Will humans ever be a space-faring civilization?

[nec207]

$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?

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...

I thought that is why they done away with DC-X , X-33,X-30 and Kliper so on it was more costly in the end so they moved backed to the basics has it was cheaper over these space planes and SSTO's.

 

[nec207]

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...

A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware.

A space plane needs a rocket to get into space or take of like a plane and use the jet engines to it is almost in space than blasts the rocket engines to get into space.

The upper stage of the rocket could be the space plane and recused over ans over well the lower stage the rocket to get the space plane up into space.

The space shuttle was space plane on top of the rocket.

A space plane is not true SSTO.

Both space planes and SSTO are more costly than using rocket with two or three stages with space capsule. It does not matter if space planes and SSTO was big like 90's ideas or smaller.


 

[93143]

it was more costly in the end

No, they never got to the end.  It was more costly in the beginning, and no one cared enough to tough it out.

The point designs they were working with, like VentureStar, might very well have been bad ideas.  But that in no way implies that there are no good ideas in the same general class (especially since there have been propulsion innovations since then, like SABRE and TAN, that they weren't taking advantage of).  Look at the beginning of the airplane era - huge number of designs, huge number of failures.  I'm sure with sufficient analysis we can do better than that, but we're very far from being able to claim that the whole area is a dead end.

A space plane is not true SSTO.

It can be.  Skylon is one.  So was HOTOL.  So was VentureStar, for that matter (yes, it had wings by the end; it got bitten by the exact same issue as HOTOL).

[nec207]

it was more costly in the end

No, they never got to the end.  It was more costly in the beginning, and no one cared enough to tough it out.

The point designs they were working with, like VentureStar, might very well have been bad ideas.  But that in no way implies that there are no good ideas in the same general class (especially since there have been propulsion innovations since then, like SABRE and TAN, that they weren't taking advantage of).  Look at the beginning of the airplane era - huge number of designs, huge number of failures.  I'm sure with sufficient analysis we can do better than that, but we're very far from being able to claim that the whole area is a dead end.

A space plane is not true SSTO.

It can be.  Skylon is one.  So was HOTOL.  So was VentureStar, for that matter (yes, it had wings by the end; it got bitten by the exact same issue as HOTOL).

So you are saying the reason  DC-X , X-33,X-30 and Kliper so on got canceled was not that it may be lower cost in end it was they never got money to see the project to the end to see if it would be lower cost or not? If so what was point starting the project. So they don't know if it would lower space cost or not?

[high road]

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!!

What you are calling colonization is actually just migration. Colonization is moving to somewhere where you everything needs to be built from the start. Before there were cars. Before wages were higher, although expected profits and land claims were bigger, to compensate for the big risk of dying from disease, fights with the natives, starvation, storms while at sea, etc. The Americas were badlands for quite a while after colonization started, when compared to Europe.

The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.

Be assured that the first exploration ventures (that's before colonization took place), when calculated in todays value, cost millions. Or maybe even billions if you want to use 'average incomes' rather than 'real value' to correct for money depreciation and social evolution.

[Spaniard]

The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.

This vision of value set by trade I think that is not completely correct.

First, you forget easily that America already has humans. Native americans show America as valuable. The value of the things is relative and subjetive to the people that live there.

The key is to build places enough good to live to make that the emotionals links to the place are greater than the possibilities as risks of migration. Of course, each individual show this from different perspective, show in global you need that this effect was enough to allow avoid depopulation of the place.
This, for example, it has sense for places like Mars. First generation could be motivated by the romantic view about a planet colonization. But for the next generation, that it never show the Earth with own eyes, if Mars is not enough good to stay, they will be very motivated to abandon the place.

It is not all about money or trade. It is about to create a place enough good to live. Of course, it is linked to economy. If you don't have own resources or good trade routes to get the goods to build that place, they will fail.

That it is the reason because I think that robots has a lot of sense. Trade routes on space are expensive by complexity, specially if involve deep gravity wells. So I think that the key is develop good local economies enough to build these enough quality life. For complex goods or rare elements like platinum group materials could have sense trade. And on orbit trade like for little gravity bodies like asteroids and big space colonies could have too. But I think that it is not the key for make a successful colonization.

[high road]

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.

Selective reader eh? Paying 20,000 with an annual income of, what did I say, 250? is like paying 2,400,000 when on an average income today. So the choice is between a mansion and a 30 minute trip.

And $400 in the 1930's is cheap.

Not if you lived back then, during the biggest crisis in recorded history. But relatively speaking, it's absolutely amazing how fast prices came down. See what happens after a few decades, as technology becomes mature and more people get used to the idea of flying? Let's come here again in twenty years and see.

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.

Depends what you do with them. If you throw them away after launch, the cheapest reliable craft is best. If you reuse them a number of times, the craft that can be reused cheap and reliable is best. If you want to have a craft that's capable of handling any possible mission LEO before you know what kind of missions might arise, a big ass truck with room to spare is (or was) best.

[high road]

The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.

This vision of value set by trade I think that is not completely correct.

First, you forget easily that America already has humans. Native americans show America as valuable. The value of the things is relative and subjetive to the people that live there.

Those natives got there by migration: each generation going a few miles further in search for food. Not exactly what the Europeans were looking for when they got to the new world. (though it is what they found: potatoes, corn,...). If we need to get to Mars to get more food, we're screwed.

That it is the reason because I think that robots has a lot of sense. Trade routes on space are expensive by complexity, specially if involve deep gravity wells. So I think that the key is develop good local economies enough to build these enough quality life. For complex goods or rare elements like platinum group materials could have sense trade. And on orbit trade like for little gravity bodies like asteroids and big space colonies could have too. But I think that it is not the key for make a successful colonization.

There are three ways to sustain a colony: trade for what you can't produce (yet), gather money from a (religious) community to sustain the colony, or accept to live less affluently. Combinations are possible.

edit: reading advice: I agree to everything I don't respond to.

[Paul451]

Belatedly:

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,

Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.

[JasonAW3]

Belatedly:

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,

Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.

Actually, in the 1920's it cost hundreds of dollars, sometimes upwards of $1000 for Air Travel across the Atlantic. (the last one was for first class passage). Due to inflation, this would be roughly the equivelent of several hundred thousand or more today.  (as a inflation example, some 70 odd years ago, when my fathert was a young child, people could buy a cheese burger for ten cents.  (And THAT was at a Boardwalk amusment park!)

  While Air Travel didn't cost millions of dollars, it was usually priced far outside of the average person's budget.

[high road]

Belatedly:

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,

Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.

I don't remember the exact words I googled, so I can't find the exact site anymore. However, the sites I do find with this number, place it in the 1930, and already adjusted for inflation. That explains a lot. The drop in prices seemed amazingly steep, and such high fares before regular airlines were erected seemed strange. I was googling on my smartphone when writing that post, so I didn't do as much fact-checking as I should have.

Here's today's link:
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/what-international-air-travel-was-like-in-the-1930s-1471258414

[nec207]

Belatedly:

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,

Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.

Actually, in the 1920's it cost hundreds of dollars, sometimes upwards of $1000 for Air Travel across the Atlantic. (the last one was for first class passage). Due to inflation, this would be roughly the equivelent of several hundred thousand or more today.  (as a inflation example, some 70 odd years ago, when my fathert was a young child, people could buy a cheese burger for ten cents.  (And THAT was at a Boardwalk amusment park!)

  While Air Travel didn't cost millions of dollars, it was usually priced far outside of the average person's budget.

Okay so a plane ticket in the 1920's cost $1,000!! How much did it cost to buy house and car back in the 1920's? And the American middle class today making $60,000 a year what did they make in the 1920's.

You can get nice home now for $300,000

While Air Travel didn't cost millions of dollars, it was usually priced far outside of the average person's budget.

I'm not sure what you trying to say that back than it did not cost millions of dollars but back than people got paid less and every thing cost less. Now people are getting paid more and every thing is costing more.

So $1,000 plane ticket back than would be a million plain ticket today?

Don't forget if you were paying NASA or the Russians to get into space it would be close to 100 million!! Even at $10,000 per kilo of mass is lot.

So if the private sector saying they can do it for million per person to LEO and hundred million  per person to get to mars that is really cheap over the government!! But even with price that low it still too high for the middle class.

Remember the USA is paying Russia $70 million for each astronaut to LEO!!!

Is is lot more price of a plane ticket.

[nec207]

The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.

This vision of value set by trade I think that is not completely correct.

First, you forget easily that America already has humans. Native americans show America as valuable. The value of the things is relative and subjetive to the people that live there.

Those natives got there by migration: each generation going a few miles further in search for food. Not exactly what the Europeans were looking for when they got to the new world. (though it is what they found: potatoes, corn,...). If we need to get to Mars to get more food, we're screwed.

That it is the reason because I think that robots has a lot of sense. Trade routes on space are expensive by complexity, specially if involve deep gravity wells. So I think that the key is develop good local economies enough to build these enough quality life. For complex goods or rare elements like platinum group materials could have sense trade. And on orbit trade like for little gravity bodies like asteroids and big space colonies could have too. But I think that it is not the key for make a successful colonization.

There are three ways to sustain a colony: trade for what you can't produce (yet), gather money from a (religious) community to sustain the colony, or accept to live less affluently. Combinations are possible.

edit: reading advice: I agree to everything I don't respond to.

 
The point of any colony on earth or in space must have reason.

1 profit ( unfortunately space mining today is not profitable) Unless they bring space cost down
2 Market ( has to be jobs there)
3 higher standard of living

Well unfortunately two and three harder to do.

Most people on earth would not go into space even for free unless there is jobs and higher standard of living .

I think what the posters above was saying to me the first generation of immigrants would have to be rich people and the government that would have to put in infrastructure and market , to get people to want to move there.

Remember people are not going to move there if there is no jobs there and there is better and higher standard of living on earth than there.

Don't move there and think there is going to be walmart, costco ,hardware store and mall!! All that will need to be put in.

 

[nec207]

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!!

What you are calling colonization is actually just migration. Colonization is moving to somewhere where you everything needs to be built from the start. Before there were cars. Before wages were higher, although expected profits and land claims were bigger, to compensate for the big risk of dying from disease, fights with the natives, starvation, storms while at sea, etc. The Americas were badlands for quite a while after colonization started, when compared to Europe.

The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.

Be assured that the first exploration ventures (that's before colonization took place), when calculated in todays value, cost millions. Or maybe even billions if you want to use 'average incomes' rather than 'real value' to correct for money depreciation and social evolution.

You forgetting one thing!! If the weather was really bad and nothing grew in America it would be empty today. People that found the new world where amazed.

Remember natives Indians and your mom and kids can set up farm and grow food. Take trees down to build a house!!  Used wood to cook your food and keep you warm. You can't do this on mars.

It requires skilled people and lots of money.

Your next door neighbor with no high school with luck can build sale boat and go from US to Europe with luck you may get there and not drown. You can't do this in space. You need very skilled people, lots of money to test and build your rocket and lots of money to get into it and go.

You need technology to keep you alive to get there and well you are there. All costly lots of money.

If space was water oceans and the earth was flat thus very easy to get into space no technology needed to get into space it would be very different today.

But getting into space is hard and extremely costly and space is a hostile environment.
 

[scienceguy]

You forgetting one thing!! If the weather was really bad and nothing grew in America it would be empty today. People that found the new world where amazed.

Remember natives Indians and your mom and kids can set up farm and grow food. Take trees down to build a house!!  Used wood to cook your food and keep you warm. You can't do this on mars.

It requires skilled people and lots of money.

Your next door neighbor with no high school with luck can build sale boat and go from US to Europe with luck you may get there and not drown. You can't do this in space. You need very skilled people, lots of money to test and build your rocket and lots of money to get into it and go.

You need technology to keep you alive to get there and well you are there. All costly lots of money.

If space was water oceans and the earth was flat thus very easy to get into space no technology needed to get into space it would be very different today.

But getting into space is hard and extremely costly and space is a hostile environment.
 

For these reasons, do you think it would be better to terraform Mars before we start a colony? That's what they did in the movie "Red Planet". They nuked the poles to free up water and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to heat it up then introduced a photosynthetic organism once it was warmer. The photosynthetic organism then made oxygen.

[scienceguy]

I just wanted to add, that according to wikipedia, there is around 10^15 m^3 of CO2 in both poles of Mars. If we were to melt and sublime all of that with nuclear bombs, it would make 10^18 gaseous m^3 of CO2, enough to make a 1 atm atmosphere on Mars up to 10 000 m.

[RonM]

You forgetting one thing!! If the weather was really bad and nothing grew in America it would be empty today. People that found the new world where amazed.

Remember natives Indians and your mom and kids can set up farm and grow food. Take trees down to build a house!!  Used wood to cook your food and keep you warm. You can't do this on mars.

It requires skilled people and lots of money.

Your next door neighbor with no high school with luck can build sale boat and go from US to Europe with luck you may get there and not drown. You can't do this in space. You need very skilled people, lots of money to test and build your rocket and lots of money to get into it and go.

You need technology to keep you alive to get there and well you are there. All costly lots of money.

If space was water oceans and the earth was flat thus very easy to get into space no technology needed to get into space it would be very different today.

But getting into space is hard and extremely costly and space is a hostile environment.
 

For these reasons, do you think it would be better to terraform Mars before we start a colony? That's what they did in the movie "Red Planet". They nuked the poles to free up water and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to heat it up then introduced a photosynthetic organism once it was warmer. The photosynthetic organism then made oxygen.

It would take a long time before Mars was habitable, but if a future society is willing to pursue a long term plan, it could be done.

I just wanted to add, that according to wikipedia, there is around 10^15 m^3 of CO2 in both poles of Mars. If we were to melt and sublime all of that with nuclear bombs, it would make 10^18 gaseous m^3 of CO2, enough to make a 1 atm atmosphere on Mars up to 10 000 m.

As long as the new CO2 atmosphere was above the Armstrong Line, people could go outside without a spacesuit. Just need an oxygen tank and mask. No need to wait for higher pressure or wait for the microbes to create a breathable atmosphere.

The amount resources need to terraform Mars is staggering, but it is possible.

[KelvinZero]

The amount resources need to terraform Mars is staggering, but it is possible.

Rather than staggering, I would say it is simply undefined and not something to worry about at this instant in time.

In half a century it might become very plausible with an acorn-full of genetic engineering, nanomachines, magic pixie dust or some such. Our abilities in those areas are doubling every decade or so... so I just don't worry about it. There is plenty to do in the short term.(eg prop depots, ISRU, CCLS).

[Paul451]

Actually, in the 1920's it cost hundreds of dollars, sometimes upwards of $1000 for Air Travel across the Atlantic.

The first Orteig flight was only in 1927 and required a specially modified aircraft, so I have to call BS here.

Due to inflation, this would be roughly the equivelent of several hundred thousand or more today.

No, it wouldn't. $1000 in 1927 is the equivalent of $14,000 today. (1915-2015, $1000 is only $24,000 today.) About the same as a modern first class trans-Atlantic flight.

Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.

I don't remember the exact words I googled, so I can't find the exact site anymore. However, the sites I do find with this number, place it in the 1930, and already adjusted for inflation. That explains a lot. [...] I was googling on my smartphone when writing that post, so I didn't do as much fact-checking as I should have.

No worries. It just struck me as odd given the price of actual aircraft at the time.

But even that inflation-corrected $20,000 flight was England to India, 8-days with luxury hotel stops all the way. If you planned out a similar 8-day route today (at the same level of luxury and same number of stops) I suspect it would cost high 5- to low 6-figures, and that's just flying first class.

To get the same level of luxury and service while in the air, you'd probably need to hire a private aircraft. The cheapest private flight I could find between London and Mumbai was $50,000 for a six-seat turbo-prop plane. For a luxury jet, plus service, you are looking at over $100,000 per day. So you'd be looking at 7-figures for an equivalent 8-day flight, IMO.

and such high fares before regular airlines were erected seemed strange.

Actually there were airlines even in the very early '20s. (Some of them actually built their own aircraft.) Even in the bi-plane cloth-over-wood era, there were airlines flying regular passenger routes.

[Paul451]

Slightly more on-topic...

I just wanted to add, that according to wikipedia, there is around 10^15 m^3 of CO2 in both poles of Mars. If we were to melt and sublime all of that with nuclear bombs, it would make 10^18 gaseous m^3 of CO2, enough to make a 1 atm atmosphere on Mars up to 10 000 m.

The heat of sublimation of CO2 is 570 kJ/kg. Assuming 1 tonne per m^3 density of CO2 ice (solid dry-ice is 1.4 tonnes/m^3), the the energy required to evaporate 10^15 m^3 of CO2 ice to vapour is 5.7e24 J. Or around 1.3 billion 1 megaton nuclear detonations.

So no.