Human space travel - prospects?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Rats would be a good start. Ants and fleas have exoskeletons and don't have hearts, so I don't think that would be much use. One could put up a revolving-box-o-rats for not much more than a typical communications satellite. Retrieving them would probably take a shuttle mission, though.

I like your idea, lets try to get some grant money!

LLH

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

So, in summary...

1. Travelling to the stars is very, very difficult indeed.

2. Stay here and we definitely all die, with conditions worsening more and more rapidly with time.

3. We like a challenge and survival/fear concentrates the mind wonderfully.

4. Right now we know squat about what will happen in the near future.

Given these facts I'd say if we dont all wind up dead at our own hands then we will definitely spread out into the stars at some point, even if it's not at a tremendous rate. We have motive and opportunity, and who knows what discoveries and advances will be made in the next century or so?

By way of illustration I offer those old American 'house of the future' shows which portrayed kitchens packed full of massive gas-burning ovens of industrial proportions which could cook a chicken in 90% of the time of then conventional ovens. Wow! And then from out of the blue comes microwave technology and transistors, which some radar technicians inadvertantly discover can melt your chocolate bars in your pocket in seconds flat. I do not trust writers visions of the future, we seem to be far more inventive, resourceful and lucky in real life.

 

[DanishDynamite]

That's basically blank. In 2005 dollars, it cost 183 billion dollars for the entire Apollo project. That's still a large chunk of change (and about 40% of NASA's total budget). So, that would be 457.5 billion dollars (2005USD) over 10 years (46 billion/annum) for NASA's budget. I'll qualify that not all of this went to Apollo, but it shows the amount of money for the space missions for that decade of time. So, to save the human race, we'd need at least 100 times that (50 trillion dollars - tell me that's nothing (it's nearly five times the US economy of 2004)).

Sorry, I don't understand the numbers you mention above. Perhaps you could explain a bit more?

Anyway, I googled for NASA's budget and found this. It appears that the 60 billion dollars I posted previously was either somewhat off or took inflation into account during the 10 year period. In actual numbers NASA's entire budget from 1960 to 1970 was just 37 billion dollars.

For what? A cold, slow death in space? Where are you sending this neo-Noah's ark? Moon? To Mars? Titan? Another star (none of which is known to have inhabitable planets)?

Are you asking why I would like to preserve the human race, part of which is my children and grandchildren?

NASA doesn't plan things for two years and then launch. Most robotic missions are in planning and development stages for at least a decade, with another decade to get the go ahead, build, and launch.

And?

We have no rocket capable of launching, say, 50 people into space on a long-term (permanent) space mission. The Saturns are rust and noone knows how to rebuild one. The current large booster rockets cannot do more than 30 tons. On such short notice, we'd need something capable of 30000 tons (fuel, supplies for about 50-100 years, oh, and the humans)! Good... luck...

What is up with the constant pessimism? If the incentive is there, and preserving the life of your children and grandchildren is often a great incentive with most people, 30 years is plenty of time.

 

[kuroyume0161]

NASA started 'the space race' right after Sputnik and it ended in 1972, so you should include 1959, 1971, and 1972. That puts the total at 45.26 Billion over 13 years.

The numbers I quoted are adjusted to 2005 dollars, which correlates to the figure of 45 Billion that I saw there as well. Why even talk about 1960's costs when they are irrelevant to what it would cost today.

Preserve the human race how, though? If this were 1350 and you had a boat would you shove your family onto it and push it out to sea to save them from the plague without any destination in mind and insufficient resources? That seems rather ill-advised, cruel even.

I did the calculations to show that your optimistic 30 years is BS. Look, 30 Kilotons and even a super-rocket capable of payloads of 100 tons (the shuttle's maximum payload is about 32 tons and it is designed for massive payload lifts) would take how many launchs? 300! How many shuttle launches have there been since 1981? 114 in 25 years at a cost of 145 Billion dollars with two 'catastrophic' failures. 2% loss (which isn't horrible).

Factor that into the 300 launches to build, say, a mega ship in space and supply it and you have to have at least 310 launches in 30 years. But it would take about 10 years to develop and test this so-called super-rocket to lift 100 tons at a time. So, you're down to 20 years to manufacture and launch 310 rockets. You're insane. That's a rocket launch every 23 days (if the numbers haven't sunk in yet).

I'm somewhat pessimistic about generalized human space exploration, but the pessimism on the scenario, which you proposed in the first place, is wholly justified. You ask for a nearly impossible task and then say that my realistic (based on real data) assessment is pessimistic. You betcha!

It could be done, yes. It would take global cooperation never seen on the planet Earth ever before in all of recorded history. Somehow I still don't think the impending obliteration of Earth would be incentive enough. You obviously haven't followed history and current events.

ETA: If you are going to argue "Why not use the 30 ton launchers we have now?", the calculations there are even more disappointing. That would require 1000 launches of 30 years, which figures as one launch every TEN days. That is inconceivable to be possible for the next hundred years even in anyone's wildest imagination.

 

[DanishDynamite]

NASA started 'the space race' right after Sputnik and it ended in 1972, so you should include 1959, 1971, and 1972. That puts the total at 45.26 Billion over 13 years.

We are not talking about the space race, at least as far as I understand. We are talking about getting to the moon.

The numbers I quoted are adjusted to 2005 dollars, which correlates to the figure of 45 Billion that I saw there as well. Why even talk about 1960's costs when they are irrelevant to what it would cost today.

Sorry, but you qouted a figure of 457 billion which I didn't understand. And another figure 100 times larger. Could you explain those?

Preserve the human race how, though? If this were 1350 and you had a boat would you shove your family onto it and push it out to sea to save them from the plague without any destination in mind and insufficient resources? That seems rather ill-advised, cruel even.

Maybe i would. But I don't understand the relevance to this topic.

I did the calculations to show that your optimistic 30 years is BS. Look, 30 Kilotons and even a super-rocket capable of payloads of 100 tons (the shuttle's maximum payload is about 32 tons and it is designed for massive payload lifts) would take how many launchs? 300! How many shuttle launches have there been since 1981? 114 in 25 years at a cost of 145 Billion dollars with two 'catastrophic' failures. 2% loss (which isn't horrible).

Sorry, but once again I don't understand what it is you are calculating. Are you looking at how many launches (at pre-sure death intervals) it would take to rescue the entire human race? If so, why?

Factor that into the 300 launches to build, say, a mega ship in space and supply it and you have to have at least 310 launches in 30 years. But it would take about 10 years to develop and test this so-called super-rocket to lift 100 tons at a time. So, you're down to 20 years to manufacture and launch 310 rockets. You're insane. That's a rocket launch every 23 days (if the numbers haven't sunk in yet).

Again, you've not mentioned your assumptions.

I'm somewhat pessimistic about generalized human space exploration, but the pessimism on the scenario, which you proposed in the first place, is wholly justified. You ask for a nearly impossible task and then say that my realistic (based on real data) assessment is pessimistic. You betcha!

In what way are they pessimistic?

It could be done, yes. It would take global cooperation never seen on the planet Earth ever before in all of recorded history. Somehow I still don't think the impending obliteration of Earth would be incentive enough. You obviously haven't followed history and current events.

Wrong. The reason I'm a big advocate for substantially increasing funding to space access, is exactly because I'm up to speed on current events!

ETA: If you are going to argue "Why not use the 30 ton launchers we have now?", the calculations there are even more disappointing. That would require 1000 launches of 30 years, which figures as one launch every TEN days. That is inconceivable to be possible for the next hundred years even in anyone's wildest imagination.

I've not been arguing that at all.

 

[sphenisc]

Next steps to make interplanetary travel practical...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18925351.200

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8599

 

[sionep]

The 'Stupid Teleportation topic' thread in the 'Religion and Philosophy' forum reminded me of a particular conundrum that we, as a highly technological society, face.

No, teleportation is REAL . It is a REAL physical phenomena. This has been done, recently where information about the physical properties of one particle was teleported (spin, momentum, energy, etc...) from Room_A to another particle in a different room (Room_B) of the same laboratory complex. I am not sure whether it was published in the 'Physics Review Letters' or some other journals. Now the particle (Room_B) that received the teleported information regarding the physical properties of the first particle (Room_A) acquired those properties, which makes the second particle (Room_B) an exact replica of the particle in Room_A.

Now, I think, most people still think of teleportation as in Star Trek. Teleportation is not like that in Star Trek, where physical material disappears here and re-appear there. Teleportation means the transportation of information about physical properties of one particle to a second particle at a different location, where the receiver acquires those properties which makes itself a twin-brother of the particle that donates (teleports) those physical properties. That is everything (physical properties) is the same between the donor and the receiver. Now , the technology and the science of teleportation, is still in its infancy at this stage , but imagine in the next 300 years, when the technology catches up and man will be able to teleport small objects such as a bacteria. I think, teleporting a huge object like human as in Star Trek, is impossible to happen ever. However I will keep an open mind on that.

I will try to hunt of where I have seen , the publications on this teleportation. i will post back here, regarding the title of the publications, and the publisher, if I have some luck.

 

[antihippy]

I don't believe that the technical issues for human space travel are insurmountable. People have touched on various pieces here, but political will and the prevaling instinct for conservatism spring to mind as the limiters. I like the analogy of the rock climber.

"Why do you climb the mountains?"
"Beacause they are there."

Curiosity is something which I think should be indulged. If we didn't climb the mountain, look in the next valley, sail the seas then we wouldn't be where we are today. Sometimes things should be done just because we want to know. It's not enough to send a probe (imo) you should send humans because they can touch the dirt, taste the air and experience the trip.

If this sounds all dewy eyed then it is.

We are making a mess of this world, and we shouldn't keep all of our eggs (us) in one basket, we should (should we wish) be allowed to explore. Cost-benefit is ok if you want a hard econmical assay of a project, but there are some things not apparent in such hard headedness. Columbus discovered the Caribbean because he was motivated to look for an alternative route to Asia, but if he had decided "No I will continue the way everyone else has" then it might have taken longer to discover the rest of the Americas[1]. Eventually someone will say "I am bored of this" and get enough people motivated to get us into space. When will it happen? I am not sure. I am pretty sure that a lot of people will remain behind and say "I don't want to go; it's nice, warm and safe" and that is fine - but those who do want to go should, and they will get to see something that no one on the planet has.

[1] A BIG over simplification - I know.

 

[Nancarrow]

Next step: Space elevators.

That is all. (for now)

 

[Vagabond]

Next step: Space elevators.

That is all. (for now)

We could certainly get to Mars if we are willing to foot the massive bill. But I believe travel to other stars is impossible. There are some things that can't be surmounted. You can't alter the laws of physics.

We would have to be able to travel .5 C at minimum to even consider a trip to the nearest star and that would be about a 20 year round trip. We aren't anywhere near that and there isn't any reason to think we ever will be. It would cost trillions to send people there and the chances of their actual arrival and return would be exceedingly slim. The distances are just too vast and we are too fragile to make the journey.

 

[uruk]

The Saturns are rust and noone knows how to rebuild one. The current large booster rockets cannot do more than 30 tons. On such short notice, we'd need something capable of 30000 tons (fuel, supplies for about 50-100 years, oh, and the humans)! Good... luck...

This kind of statement always chaps my hide. All the construction plans, manuals, and flight info are safely stored. None of it is lost. Most of the enginieers are still alive. A few are still working for NASA.

Here is a link to a web site to someone who is slowly posting much of the Manned space program documentation on the web.
see here:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/saturnpdf.htm

We still know how to make the F1 engines, We still know how to built Saturn Vs. We still have the know how to go to the moon. We were able to do it in less than 10 years. If we had to do it again, we could do it in less time. (provided the beauocracy allows) All the hard work has already been done.

Please do your homework before you make statements like that!

 

[uruk]

At our present understanding of TLOP, interstellar travel is impractical. (unless it is some kind of generational ship. Which would still require some significant advancements in our knowledge of engineering and biospheres.)

One way of protecting our species and cultures is to do something similar to the voyager plaque. One massive informational ark that contains video, text, and artifacts of our cultures and genetic materials of several species including humans and several completely mapped human genomes. Kind of a memorial deepspace probe. If nothing can be done to save humanity, then atleast a "we were once here" memorial.

 

[Vagabond]

This kind of statement always chaps my hide. All the construction plans, manuals, and flight info are safely stored. None of it is lost. Most of the enginieers are still alive. A few are still working for NASA.

We still know how to make the F1 engines, We still know how to built Saturn Vs. We still have the know how to go to the moon. We were able to do it in less than 10 years. If we had to do it again, we could do it in less time. (provided the beauocracy allows) All the hard work has already been done.

Please do your homework before you make statements like that!

You need to take your own advice. He never said it would be impossible to recreate them. He just meant it's not something that could be done quickly to avoid an imminent disaster. This is a prime reason why we continue to build 3 billion dollar attack subs when we don't have anybody to use them against. Once you disperse the workforce and technology it is VERY difficult to get it back again. There are techniques that are developed in the process of manufacture that aren't necessarily on the plans. You might be able to get the people who did it still but they might not remember the stuff you need. It's possible but it would be VERY time consuming and costly.

 

[uruk]

You need to take your own advice. He never said it would be impossible to recreate them. He just meant it's not something that could be done quickly to avoid an imminent disaster. This is a prime reason why we continue to build 3 billion dollar attack subs when we don't have anybody to use them against. Once you disperse the workforce and technology it is VERY difficult to get it back again. There are techniques that are developed in the process of manufacture that aren't necessarily on the plans. You might be able to get the people who did it still but they might not remember the stuff you need. It's possible but it would be VERY time consuming and costly.

His words were: "The Saturns are rust and noone knows how to rebuild one"
I was objecting to his statement that we do not know how to rebuild (or build) a Saturn V or Saturn V class launch vehicle.

If you read Tom Kelly's book You'll know that NASA was obsessive about documenting the entire design and manufacturing processe during the Apollo program. The documents are archived at the National Archives and Records Administration. The documents about the Apollo program from JSC alone take up over 730 feet of shelve space. And that's only a small fraction of the total documentation stored. Not to mention all the film. (Gruman filmed just about every aspect of the design, experimentation and building processe of the Lunar Module. A DVD is going to be released in August of this year which is derived from those films) Even on-the-spot, seat-of-the-pants repair techniques (such as a proceedure to seal fuel line leaks using a microwave magnetron and gold rings) were documented.

Building an F1 rocket engine is not much different from building the Block II shuttle engine. As a matter of fact, they are simpler in design than the shuttle engines. Our present engineers are more or less capable of doing the job.

Space Shuttle engine:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSME.html

F-1 rocket engine:
http://www.answers.com/topic/f-1-rocket-engine

Of course bulding a Saturn V is not something you can do overnight. You would have to re-tool and bring the engineers up to speed. But that can be done in way less than 10 years if necessary. (beaurocracy willing)

 

[Vagabond]

I think ten years is a bit long too. It can certainly be made shorter with a huge influx of cash. But, why rebuild Saturn 5 anyway? It wouldn't be any harder to just design a better one.

 

[uruk]

I think ten years is a bit long too. It can certainly be made shorter with a huge influx of cash. But, why rebuild Saturn 5 anyway? It wouldn't be any harder to just design a better one.

I agree. The Saturn V was designed for one specific mission (although they did used it to launch skylab). And the design certainly has room for improvement and be brought up to date with todays technology. It would make a great heavy lifter but it would be kind of impractical for what the OP was all about.

Like you said, it would just be better to design something new from scratch rather than fall back to old technology.