Space travel is getting interesting again

[ParkCungHee]

1. You don't know me. You have no idea what I know.

That's why you guys need to rocket fight. Get to work!

 

[Crezth]

1. You don't know me. You have no idea what I know.

2. Again, I NEVER said anything but the moon. Anything past that, which would require much scientific research, as stated earlier, would be MUCH more expensive than orbit or the moon, which is without a doubt were space tourism would start. I never said Mars. I never said an asteroid belt. Just to preempt you, I never said another galaxy or back in time either.

3. They are dipping their toes. Thus, my prediction was 50 years for this to happen.

4. I don't care what a single company has done. As I said, it may take 50 years.

5. Never said it made me correct, just that I am more connected to this than 99% of people. PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth.

1. I'll grant you that. But a degree in astronomy does not, by itself, an expert in space travel make.

2. Even the moon is not happening.

3. I'll admit that if the companies continue on this path for the next 50 years they'll probably get to the moon. But I think you greatly overestimate the power of the free market and its willingness to accept repeated and distinctly unprofitable failure.

4. You mean the preeminent private corporation in the field of space exploration? Bah, who cares what they do.

5. It's irrelevant is what I'm saying. I mean, by that logic my words are just as valid as, if not more valid than, yours.

EDIT: Also, getting something into orbit ~= going into space proper.

 

[wilycoyote]

1. I'll grant you that. But a degree in astronomy does not, by itself, an expert in space travel make.

2. Even the moon is not happening.

3. I'll admit that if the companies continue on this path for the next 50 years they'll probably get to the moon. But I think you greatly overestimate the power of the free market and its willingness to accept repeated and distinctly unprofitable failure.

4. You mean the preeminent private corporation in the field of space exploration? Bah, who cares what they do.

5. It's irrelevant is what I'm saying. I mean, by that logic my words are just as valid as, if not more valid than, yours.

EDIT: Also, getting something into orbit ~= going into space proper.

1. Let's move on from this point. You don't know me, stop attacking me as the arguer and instead just attack the argument.
2. This and your answer to #3 contradict each other.
3. Maybe, but that is my opinion.
4. IN 50 YEARS who knows who will be the preeminent company in the field.
5. Just stop putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Never claimed that to be the case. However, how are you defining "space proper"? I only meant to say "amazing awesome space," which starts at low Earth orbit.

 

[Skwink]

Well, space is cool and all, but before we go there let's finish exploring our own planet.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, space is cool and all, but before we go there let's finish exploring our own planet.

But we've pretty much done it, all the worthwhile stuff at least, haven't we? Or do you mean mineral finds and the like?


Oh, and I'm enjoin the rocket scientist discussion.

 

[Skwink]

But we've pretty much done it, all the worthwhile stuff at least, haven't we? Or do you mean mineral finds and the like?

http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html

The ocean covers 71 percent of the Earth's surface

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes.

 

[Dumanios]

Well, space is cool and all, but before we go there let's finish exploring our own planet.

I agree, we still don't know exactly how deep that trench is.

 

[Bootstoots]

The problem as I see it isn't that the basic science needed to get into space is unknown, it's that it's inherently extremely expensive to launch something into outer space and it appears unlikely that we will determine a way to make space exploration (besides Earth orbit) profitable. Hence the need for governments to finance space exploration.

wilycoyote, I don't think anybody questions your astronomy credentials, but can you think of any ideas that would make private spaceflight to the Moon (or beyond) profitable? It appears to me that the costs needed to reach the Moon with a manned spacecraft are necessarily on the order of billions of dollars per flight, given the enormous energy costs, design and maintenance of spaceships, etc. It would be difficult to finance such a program even with extremely wealthy tourists. Or do you think it would be likely that costs per spaceflight could be reduced by a couple of orders of magnitude, and if so, do you have any ideas? I'm genuinely curious...

 

[wilycoyote]

The problem as I see it isn't that the basic science needed to get into space is unknown, it's that it's inherently extremely expensive to launch something into outer space and it appears unlikely that we will determine a way to make space exploration (besides Earth orbit) profitable. Hence the need for governments to finance space exploration.

wilycoyote, I don't think anybody questions your astronomy credentials, but can you think of any ideas that would make private spaceflight to the Moon (or beyond) profitable? It appears to me that the costs needed to reach the Moon with a manned spacecraft are necessarily on the order of billions of dollars per flight, given the enormous energy costs, design and maintenance of spaceships, etc. It would be difficult to finance such a program even with extremely wealthy tourists. Or do you think it would be likely that costs per spaceflight could be reduced by a couple of orders of magnitude, and if so, do you have any ideas? I'm genuinely curious...

I suggested a 50 year development time for the costs to comedown, as you suspected. In the early days of computers 40 years ago (or whatever it is) computers couldn't be built by anything less than a government or large organization. Now, that isn't the case. Advances in electronics (perhaps from the computer industry) and materials (from NASA, defense companies, plane manufacturers) would bring it down and so on. Plus, new energy production and propulsion techniques promise HUGE PROFITS and developments in this area are clearly relevant here. If today's costs hold in the future, I grant everyone that it probably would never be in a company's financial interests to pursue such avenues.

 

[innonimatu]

Sorry, I still don't see any business case for it. Only wishful thinking.

 

[wilycoyote]

Sorry, I still don't see any business case for it. Only wishful thinking.

Well, fortunately, unlike most of the topics on these boards, we will see what happens and have a definitive answer as to what is the correct argument. I mean this in a genuine tone, not a superior one.

 

[Bootstoots]

I suggested a 50 year development time for the costs to comedown, as you suspected. In the early days of computers 40 years ago (or whatever it is) computers couldn't be built by anything less than a government or large organization. Now, that isn't the case. Advances in electronics (perhaps from the computer industry) and materials (from NASA, defense companies, plane manufacturers) would bring it down and so on. Plus, new energy production and propulsion techniques promise HUGE PROFITS and developments in this area are clearly relevant here. If today's costs hold in the future, I grant everyone that it probably would never be in a company's financial interests to pursue such avenues.

I don't know about the computer analogy - computing allows for rapid, incremental advances that have allowed exponential growth, and commercial applications have made computing advances profitable for essentially the entire history of computers. I'm a lot more skeptical about energy generation and propulsion - it seems that every purported advance in energy generation for the last 50 years hasn't panned out. Of course science is an unpredictable beast, so I'm holding out hope that I'm wrong, but as of yet it seems to be very difficult to generate energy economically. Do you know offhand of any plausible ideas that would drive energy costs for spaceships down? New forms of propulsion, for instance?

 

[Crezth]

1. Let's move on from this point. You don't know me, stop attacking me as the arguer and instead just attack the argument.
2. This and your answer to #3 contradict each other.
3. Maybe, but that is my opinion.
4. IN 50 YEARS who knows who will be the preeminent company in the field.
5. Just stop putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Never claimed that to be the case. However, how are you defining "space proper"? I only meant to say "amazing awesome space," which starts at low Earth orbit.

1. I'm sorry, I'll continue to attack your arguments.

2. Nope. I said the moon isn't happening, not that it couldn't happen.

3. mmk

4. This would be the crux of my point. Everything you have said so far has been baseless speculation. There's absolutely no reason for any of it except your desire for it to happen. The only argument you've offered as to why or how is that you're an astronomer. Then I pointed out that all attempts at private space travel have, so far, been expensive disasters. You ignored that in order to say "50 years!" It's circular reasoning.

5. But I- but then you- b... okay.

And by space proper I mean outside of Earth's orbit. The technology for putting satellites in orbit is orders of magnitude less complicated than that required to go outside of it. So you're comparing apples and oranges when you say that our ability to put satellites in orbit is demonstrative of our command of space flight technology.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well, space is cool and all, but before we go there let's finish exploring our own planet.

Don't you worry, we will be mining the ocean floor long before we will be mining asteroids.

 

[wilycoyote]

1. I'm sorry, I'll continue to attack your arguments.

2. Nope. I said the moon isn't happening, not that it couldn't happen.

3. mmk

4. This would be the crux of my point. Everything you have said so far has been baseless speculation. There's absolutely no reason for any of it except your desire for it to happen. The only argument you've offered as to why or how is that you're an astronomer. Then I pointed out that all attempts at private space travel have, so far, been expensive disasters. You ignored that in order to say "50 years!" It's circular reasoning.

5. But I- but then you- b... okay.

And by space proper I mean outside of Earth's orbit. The technology for putting satellites in orbit is orders of magnitude less complicated than that required to go outside of it. So you're comparing apples and oranges when you say that our ability to put satellites in orbit is demonstrative of our command of space flight technology.

Look, if you premise is that this can't happen in the next 20 years, I agree with you. I think there will be commercial flights into low Earth orbit, but not to the moon. If you don't like my argument that it could happen in 50 years, fine. Let's move on from that. We disagree. I grant you, I can't predict the future. I just know what people are working on right now. I know that if dark matter is to be found it will probably be relatively soon since that is perhaps the most focused upon subject in astronomy for the last few years. That and the search for extrasolar planets, which anyone can read about in the news lately. Likewise, I believe that the work happening now in physics departments, aerospace industry companies, etc. is applicable to the future of private space travel.

At its core, our argument is all speculation. I grant you that. I can't prove anything will happen because I can't travel into the future. I think our argument has run its course, so please let's stop making the same points over and over again.

I don't know about the computer analogy - computing allows for rapid, incremental advances that have allowed exponential growth, and commercial applications have made computing advances profitable for essentially the entire history of computers. I'm a lot more skeptical about energy generation and propulsion - it seems that every purported advance in energy generation for the last 50 years hasn't panned out. Of course science is an unpredictable beast, so I'm holding out hope that I'm wrong, but as of yet it seems to be very difficult to generate energy economically. Do you know offhand of any plausible ideas that would drive energy costs for spaceships down? New forms of propulsion, for instance?

The analogy was only about how much cheaper stuff gets with time, though the current state of computers wasn't envisioned during their early development (according to the little bit of knowledge I have in that particular field). Predicting commercial demand for space travel is something people will have to predict themselves. Is tourism enough? Is resource harvesting? Colonization? I can't say... well, in the distant future, I would think these things will become extremely important, but that would probably be after my time.

As for propulsion, who knows? There are many theories out there including using improved magnets to get to space, more efficient solar energy collectors once in space, sailing on solar winds, extremely complicated methods involving resonances, things that can only be understood using the language of quantum physics, etc. I won't claim to be an expert in propulsion. However, I know there are people out there, at just about every American university physics department (and I'm sure outside of the US), working on such issues. The great thing about such environments is that scientific research for research's sake (and not necessarily for profit) is acceptable there.

Ultimately, all of my arguments are along the lines of this: I am a firsthand witness to research in these fields and I believe that the people and institutions involved have a desire, and ability to accomplish this task. This is fundamentally my opinion. I can't prove it. Take from this what you will.

 

[Crezth]

Likewise, I believe that the work happening now in physics departments, aerospace industry companies, etc. is applicable to the future of private space travel.

But as an aerospace engineer I can tell you that private space travel is virtually impossible without government space programs. It's what I and many people in this thread have been trying to tell you.

With a well-funded NASA and similar programs in the EU, China, and Russia, then yes, private space travel will take off and probably flourish. But as long as the government space programs get strangled and downsized, you won't see private space enterprises go beyond literally exploding on the launch pad.

 

[wilycoyote]

But as an aerospace engineer I can tell you that private space travel is virtually impossible without government space programs. It's what I and many people in this thread have been trying to tell you.

With a well-funded NASA and similar programs in the EU, China, and Russia, then yes, private space travel will take off and probably flourish. But as long as the government space programs get strangled and downsized, you won't see private space enterprises go beyond literally exploding on the launch pad.

Fine. That is your opinion. You are involved in one industry involved, I'm involved in another. If I say you are correct, can we just agree that we have two different opinions (even though this would be a sort of logical paradox)?

 

[Crezth]

Fine. That is your opinion. You are involved in one industry involve, I'm involved in another. If I say you are correct, can we just agree that we have two different opinions (even though this would be a sort of logical paradox)?

That's a false equivalency, but whatever. Agree to disagree.

\/\/\/ ugh

 

[wilycoyote]

That's a false equivalency, but whatever. Agree to disagree.

Not an equivalency, in fact the exact opposite... we have different points of view within the field, that is all. Please, just stop.

 

[Ayn Rand]

This is definitely happening. We only need one serious technology breakthrough and we are off the starting blocks and racing for every resource in the solar system. Major space travel is much closer than people think.