Author Topic: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?  (Read 20996 times)

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #40 on: 01/02/2011 03:21 pm »
Quote from: kkattula
The reasons people want to do anything eventually boils down to an emotion-based value they put on it.

Quote from: gospacex
Why do you think people can't act on purely logical ground?

Kkattula is correct without question.

Kkattula says "emotion-based value". Why it has to be emotional?

Quote
Gospacex's question, if not rhetorical, is shallow, since the answer is simply that people are not machines.  People have craniums, and Crays, for example, do not.

Crays cannot invent quantum mechanics, but it doesn't make quantum mechanics emotional by one iota.

Emotions are a great tool to make one feel good and right. They aren't the best tool to make optimal decisions.

Off-planet expansion is an optimal decision by pure logic - "stay home and eventually die" is a trivially worse outcome. If you want to color this decision by whatever emotion you want to feel warm and fuzzy, by all means. Just don't postulate that everyone else has to do the same.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #41 on: 01/02/2011 03:39 pm »
Here is my main thought on that topic:  Earth is better suited to supporting us than any other other planetary body in our solar system, even after almost any realistic extinction level event occurs.  I'd rather spend money and resources on technological development (including HSF), scientific understanding (including HSF), and emergency preparedness (including finding and diverting NEOs) than on establishing a "just in case" colony using today's technology, which would require a planetary-level effort to install and sustain.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting establishing a 40,000+ person colony using today's technology.

Why not? We do have necessary technology. What we currently miss is a working organizational paradigm. Govt-led HSF ended up stagnating. Business-based HSF is still searching for working business model(s).

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #42 on: 01/02/2011 03:47 pm »
Why not? We do have necessary technology. What we currently miss is a working organizational paradigm. Govt-led HSF ended up stagnating. Business-based HSF is still searching for working business model(s).

HSF will always end up stagnating and business-based HSF will continue to search fruitlessly for working business models as long as only 2-3% of GLOW ends up in LEO and far less than that ends up on the surface of another planetary body.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #43 on: 01/02/2011 04:08 pm »
2-3% of GLOW isn't the problem.   Heck, even a 747-400 only achieves 11.25% and it doesn't have nearly as difficult a job to do as an orbital rocket.

The key is low cost operations.

Every airliner does this by being very low maintenance between flights, quick turn-around and 100% re-usable (almost).   The primary cost of operations is actually fuel costs.

But those are all much harder nuts to crack in the launch industry.   Shuttle was supposed to do it, but missed its targets by a wide margin.   Elon wants to recover his first stages to get part-way there.   Skylon is relying upon funding from UK.gov, which is in as deep a mess as the US Fed.

The only thing that looks "close" right now is White Knight and SpaceShip from Scaled -- but they aren't actually near to going orbital yet.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 04:08 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #44 on: 01/02/2011 04:32 pm »
They need industries waiting to employ them

There's plenty to do on Mars i.e. the release of powerful greenhouse gases (e.g. ammonia or fluorocarbons) either indigenous (mined) or imported to sublimate all the CO2 there all year round which would raise the temperature to above freezing for half the surface melting the water ice at the North Pole producing a Northern Sea in which we could then put plant life/plankton into to start producing oxygen. Mars really is another potential Eden in the making with all that CO2 and water ice, it would only require the temperature raised a few degrees to start the ball rolling as it currently peaks at -5c. If we could eventually get the CO2 air level well below 1% we could walk on Mars as we do on Earth, without any breathing aids ;).

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #45 on: 01/02/2011 04:32 pm »
It's fine with me if people think space is our destiny, and they're free to invest their money and time to work towards that goal, just don't ask the rest of us to keep throwing $9B a year down the rathole of NASA-led HSF that will never get anyone anywhere.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #46 on: 01/02/2011 05:04 pm »
2-3% of GLOW isn't the problem.   Heck, even a 747-400 only achieves 11.25% and it doesn't have nearly as difficult a job to do as an orbital rocket.

The key is low cost operations.

Every airliner does this by being very low maintenance between flights, quick turn-around and 100% re-usable (almost).   The primary cost of operations is actually fuel costs.

But those are all much harder nuts to crack in the launch industry.   Shuttle was supposed to do it, but missed its targets by a wide margin.   Elon wants to recover his first stages to get part-way there.   Skylon is relying upon funding from UK.gov, which is in as deep a mess as the US Fed.

The only thing that looks "close" right now is White Knight and SpaceShip from Scaled -- but they aren't actually near to going orbital yet.

Ross.

The Shuttle should not be used as an example to judge the validity of RLVs in general.

Part of the Shuttle's problem is it tried to be too many things at once esp for the technology at the time and thus ended up doing all those things in a less then optimal manner.

In someways even Skylon is much less daring today then the Shuttle was in 1970.

I think STS is much like the Zeppelins of the early 20th century which had some of the same issues.
They needed a large ground crew, where high maintenance,and where dangerous at times.

Air travel was still successful even though the Zeppelins failed to deliver low cost air travel.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 05:05 pm by Patchouli »

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #47 on: 01/02/2011 06:40 pm »
2-3% of GLOW isn't the problem.   Heck, even a 747-400 only achieves 11.25% and it doesn't have nearly as difficult a job to do as an orbital rocket.

The key is low cost operations.

Every airliner does this by being very low maintenance between flights, quick turn-around and 100% re-usable (almost).   The primary cost of operations is actually fuel costs.

28.4% - 248,300/875,000 - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400f_prod.html

And, yes, that's with a nearly fully reusable vehicle.  Even if 11.25% were correct, the LV business would kill for that plus full reusability with little or no maintenance between flights, especially with multiple flights per vehicle per day.  The point is that we aren't there and we aren't going to get there with chemical rockets.  Bussard knew this.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 06:40 pm by Lee Jay »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #48 on: 01/02/2011 08:25 pm »
First off, from the article on the home page:

Quote
The amazingly clean nature of Atlantis’s STS-132 launch campaign led Russian Space Agency official Alexey Krasnov to state in the STS-132 Post-Launch News Conference that this entire launch flow was Atlantis’s way of screaming “use me again!”

I'll buy that guy a Stoli.  There's room for a few more "last flights".  But I digress.

Why it has to be emotional?

You are kidding me.  Right?

the answer is simply ...

The answer I gave is simply the reason why it has to be emotional.  If all you read and quote is the first sentence, then Jim is right:  The Illuminati are off having hot toddies, and incompetence rules NASA.

And quoting my whole passage doesn't get you off the hot seat regarding shallow analysis.

I agree with John here ... that [a comprehensive plan towards creating a new economy and a new community] should be the long-term objective, and all intermediate steps along the path should "generally" be headed in the same direction.

Thank you.  I quibble but a tad:  You said that NOBODY who's calling the shots is thinking this way.  I am, mos' def.  I cannot be the only person thinking this way.  Technically, you're right in that I'm not really calling too many shots;  I am certainly making the attempt to "make a difference".

With the only tool that I have:  Free speech.  Which ties into the "why" of why my country was founded.  Free speech is not just a good idea.  It pretty much is the only idea that humanity brings to the table.  The table being life in general and intelligent life in particular.

Crays cannot invent quantum mechanics, but it doesn't make quantum mechanics emotional by one iota.

If there are no people, there are no Crays.  Quantum mechanics is an incomplete human theory.  I personally don't know what that reality includes in its entirety, but I do know that.  Whatever QM turns out to be, it will stand objectively outside of the human experience.

Quote
Emotions are a great tool to make one feel good and right. They aren't the best tool to make optimal decisions.

Oh well.

GTG.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 01:08 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #49 on: 01/02/2011 08:33 pm »
They need industries waiting to employ them...

There's plenty to do on Mars...

You're not telling anybody anything that they do not already know.  Having something to do is not at all what an industry is.  An industry supports an economy.

The only, and I repeat as if it will do any good, the only space based industry we have, at all, and I repeat, at all, is the tourist industry.  The other industries, propellant and so forth, can only come into fruition if the US government subsidizes them in a sensible fashion.  Even if there is no unobtanium on the Moon, just to pick a random example, an economy up there will only arrive after a number of industries, including the humbler ones, are up and running.  They will have to offer something for sale to the Earthlings; I mention South Face Ice Water in jest, but there will have to be something to make and sell.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #50 on: 01/02/2011 09:00 pm »
It's fine with me if people think space is our destiny, and they're free to invest their money and time to work towards that goal, just don't ask the rest of us to keep throwing $9B a year down the rathole of NASA-led HSF that will never get anyone anywhere.

Thats something different again. I agree, except I would say it is the Launch-architecture-led HSF that is the problem. I think NASA is quite capable of handling the research into space technology and exploration technology that should actually be the core of the HSF, but at some point the vision has just become some small wiggly appendage sprouted off the massive, admittedly impressive, launch architecture.

If I were emperor of America, and given that the goal of HSF is in fact a permanence presence beyond earth orbit, I would split it into two missions:

Exploration technology,
the core being a mock up base on earth where we try to perfect closed cycle life support and ISRU with simulated regolith, the goal being to chip away at all the little technical problems of self sufficiency.

Space and launch technology,
Where we keep pushing the boundaries of these technologies with prototype after prototype.

All actual spaceflight would be geared towards feeding these two missions. To practice ISRU we need to sample what is actually there. To advance space technology the final test must be in space.

Where/how does actually putting people into space come into this? Not much but essentially two ways:

 We have to solve these zero-g health problems etc. I don't believe they are still unsolved because they are that hard. We simply havent put a fraction of the budget into this compared to space launch or building the ISS. Come on guys we may be talking a hyper advanced butt-blaster, but that is nothing compared to launching a shuttle.

The other way humans are still involved is indirect. One of the central goals of space technology is simply upping the masses we can get to destinations cost effectively, via fuel depots and various other approaches. The goal of gaining confidence in landing larger masses on other worlds, on budget, can at any point be turned towards actually sending people when we find a good reason to go. Any upping of masses that can be turned to transporting humans in a decade is just as legitimately HSF as building an HLV without a  mission. More so, because actually landing something at a destination is required.


Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #51 on: 01/03/2011 07:40 am »
Why not? We do have necessary technology. What we currently miss is a working organizational paradigm. Govt-led HSF ended up stagnating. Business-based HSF is still searching for working business model(s).

HSF will always end up stagnating and business-based HSF will continue to search fruitlessly for working business models as long as only 2-3% of GLOW ends up in LEO and far less than that ends up on the surface of another planetary body.

~90% of GLOW is fuel+oxidiser, and it costs ~1% of the total launch cost. This tells us that payload mass fraction is not an unsurmountable problem: if we find ways to reduce the other 99% fraction of the cost, we''l be fine. SpaceX/Orbital currently work exactly on that problem.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #52 on: 01/03/2011 07:48 am »
2-3% of GLOW isn't the problem.   Heck, even a 747-400 only achieves 11.25% and it doesn't have nearly as difficult a job to do as an orbital rocket.

The key is low cost operations.

Every airliner does this by being very low maintenance between flights, quick turn-around and 100% re-usable (almost).   The primary cost of operations is actually fuel costs.

But those are all much harder nuts to crack in the launch industry.   Shuttle was supposed to do it, but missed its targets by a wide margin.   Elon wants to recover his first stages to get part-way there.

Which is, IMO, the right way to do it. Big steps = similarly big risk of making a step in wrong direction. Smaller steps = smaller, easier to fix mistakes. Instead of trying to build SSTO RLV at once, Elon takes known-working setup: TSTO ELV, and tries to gradually turn it into RLV. Starting from a natural 1st step: recover and reuse 1st stage. Whenever something turns out to be unachievable (for example, I don't think 2nd stage reuse via deorbit makes (financial) sense), he isn't screwed: he still has a working rocket and a profitable business. Contrast this with results of "big step" from Saturn to STS...
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 07:52 am by gospacex »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #53 on: 01/03/2011 12:44 pm »
Big steps = similarly big risk of making a step in wrong direction.

And HEFT is not a big risk.  And it's not really a big step either.  In fact, going to a NEO is actually easier than going to the Moon, because delta vee, the only thing you need to consider, is smaller!  Did you know that?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #54 on: 01/03/2011 05:10 pm »
2-3% of GLOW isn't the problem.   Heck, even a 747-400 only achieves 11.25% and it doesn't have nearly as difficult a job to do as an orbital rocket.

The key is low cost operations.

Every airliner does this by being very low maintenance between flights, quick turn-around and 100% re-usable (almost).   The primary cost of operations is actually fuel costs.

28.4% - 248,300/875,000 - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400f_prod.html

And, yes, that's with a nearly fully reusable vehicle.  Even if 11.25% were correct, the LV business would kill for that plus full reusability with little or no maintenance between flights, especially with multiple flights per vehicle per day.  The point is that we aren't there and we aren't going to get there with chemical rockets.  Bussard knew this.
The smaller suborbital guys (XCOR, Armadillo, Masten, Unreasonable, etc) are proving that quick turnaround for rockets is possible. They are about 70 years behind expendables (which started out as munitions--no reason to be reusable!), but that's okay. The problem isn't the chemicals or the physics. A chemical rocket engine can be designed to be fired as many times as you wish, though it may take careful design and engineering to achieve. No reason it can't be done, however. It just will take many years of engineering and a LOT of testing, redesigning, flying again and again to gain confidence, pushing the envelope a little more, hitting the performance limits of the vehicle, designing a better vehicle with a little better mass fraction, a larger payload, and eventually you get a first stage capable being flown multiple times in a day. Then, the whole process continues again with the second stage, which will be harder in a lot of ways because it will face substantially more difficult thermal constraints, but with the proper materials science applied, this too can be overcome slowly, through many iterations.

And the "LV business" is working on this problem, too. Lockheed Martin (responsible for the Atlas, before it was recently spun off to ULA) has a flyback booster program on the back burner.

Expendables are easier in some ways. We have a lot of experience with them because of the Cold War arms race. Having a lot of rockets that you can launch all at once is more important in that role than a single reusable rocket that can only fly one at a time. In a strategic role, there's no reason to have reusable ICBMs. And once you have the basic rocket science down, it's actually rather straight-forward to design and manufacture an expendable rocket. It doesn't take the kind of evolutionary approach that a reusable rocket demands... Actually, scratch that. Our expendables work so well because they are built on a whole mountain of previous work. The basic design space of a hydrolox or kerolox or hypergolic rocket engine with a turbopump is pretty well explored. Even clean-sheet designs like the Falcon rockets tend to have an odd familiarity to them (they remind me of the Russian Rokot and Zenit launch vehicles). Typical Aluminum or Al-Li tank construction.

But for those building truly reusable rockets, there are few shoulders to stand on. Shuttle operates more like an expendable launch vehicle with a reusable cargo and crew carrier. It unfortunately is not capable of quick turnaround. It is too large and complex to experiment with the design so as to make it have quicker turnaround... Any near-term spiritual successors of the orbiter will be much smaller. SpaceX is trying to go from the top down, starting with a pretty typical expendable rocket concept and add on reusability. I hope they can get better turnaround than the Shuttle, but I don't know if they'll pull it off.

But chemical rockets probably are capable of being a lot cheaper. The fuel is still just about the cheapest part of a launch. If fuel was the most expensive part of the launch, I would agree with you. We have not yet pushed chemical rocket technology to its economic limit. And until we do that, it cannot be claimed that chemical rockets aren't going to "get us there." EDIT:Although I don't completely discount the possibility of something like a tether solution... or, more easily from a materials science perspective, a hybrid of a rotating tether and a suborbital rocket at some point... Still, we ought to push chemical rockets to be much more economical (through quick-turnaround) than they are right now.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 05:16 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #55 on: 01/03/2011 09:02 pm »
If I were emperor of America, and given that the goal of HSF is in fact a permanence presence beyond earth orbit, I would split it into two missions

If you were emperor, your programme wouldn't have to be designed to survive possibly schizophrenic changes of direction from Congress every couple of years, or from POTUS every four/eight.

cheers, Martin

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1077
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #56 on: 01/30/2011 08:58 am »
From the parent thread

Why go into space? There are almost 7 billion people on this planet. As societies advance, they need more resources. Most countries are advancing, so they will need more resources. There are more resources in space.

You'll never move a meaningful fraction off planet.  This is a canard.
Emph. mine.  It's certainly likely it won't happen in any near or mid term scenario.  But never?  That's not at all credible.  Don't even need to look as far ahead as when the Sun'll grow insufferable.  Either by access to space being cheaper on its own, or the rest of the financial context improving and thereby relieving pressure on space access budget; that latter which can be helped by developing techs aimed at space that also have applications down here - see KelvinZero's post:
This technology also happens to be the fastest way to protect ourselves against the sort of threats that could possibly make us extinct, even before actually making it to other worlds:  disease (natural or engineered), nuclear winter (or caused by asteroid strike), runaway greenhouse effects, wars over dwindling resources. The latter one is actually the most dangerous, because it is (a) likely and (b) limited only by our own ingenuity.
 


Name one resource valuable enough to travel off planet to recover it.  I've asked this question many times and no one ever gives me a good answer.
None today, but plenty once space transport is cheap enough.

I have my eye skyward, but I don't see grand adventure or alien encounters. I see wealth beyond any persons wildest dreams.
Multiplied by that time's technology.

While from our exact position, no space resources may be fully economic, there are intermediate markets that could move us to a position where things like PGMs from the Moon or NEOs could be economically exploitable.  There was a time where most of the resources of America were subeconomic too.  Economic reality is not a stasis, but is dynamic.  The key is finding what can be made economic right now that enables more resources to be brought into our economic sphere.
Emphasis mine

It stands to reason that we should invest in setting the stage today for whatever the next affordable and irreversible progress will be tomorrow.
Recycling our drinking water
Recycling our air
Growing food from our own waste.
ISRU techniques.
Workshops that can manufacture all their own parts, and all the parts in the technologies above.
  The analogy made to transatlantic exploration and settlement might be broken due to the specifics of that endeavor, but the motivation for it is the same as for space in the future.  And there's nothing yet that looks set to change that motivation.


I agree that "Space is our Destiny" but I don't actually believe in destiny. It is a shorthand way of saying that we should act exactly as if it were so.

The word "teleology" captures this approach but unfortunately the word has been appropriated by the intelligent design nutjobs. Teleology, in philosophy, is the idea that in a world where everything that happens is a matter of cause and effect, that there are future causes to present events. In our normal experience of the world as a linear progression of time, it's a rather crazy idea. How can a future event make something happen today?
Known as Aristotle's "final" cause
« Last Edit: 01/30/2011 09:16 am by Cinder »
NEC ULTIMA SI PRIOR

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #57 on: 01/30/2011 11:53 am »
I'm not sure how possible it will be to have a true, permanent colony in a place which requires living inside a pressure vessel at all times with really no exceptions (at least, not yet). I am optimistic, however.

Did you ever visit large shopping center? One of those which are so big that pedestrians basically walk past boutiques and smaller shops while they are inside one really big building? Now imagine it enlarged even more.

That's how people will eventually live on Mars: their "outside" will be insides of a sprawling underground city.

And regarding "is it possible?". If you mean psychologically possible, I would like to remind you that some people here on Earth were living in far worse conditions: they spent *decades* in solitary confinement (Nelson Mandela) and survived.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #58 on: 02/02/2011 10:57 pm »
I'm not sure how possible it will be to have a true, permanent colony in a place which requires living inside a pressure vessel at all times with really no exceptions (at least, not yet). I am optimistic, however.

Did you ever visit large shopping center? One of those which are so big that pedestrians basically walk past boutiques and smaller shops while they are inside one really big building? Now imagine it enlarged even more.

That's how people will eventually live on Mars: their "outside" will be insides of a sprawling underground city.

And regarding "is it possible?". If you mean psychologically possible, I would like to remind you that some people here on Earth were living in far worse conditions: they spent *decades* in solitary confinement (Nelson Mandela) and survived.
Yes, that's why I said I was optimistic. The Twin Cities in Minnesota is a lot like what you described. The downtown buildings (including condominiums) of Minneapolis (and Saint Paul) are connected by tunnels and skyways... The whole thing stretches out for miles.

The Mall of America is another thing similar to what you are describing. It has an indoor theme park (with trees of different types). It is connected to the MSPS airport (and downtown Minneapolis) via electric rail, so much so that you don't have to go outside for anything.... There's all sorts of examples of this sort of thing. Skyscrapers are like small cities (one hotel building being built in Saudi Arabia will hold about 100,000 people).

Modern cities are made of very large enclosed structures with environmental control over temperature, particulates, and humidity. Some structures, such as some stadiums, also have control over interior pressure (people must enter and exit via airlocks), though the pressure differentials are usually around .15 psi. This time of year in Minnesota, if you want to play tennis or soccer, you often go to an inflatable dome (through an airlock), a type of pressure-vessel.

Also, lots of produce is already grown in greenhouses. "One of the largest greenhouse complexes in the world is in Almeria, Spain, where greenhouses cover almost 50,000 acres (200 km2)." And about 150 tons of tomatoes (which have about 180kcal per kg... pretty low, actually) can be grown in even just one acre every year.... That's about enough calories to support almost 2 million people!

Here's a picture of a greenhouse complex in Arizona... Almost looks like it could be on Mars! Also, the use of growing food in greenhouses in my snowy and cold state has a history of about a century (bottom picture).

So, yes. I am optimistic that someday there could be cities on Mars. It'll be a while, though.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 10:59 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned spaceflight... is spaceflight our destiny?
« Reply #59 on: 03/20/2012 08:56 pm »
  The title of this section poses a great question, especially timely now that NASA is facing a severe cutback later this year.  I am referring to the Sequestration of 9% of all discretionary funding as directed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.  When its provisions kick in, NASA will be lucky to get ONLY a 9% cut.  Look at today's announcement by the House leaders that they are seeking larger cuts (50% increase) from non-Defense budgets in order to provide relief to the DOD, which is also subject to sequestration. 
   The BCA is the Law of the Land.  If Congress does nothing, the 9% cuts will automatically occur later this year.  This means a budget of only $16 Billion for NASA.  So, all of this hand-wringing over cuts to Commercial Crew or the unmanned Mars Program will pale to the angst that NASA will face with a cut of $1.7 Billion.  What would one cut in order to meet that target?  What would NASA cut if the House leaders succeed in pushing through an even larger cut?  What will NASA look like with a budget of $15 Billion?  All of this is actually likely to happen given the ongoing gridlock in Washington. 
   In addition, when Congress passes their usual CR at the end of September, NASA will probably be required to start spending at the lower ceiling of $16 Billion since the Budget Control Act is the law that they must follow.  So, within a matter of a few months, we may see major changes in NASA.






Tags:
 

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