.

This relies on the assumption that at some point we will develop some sort of self reproducing technology that can function with just the resources we can currently see, such as sunlight and icy regolith. If we just sat around on earth long enough we would eventually be able to convert the entire solar system to a disneyworld amusement park starting with just one curiosity-sized clanking replicator.. or something similar. There are a billion possible variations and life itself is a template that proves it is absolutely possible within physics.

Im very confident that only extinction could stop us getting to that level eventually. Im not saying we have to wait for magical levels of technology however, that is just the extreme case.

Someone also argued that the lack of oil could hamper our industry. Petroleum may have accelerated the industrial age but it is probably now our major impediment to pushing technologies such as electric cars and bio-oil that could actually be exported to other worlds. These technologies are perfectly adequate, they are just some fraction less competitve than petroleum. Maybe the lack of oil might mean less VCRs and less cars. It would not mean less missiles. Defence does not work on the same principles as commerce. Even with a huge fuel shortage the one gas guzzling technology that will still be popular is rocket engines.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?
« Reply #39 on: 07/07/2015 03:37 am »
$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!

More like ten times the cost of buying a reasonably nice house.  Inflation, remember?

Quote
space planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.

That hasn't been shown.  Shuttle was a first crack at the problem, and horribly underfunded and overconstrained to boot (it ended up multistage anyway, just with the manned spacecraft, heavy cargo module and main propulsion system combined into one piece.  This actually was cheaper than the expendable route as long as all that capability was actually needed on a particular flight, which it often wasn't).  The DC-X and X-33 didn't get very far, and neither one demonstrated very much.  The problem is that radical solutions like that are more costly up front, leading to a small number of attempts and consequent sensitivity to politics, as well as to decisions in the large, mostly unexplored design space being informed by ignorance.  HOTOL had this happen too; the chosen configuration seemed natural, but once it was locked in it just about killed the design single-handedly.  Even though the fix was obvious in retrospect, the big players lost interest completely after the one design study and left the engineers to struggle on for a quarter century on their own.

The indicated response is not to give up.  It's to try harder.  All we've done is poke at the problem a bit.

Also, please note that while I think I understand what you mean, the terms "spaceplane" and "SSTO" are actually orthogonal (unless you're going by the TV Tropes definition of the former).  Dream Chaser and Delta Clipper are two very different ideas...
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 03:46 am by 93143 »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0