The thread for space cadets!

[strijder20]

Fusion power plant on board, perhaps?

 

[Crezth]

The problem is thrust. Our current best engines would take something like 15,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri (iirc). That's not good enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

"End of the century" is a tall order, because conservative numbers like 0.05c would have it taking 80 years. IOW, we'd need to launch pretty soon!

 

[tokala]

The problem is thrust. Our current best engines would take something like 15,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri (iirc). That's not good enough.

That's for fission reactor powered plasma drives?
Guesstimating from the wiki snippet here, travel times in the hundreds of years appear to be feasible with todays tech.

What would be the limits in scaling up an existing drive, bolting on a reactor and a really large amount of fuel, assuming the contraption is assembled from modules in LEO?

 

[Winner]

The problem is thrust. Our current best engines would take something like 15,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri (iirc). That's not good enough.

Not thrust per se, but Isp. Chemical and nuclear-thermal rockets are out of question. Viable alternatives include fusion (various types), anti-matter 'catalysed' fusion, anti-matter rockets, light sails, magsails, and various combinations of those.

"End of the century" is a tall order, because conservative numbers like 0.05c would have it taking 80 years. IOW, we'd need to launch pretty soon!

That's why it's a challenge. I guess the minimum average travel speed here is 0.10c to give you some semi-realistic development/construction time. Of course if you can achieve 0.30c, you can launch as late as 2085, and so on.

 

[Michkov]

Anyway, I present a challenge for all of us here:

what do you think is the best way of getting a probe to the Alpha Centauri system by the end of this century? The goal isn't just a fly-by, but achieving a stable orbit around one of the two stars, releasing smaller probes to study any/all planets there in great detail, and relay the findings back to Earth. Assume virtually unlimited funding and steady political support for the project.

Coincidently I just began reading this http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Project_Longshot/Mission_Model

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

What does anyone think of this?

http://news.yahoo.com/singer-sarah-brightman-could-change-face-private-space-115211430.html

When singer Sarah Brightman launches to space in 2015 or so, she will likely be the most famous non-astronaut to reach orbit.

Brightman has signed a deal to fly in space aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket in the coming years. The classical soprano is thought to be paying upwards of $35 million for a 10-day trip to the International Space Station.

She won't be the first millionaire or billionaire to make such a journey, but she will likely be the most well-known. Brightman first gained fame starring in the original Broadway cast of "Phantom of the Opera" in 1986, and has since seen success as a global recording artist, selling 30 million classical albums and receiving more than 180 gold and platinum awards in over 40 countries.

Personally, I don't get a really good vibe from her...

 

[Crezth]

This is going to be good news for private space travel until the first rocket blows up with a load of millionaires on board.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Let's hope it's a Russian rocket and not a SpaceX or Virgin Galactic one...I don't mean to be a prick, but if it happens I just,hope it's not a US firm that's responsible.

@PE - does it matter who thr tourist is and why?

And someone asked me if there was a google X Prize group near me: I think there is at least one design team at my university going for a prize but I'm not sure. May I ask why the question was asked?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

---

Anyway, I present a challenge for all of us here:

what do you think is the best way of getting a probe to the Alpha Centauri system by the end of this century? The goal isn't just a fly-by, but achieving a stable orbit around one of the two stars, releasing smaller probes to study any/all planets there in great detail, and relay the findings back to Earth. Assume virtually unlimited funding and steady political support for the project.

Anyway you cut it, the project would be absurdly expensive to get something to another star system in 88 years. Absurdly expensive. At that point you might as well send a manned flight as I don't think the costs would be appreciably higher.

Or just focus on solar system colonization.


I don't see a plausible scenario to get a probe to another system in 88 years really. To even try, we'd have to have a working fusion engine, which is probably at least 50+ years off.

 

[Winner]

Well, then let's ask "why"? We understand fusion pretty well now. It's going so slow because fusion research is expensive (requires brand new facilities and cutting edge equipment) and there is a lack of competition in the field (basically there is only one large project of developing a fusion reactor, plus a few smaller projects).

In a way, building a fusion drive may be easier that building a fusion power reactor, especially as far as inertially confined fusion is concerned.

An interstellar probe project wouldn't exist in a vacuum (I just stole your pun) - it would of course be a part of a larger space programme, especially if we wanted to use anti-matter to power the probe - producing and storing the required quantities of it on Earth would verge on suicidal insanity.

Personally, I'd go for maximum speed and utilize magsail "parachute" to slow down at Alpha Centauri (in order to save mass).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Antimatter is out of the question unless we get enough of it by 2090 to zoom there at .99c.

Fusion won't work, even as an engine, because of the massive power inputs required unless we figure out how to make it self sustaining, new power out - and make that work in space.

We aren't anywhere near that.

 

[Winner]

Antimatter is out of the question unless we get enough of it by 2090 to zoom there at .99c.

Fusion won't work, even as an engine, because of the massive power inputs required unless we figure out how to make it self sustaining, new power out - and make that work in space.

We aren't anywhere near that.

We'll soon be with ITER. Anti-matter can be produced in great quantities if we do it right.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We'll soon be with ITER. Anti-matter can be produced in great quantities if we do it right.

Really? I tend to disagree with both points though. I'm not optimistic on fusion or antimatter. Do you have super secret intel to share with me?

 

[Winner]

Really? I tend to disagree with both points though. I'm not optimistic on fusion or antimatter. Do you have super secret intel to share with me?

ITER is planned to be the first energy-positive fusion reactor, and we know how to make antimatter - the only problem is to scale up the production facilities. Personally I like the concept of anti-matter farms - pretty sci-fi stuff, but theoretically doable in 60-70 years time frame.

Fusion isn't something that's in distant future, we know how to do it and we're in the stage of figuring out practicalities. If we threw more money at the problem, we'd probably get there much sooner. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear hysteria in many countries and the costs and lack of guarantees are scaring the politicians from giving the whole thing a stronger backing.

 

[Winner]

repost from a different thread:

---

Well, the only thing I am interested in with respect to this is space policy, so let's see:

12. Space. The United States is currently in a major discussion over our national goals in space. What should America's space exploration and utilization goals be in the 21st century and what steps should the government take to help achieve them?

Barack Obama:

We’re fortunate to be part of a society that can reach beyond our planet and explore frontiers that were only imagined by our ancestors. I am committed to protecting these critical investments in science and technology and pursuing an ambitious new direction for NASA that lays the groundwork for a sustainable program of exploration and innovation.

We have extended the life of the International Space Station, forwarding efforts to foster international cooperation in space, supporting the growth of America’s commercial space industry, and taking on our pressing scientific challenges while continuing the nation’s commitment to robust human space exploration, science, and aeronautics programs.

From investing in research on advances in spaceflight technology, to expanding our commitment to an education system that prepares our students for space and science achievements, I am committed to strengthening the base for America’s next generation of spaceflight. No other country can match our capabilities in Earth observation from space. [1] In robotic space exploration, too, nobody else comes close. And I intend to keep it that way.

Two years ago I set a goal of sending humans farther into space than we have ever been -- to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s [2]. We will continue to operate the Space Station until at least 2020 and perhaps beyond. When our Orion deep space crew vehicle takes its first test flight in 2014, it will travel farther into space than any spacecraft designed for humans has flown in the 40 years since our astronauts returned from the moon. That is progress. [3]

The recent landing of NASA’s Curiosity rover on Mars was a great leadership moment for our nation [4] and a sign of the continued strength of NASA’s many programs in science, aeronautics and human spaceflight. It’s also important to remember that the $2.5 billion investment made in this project was not spent on Mars, but right here on Earth, supporting more than 7,000 jobs in at least 31 states.

My administration has put a big focus on improving science and technology, engineering and math education. And this is the kind of thing that inspires kids across the country. They’re telling their moms and dads they want to be part of a Mars mission -- maybe even the first person to walk on Mars. That’s inspiring.

This exciting work will lead us to important new discoveries and take us to destinations we would have never visited.

1.) Europe's Earth observation programmes are at least as robust and ambitious as Americas.
2.) Setting goals is one thing, doing something to actually make it happen is another. Every president since Kennedy has made such announcements, and neither have seen them through. The fact is, whenever a president sets a goal of getting somewhere long after he leaves the White House, it is almost guaranteed it's not going to happen.
3.) Which is why Obama-appointed NASA administration tried to cancel the Orion altogether at first, and then tried to turn it into an ultra-expensive ISS lifeboat? I'd also question whether doing something less than what was accomplished 44 years ago is truly a sign of progress.
4.) It should be added that Curiosity was conceived and funded by previous NASA administration. The new budget proposals put forward by Obama-appointed people want to slash budgets for planetary exploration, including the robotic Mars programme, and re-allocate the money towards other areas of NASA activity, chiefly Earth observation the president mentioned earlier.

My personal comment - I tend to trust that Obama means well, but he really picked wrong people to take care of space policy. His new vision for NASA and the US space programme has caused chaos and disorganization, not to mention demoralization, in the agency and the subsequent political squabbles with Republicans have led to unprecedented politicization of space policy which really, really hampers prospects for sustainable, ambitious US space programme.

On the other hand, Obama should be commended for continuing to promote (despite vigorous opposition from the oh-so-free-market Republicans) the commercial cargo/crew programme that cradles new, competitive space companies which may one day make access to space cheaper and more routine.

Mitt Romney:

The mission of the U.S. space program is to spur innovation through exploration of the heavens, inspire future generations, and protect our citizens and allies.

• Space is crucial to technological innovation. If we want to have a scientifically trained and competent workforce, we must demonstrate a long-term commitment to the pursuit of innovation and knowledge.
• Space is crucial to the global economy. From agriculture to air transportation, from natural resource management to financial management, it is almost impossible to imagine a world without the space capabilities we have today.
• Space is crucial to national security. U.S. and allied space capabilities provide a source of strategic advantage to military and intelligence functions that has no parallel.
• Space is crucial to America’s international standing. Independent access to space, the launch of satellites, and the travel of citizens to and from space continue to be seen as major technical achievements that convey not only America’s military and economic power, but also the power of American values. The success of private sector enterprises in achieving these objectives opens a new chapter in American leadership.

America has enjoyed a half-century of leadership in space, but now that leadership is eroding despite the hard work of American industry and government personnel. The current purpose and goals of the American space program are difficult to determine. With clear, decisive, and steadfast leadership, space can once again be an engine of technology and commerce. It can help to strengthen America’s entrepreneurial spirit and commercial competitiveness, launch new industries and new technologies, protect our security interests, and increase our knowledge.

Rebuilding NASA, restoring U.S. leadership, and creating new opportunities for space commerce will be hard work, but I will strive to rebuild an institution worthy of our aspirations and capable once again leading the world toward new frontiers. I will bring together all the stakeholders – from NASA and other civil agencies, from the full range of national security institutions, from our leading universities, and from commercial enterprises – to set goals, identify missions, and define the pathway forward.

Focusing NASA. A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities.[1] I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs.

Partnering Internationally. Part of leadership is also engaging and working with our allies and the international community. I will be clear about the nation’s space objectives and will invite friends and allies to cooperate with America in achieving mutually beneficial goals.

Strengthening Security. Space-based information capabilities are the central nervous system of the U.S. national security community. If America is to remain strong as a nation, the national security space programs must remain strong and sustainable. I am committed to a robust national security space program and I will direct the development of capabilities that defend and increase the resilience of space assets. I will also direct the development of capabilities that will deter adversaries seeking to damage or destroy the space capabilities of the U.S. and its allies.[2]

Revitalizing Industry. A strong aerospace industry must be able to compete for and win business in foreign markets. I will work to ease trade limitations, as appropriate, on foreign sales of U.S. space goods and will work to expand access to new markets.[3]

1.) That is true, but what NASA truly needs is a long term vision that doesn't change every 4-8 years. Romney isn't saying what that should be. He mostly correctly sums up what the US space programme is good for, but from what he says here I don't think he has put much thought into what exactly it should accomplish in the next 10-20 years.
2.) This sounds like more militarization of space. The US military has always been uncomfortable with a *civilian* space programme, especially USAF has always tried to develop its own programme and undermine NASA. I fear Romney with all his sabre-rattling is about to give in to their pressure.
3.) ITAR has indeed pulled the rug from under the feet of the US space industry. I am fine with it, because it helps Europe and others to outcompete US aerospace companies. However, if Romney wants to reform it, he will run into conflict with his "national security" agenda. The main reason ITAR is in place is to prevent technology transfers to China and Russia. Liberalizing the market would inevitably lead to such transfers. For this reason, I don't think Romney will facilitate any major change in this policy.

To summarize, I don't think either candidate has a clear idea what to do with the US space programme. It's not on top of their list of priorities, and they will delegate leadership on it to other people, leaving the thing to run itself. NASA has an inbuilt momentum that carries it forward despite the lack of political leadership; however, you can't expect any breakthroughs in terms of human spaceflight or truly ambitious unpiloted mission in such an environment.

 

[dutchfire]

ITER is planned to be the first energy-positive fusion reactor, and we know how to make antimatter - the only problem is to scale up the production facilities. Personally I like the concept of anti-matter farms - pretty sci-fi stuff, but theoretically doable in 60-70 years time frame.

Fusion isn't something that's in distant future, we know how to do it and we're in the stage of figuring out practicalities. If we threw more money at the problem, we'd probably get there much sooner. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear hysteria in many countries and the costs and lack of guarantees are scaring the politicians from giving the whole thing a stronger backing.

Well, honestly, we have been figuring out practicalities since before I was born. Practically, fusion is just very difficult to do well enough to be net positive.

 

[El_Machinae]

And someone asked me if there was a google X Prize group near me: I think there is at least one design team at my university going for a prize but I'm not sure. May I ask why the question was asked?

I asked about Google XPrize teams in your region, because I think those teams are a way that space enthusiasts can leverage their time into actual progress. There's very little a 'space cadet' can do to speed up our quest but, (because the per capita investment is so low) there are a few areas where we can vastly increase our relative contribution. With other areas of progress, the 'cadets' can both give away some of their money and aid with their purchasing decisions. Space? A lot tougher.

 

[Winner]

Well, honestly, we have been figuring out practicalities since before I was born. Practically, fusion is just very difficult to do well enough to be net positive.

Well, also honestly, we haven't had that clear a picture of what it takes to do it. We simply lacked the kind of computer power in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s to properly model plasma behaviour in the reactors, so it was all trial&error. We've come a long way since then and we're getting to the holy grail:

ITER should produce 10 times more power than it needs to achieve fusion. That will happen in the next decade. If more funds were available, the whole testing/demonstration process could be speeded up.

 

[dutchfire]

I don't think JET and the ITER project can really complain about a lack of funds. Culham is almost as large as the CERN laboratory.
The linear fit in your second graph is also awfully suspicious