Space, the final frontier.

[Frank]

How and when do we manage to get there?

I mean, going to the Moon was pretty cool, but we've slacked awfully since then. The only thing we have at the moment is old launchers and the not-so-awe-inspiring International Space Station, that still depends mostly on half a century old Russian rockets to make it happen...

And, what is the point of that ISS? I don't get it.

 

[pax]

Short of a revolution in propulsion we wont get there much more than we already have... Im looking forward to astronomy however as there is tech on the drawing boards that will give us exploration of interest in the next few decades.

 

[hoom]

I try to stay out of this bit of the forum but:
We can only get out there by governments spending $2,000,000,000,000 on space instead of invading countries.

 

[Diplo]

How and when do we manage to get there?

The question should be: why do we need to get there? Sure, space should be explored but there's no real reason to send humans to do that.

 

[fellix]

"We" need to, because humanity (or at least the most developed part) is obviously spending valuable resources and time doing stupid things here, on the holy little Earth, for the last 50~60 years.
And if you can't think a good reason for space treks, consider a good one for target practice on an asteroid. One have just passed the Earth orbit at just 400K km distance.

 

[NRP]

And, what is the point of that ISS? I don't get it.

A welfare program for the aerospace industry.

 

[Geo]

Private ventures is the long term key (as John Carmack would probably tell you). Government log-rolling isn't going to do it. We really got a "false dawn" first time around in manned space travel for "mine is bigger than yours" cold war reasons.

 

[Guden Oden]

And, what is the point of that ISS? I don't get it.

To build experience, and to act as a test vehicle for future endeavours naturally.

The question should be: why do we need to get there?

If nobody can think of any other reason, then simply because it's there. Don't need anything else really, though fortunately there are plenty of other (though not neccessarily better) reasons.

Sure, space should be explored but there's no real reason to send humans to do that.

There's every reason to send humans. Send a mars rover and watch it through a TV camera on earth how it gets itself stuck on a rock. All you can do, 40 million kilometers away, is sit there and say, "shit! it got itself stuck on a rock!", and that's adios muchacos as far as your rover mission is concerned. Your $3 squillion space colonization program, foiled by a four billion year old piece of silicate.

Robot probes have a TERRIBLE success rate. TERRIBLE. If it's not imperial-to-metric conversion factors that gets bungled, it's unforeseen technical difficulties. Antennas that never extended, retro-rockets that didn't fire, parachutes that failed to deploy, and so on and so on, almost ad nauseam.

Humans are, while more demanding from an environmental standpoint, infinitely smarter and more resourceful than some kind of a machine. Machines will never conquer space.

 

[pcchen]

I remembered that NASA once did an experiment, to let scientists finding fossils though a rover. They put the rover on a very fossil rich badland, but no fossil was found. It would be very easy for anyone to find these fossils if they are actually there.

So, if we really want to know what happened on Mars, we need to send real human there.

 

[_xxx_]

The question should be: why do we need to get there? Sure, space should be explored but there's no real reason to send humans to do that.

The Earth is not big enough for the number of people we have today, let alone in 20-30 years. We'll be a few billions more by then, so the solution is either to find alternatives or to bang our heads until the numbers go down to an acceptible level.

Though I think we're still very far away from flying anywhere outside the solar system or even colonization efforts within the solar system.

 

[London Geezer]

The Earth is not big enough for the number of people we have today, let alone in 20-30 years. We'll be a few billions more by then, so the solution is either to find alternatives or to bang our heads until the numbers go down to an acceptible level.

Though I think we're still very far away from flying anywhere outside the solar system or even colonization efforts within the solar system.

Now now... We won't be "a few billions more" in 20-30 years...

 

[nutball]

How and when do we manage to get there?

Slowly, I'd say. Frankly I will be very surprised if I get to see a man walk on Mars in my lifetime.

I mean, going to the Moon was pretty cool, but we've slacked awfully since then. The only thing we have at the moment is old launchers and the not-so-awe-inspiring International Space Station, that still depends mostly on half a century old Russian rockets to make it happen...

And, what is the point of that ISS? I don't get it.

It's a remnant of the Cold War IMO. It's hugely expensive for what it does.

Private ventures is the long term key (as John Carmack would probably tell you). Government log-rolling isn't going to do it. We really got a "false dawn" first time around in manned space travel for "mine is bigger than yours" cold war reasons.

I don't think that the private sector has the vision to do it. Carmack's Space Toy, the X-Prize stuff is all very small beer, and really going nowhere without billions of dollars of investment. Space is expensive, and it's not expensive because Governments do it and they're inefficient, it's expensive because it's difficult and dangerous. So far I've seen very little sign that the private sector is willing to pony up the readies in large enough dollops to do space properly. They're confining themselves to playing around the edges (eg. Rutan, Carmack), or chasing after Government giga-dollars for unmanned stuff (ie. the big players in aerospace).

The private sector currently doesn't have a compelling reason to invest in manned space-flight in the quantities of dollars that are necessary to make it ubiquitous. Space tourism is nice and all, but with all the associated risks it's unlikely to be a big money-spinner in the next few decades I'd say. What else is there? Well there are minerals out there, but then there are minerals down here too which are far easier and less risky to exploit.

If someone found oil on the Moon however...

Robot probes have a TERRIBLE success rate. TERRIBLE. If it's not imperial-to-metric conversion factors that gets bungled, it's unforeseen technical difficulties. Antennas that never extended, retro-rockets that didn't fire, parachutes that failed to deploy, and so on and so on, almost ad nauseam.

Manned space flight is roughly ten times the cost of an equivalent robot probe. You can have eight robot probes fail and still spend less on a mission than sending a man. The general public seem to get all sensitive about their astronauts being turned into Toast-E-Chunks by the rockets they're riding, or suffocating in space due to lack of oxygen. So we call for safety, but safety costs Big Time. If we accept there's huge risk and that lots of people are going to die, we have a chance in space (this was why the Cold War space-race worked). With the 21st century risk-averse attitude of the West, we're not going to achieve much. The Chinese have a chance.

 

[_xxx_]

Now now... We won't be "a few billions more" in 20-30 years...

We will. The earth population has doubled since the 50's.

 

[_xxx_]

it's expensive because it's difficult and dangerous.

It's expensive because of expensive materials used and the lack of any kind of mass-production more than anything else.

 

[London Geezer]

We will. The earth population has doubled since the 50's.

[nitpick]
Well that's around 60 years
[/nitpick]

 

[_xxx_]

[nitpick]
Well that's around 60 years
[/nitpick]

Hehe, so I'll nitpick a bit more. Since we'tre double the count, we'll also produce double as many children, so make it 25-30 years. Also, we tend to die at a higher age, so that will also add some.

 

[Simon F]

There's every reason to send humans. Send a mars rover and watch it through a TV camera on earth how it gets itself stuck on a rock. All you can do, 40 million kilometers away, is sit there and say, "shit! it got itself stuck on a rock!", and that's adios muchacos as far as your rover mission is concerned. Your $3 squillion space colonization program, foiled by a four billion year old piece of silicate.

Though I don't necessarily disagree, surely the same could be said of humans? "Oh dear, I've run out of air and water".

The general public seem to get all sensitive about their astronauts being turned into Toast-E-Chunks by the rockets they're riding, or suffocating in space due to lack of oxygen.

Or burnt to death because of too much oxygen

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I think propulsion is the main problem as has been said. Conventional rockets are just crap, we need something better.
I did see some news release on better Ion thrusters being developed that overcame their problem of being no good as main propulsion.
I htink accelerating the particles through multiple rings instead of just 1-2.

 

[Geo]

The private sector currently doesn't have a compelling reason to invest in manned space-flight in the quantities of dollars that are necessary to make it ubiquitous. Space tourism is nice and all, but with all the associated risks it's unlikely to be a big money-spinner in the next few decades I'd say. What else is there? Well there are minerals out there, but then there are minerals down here too which are far easier and less risky to exploit.

Asteroid belt or bust, baby.

The legal infrastructure has been heavily weighted against private manned ventures until relatively recently. That will have long-term effects now that its starting to get in place.

 

[Guden Oden]

Manned space flight is roughly ten times the cost of an equivalent robot probe. You can have eight robot probes fail and still spend less on a mission than sending a man.

But what the hell is the probe supposed to DO once it gets there, regardless of if it's cheaper or not? The US mars rovers, despite whirring around up there for months, haven't covered more than say a football pitch's worth of surface, if even that much.

If we send a person, we can send someone with scientist training, someone who can think and reason and look with their eyes at stuff and evaluate things. Probes can't do that, even though they may only cost a tenth of the guy.

If you can buy a gold ring for $1000, would you rather buy a sack of crap instead for $100, because it's CHEAPER? No of course not.

And even if you built a probe that cost as much as a man, all you'd end up with was a sack of crap that cost ten times as much.

The general public seem to get all sensitive about their astronauts being turned into Toast-E-Chunks by the rockets they're riding, or suffocating in space due to lack of oxygen.

But the general public has little or no qualms about getting behind the wheel after a night of heavy drinking, just goes to show that the general public is pretty stupid.

Flying off into outer space is dangerous, no question about that but hell, we do dangerous things all the time. I would say it's roughly 638 million billion times more likely you or I get killed in an accident while crossing the street, than either of us dying on a rocket shooting up into space. So where are your priorities, man?

If nobody was allowed to die, we could never have things like air travel, cars... Hell, even horses would be thrown out the window, they if anything are a dangerous and unpredictable mode of transportation. Asthma - can kill you. Asthma medication - can kill you too! And the big shocker: EVERYONE WILL DIE!!!! AAAAAIIIEEEEE!!!

So again. Where are our priorities?

I think propulsion is the main problem as has been said. Conventional rockets are just crap, we need something better.

Nuclear rockets. Squeeze a heavy fluid through a feckin' hot fission reactor = giant thrust.

That, or start working on a warp drive or stargate or somesuch, though that'll most likely remain pie in the sky tech until the end of time.