(Speculative) historical circumstances for space exploration

[innonimatu]

We're currently in the egg-chicken phase. We need a larger market to really create a competitive environment that would drive down costs, but this market is unlikely to emerge without cheaper access to space. This is where I think governments need to intervene to get us over this phase.

But you won't get a self-sustained market for space travel because there is no profitable reason to go to space outside Earth's orbit. Tourism won't cut it and there is nothing out there that we cant get cheaper right here on Earth! Market for space exploration is a pipe dream, and will remain a pipe dream until there is commercial traffic between self-sustained settlements in space. And that threshold cannot be achieved at current technological levels. Actually, the only possibly (arguable) place for a settlement within reach is Mars, ans sustainability of settlements there is extremely dubious.

 

[Winner]

But you won't get a self-sustained market for space travel because there is no profitable reason to go to space outside Earth's orbit.

... now.

If low Earth orbit becomes a commercialized space, then I can see how lunar bases could be linked to it (because it is much easier to bring stuff from the Moon to LEO than from Earth itself; distances matter little in these calculations).

Tourism won't cut it and there is nothing out there that we cant get cheaper right here on Earth! Market for space exploration is a pipe dream, and will remain a pipe dream until there is commercial traffic between self-sustained settlements in space. And that threshold cannot be achieved at current technological levels. Actually, the only possibly (arguable) place for a settlement within reach is Mars, ans sustainability of settlements there is extremely dubious.

Meh, exclamation marks aren't a good substitute for arguments.

Yes, today, it's bloody difficult to do anything in space. That can (and will) change, actually it's already happening. Low Earth orbit alone is the first to be developed economically, because it gives you two things - zero-g environment and almost perfect vacuum. It is just a matter of time till we find something really good that can only be produced in zero-g (new medicines, electronic parts, unique alloys, crystals, etc.) Once you start developing LEO, then the Moon will become a really interesting place to get (some) of your required raw materials from. And once you have a commercial presence on the Moon, then other possibilities will surely arise.

Nobody says human expansion into the rest of the Solar System will occur rapidly and suddenly, it will take a long time. It is also highly unlikely that it will be a process organized by some government. Governments can of course speed up the process by leading the way (and they should), but if we relied only on government programmes to drive human progress, we'd still be stuck in the bronze age.

As for Mars, the comment you made about the "extreme dubiousness" of its colonization is pretty off the mark.

 

[tokala]

It is just a matter of time till we find something really good that can only be produced in zero-g (new medicines, electronic parts, unique alloys, crystals, etc.) Once you start developing LEO, then the Moon will become a really interesting place to get (some) of your required raw materials from. And once you have a commercial presence on the Moon, then other possibilities will surely arise.

One would think after desperately looking for decades for something that's really worth doing in zero-g environment, and not finding anything, that this is a non-starter?
And regarding the vacuum, 10^(-10) to 10^(-11) mbar is routinely achievable here on earth, there isn't much that can't be done there, even if you want really pure/defect-free materials.

One the other hand, in space you are in real trouble if you want to get rid of waste heat, which means more stuff you have to haul into orbit if you want to do any meaningful amount of manufacturing.

It's just that darn expensive, energetically as well as economically; unless humanity is awash in energy and money, nothing even remotely resembling space colonisation will happen.

And invoking the magicks of "free enterprise" wont help if you look at upfront costs of multi-digit billions, with not even a hint in sight of what might give any meaningful return on investment.

For a fraction of the energy and money all sorts of more useful things could be done here on earth, if nothing else than just plastering the deserts with solar plants.

 

[wilycoyote]

One would think after desperately looking for decades for something that's really worth doing in zero-g environment, and not finding anything, that this is a non-starter?
And regarding the vacuum, 10^(-10) to 10^(-11) mbar is routinely achievable here on earth, there isn't much that can't be done there, even if you want really pure/defect-free materials.

One the other hand, in space you are in real trouble if you want to get rid of waste heat, which means more stuff you have to haul into orbit if you want to do any meaningful amount of manufacturing.

It's just that darn expensive, energetically as well as economically; unless humanity is awash in energy and money, nothing even remotely resembling space colonisation will happen.

And invoking the magicks of "free enterprise" wont help if you look at upfront costs of multi-digit billions, with not even a hint in sight of what might give any meaningful return on investment.

For a fraction of the energy and money all sorts of more useful things could be done here on earth, if nothing else than just plastering the deserts with solar plants.

I'm pretty sure you just wrote exactly the opposite of what I would have written, outside of the expense issue, which goes without saying, like "life is not fair."

 

[Winner]

One would think after desperately looking for decades for something that's really worth doing in zero-g environment, and not finding anything, that this is a non-starter?

If that were the case, which it isn't, then perhaps. But the truth is that we've just about now started to do material science in space (on the ISS), so we're just beginning to understand what is possible.

And regarding the vacuum, 10^(-10) to 10^(-11) mbar is routinely achievable here on earth, there isn't much that can't be done there, even if you want really pure/defect-free materials.

I didn't say it is impossible, it's just difficult and thus expensive. So is spaceflight, but there you have the certainty that your vacuum and zero-g environment will last.

One the other hand, in space you are in real trouble if you want to get rid of waste heat, which means more stuff you have to haul into orbit if you want to do any meaningful amount of manufacturing.

It's just that darn expensive, energetically as well as economically; unless humanity is awash in energy and money, nothing even remotely resembling space colonisation will happen.

Yeah yeah. People flying in the sky, what a silly idea. Everybody knows that flying machines heavier than air are impossible

And invoking the magicks of "free enterprise" wont help if you look at upfront costs of multi-digit billions, with not even a hint in sight of what might give any meaningful return on investment.

I am not invoking any magic here. I am saying that there most likely are economically profitable things to do in low Earth orbit, and that if LEO is thus developed, then settlement of the Moon won't look that outlandish any more. I don't know how long it will take, but a few decades is as good a guess as any.

At least I don't have the arrogance to claim that something will never happen and that everything that's been proposed in the area of spaceflight is just nonsense.

For a fraction of the energy and money all sorts of more useful things could be done here on earth, if nothing else than just plastering the deserts with solar plants.

We're doing many stupid things down here that are so criminally expensive that spaceflight pales in comparison. I don't understand why people focus so much on the expenses related to spaceflight when all the money that has EVER been spent on space-related activities doesn't even reach the cost of the bank bailouts during the recent economic crisis.

 

[tokala]

If that were the case, which it isn't, then perhaps. But the truth is that we've just about now started to do material science in space (on the ISS), so we're just beginning to understand what is possible.

What about: Skylab, Spacelab, Mir, zero-g flights, drop tubes ...
Certainly not "just started"

I didn't say it is impossible, it's just difficult and thus expensive. So is spaceflight, but there you have the certainty that your vacuum and zero-g environment will last.

Well, I cobbled together a UHV chamber from some spareparts scrounged out of the university dungeons, and running costs of a few thousand $ per year, with uptimes measured in month.
Obviously you cannot get more than several seconds of microgravity unless in orbit, though.

Yeah yeah. People flying in the sky, what a silly idea. Everybody knows that flying machines heavier than air are impossible

So, you think thermodynamics and energy conservation are not valid for space cadets

We're doing many stupid things down here that are so criminally expensive that spaceflight pales in comparison. I don't understand why people focus so much on the expenses related to spaceflight when all the money that has EVER been spent on space-related activities doesn't even reach the cost of the bank bailouts during the recent economic crisis.

At least here I can agree.

Though I still consider manned spaceflight mostly a waste of money.
Robotic probes/satellites will in most cases do just fine.

 

[Winner]

What about: Skylab, Spacelab, Mir, zero-g flights, drop tubes ...
Certainly not "just started"

Now go an check what kind of experiments were actually conducted, for how long, and what were the results. AFAIK only the ISS has some equipment that allows us to really look into various possibilities. ESA for instance wants to test hundreds of possible "recipes" for metal alloys manufactured in zero-g to find out about their properties. There is even a commercial company selling experiment space on ISS to other companies.

Sadly, the ISS only goes so far. We should launch a few more space stations (much smaller than the ISS, and thus far cheaper) to conduct more experiments. Maybe some private companies will do that, at least that's whom Bigelow AS want to sell their modules to, besides government customers.

So, you think thermodynamics and energy conservation are not valid for space cadets

They are, and they don't prevent humanity from exploiting the outer space.

At least here I can agree.

Though I still consider manned spaceflight mostly a waste of money.
Robotic probes/satellites will in most cases do just fine.

To that I say, why should the robots have all the fun?