Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

[spoiler="About new European space exploration"]As a (not-so-)brief comment on non-commercial space research in Europe: It'll need backing from a nation-state. ESA will work fine if it's backed by billions from France, Germany and UK (and pennies from a host of other nations). Alone, no European nation does possess the money to blow off into something that doesn't provide immediate returns, such as manned missions to deep space. If NASA needs to wrestle with the Congress, ESA depends on a good number of independent parliaments, most of which will be quite happy to get extra populist points from the voters by axing unnecessary costs. Example: Galileo "is a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests" (according to a German CEO working in the industry). That's 20 billion euros that could be fed to somewhere else. I doubt developing a manned spacecraft is anywhere that cheap. If a major supporter withdraws their billions, you'd possibly see the whole program fail on the drawing board. As such, the only way ESA could hope to develop a manned spacecraft would be to buy old plans from NASA/Roskosmos and modernize the design. (Admitted, I'm not working in that industry, but I assume that my pessimism is warranted - and as such, in the near future men will travel into space on board vessels built in the private sector, China, India or Russia.)[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I think that Bigelow Aerospace and commercial LEO manned transport (SpaceX, DreamChaser, & Boeing) will allow some of smaller nations to have actual manned space science programs.  Sending a group of two or three scientist for 4 months every few years to conduct science experiments is more affordable when you only have to pay for those 4 months.  When the company supplying the facility starts to have customer/renters rotating through on a regular basis the cost of the orbiting lab is amortized across those customers.  The individual national publics do not see a $100B orbiting lab paid for with their money, but rather see money going to support science utilizing a commercial facility needed for the research.  The company gets to treat all of its customers relatively the same, be they a national entity, another company, or an individual.

The "trick" to opening up manned space science to smaller nations is to make it affordable for them to have send astronauts/scientists/explorers interesting places.  I have no illusions that the Finns, the Poles, or the Dutch (as an examples) do not want to fund a a full-up manned program if it is just for Frenchmen, Germans, and Italians to go.  However, they may be willing to spend some money ($20m-$50m) to send an native astronaut up to a commercial station for a period of time.

I think this will be happening by the end of the decade, if not before.

By 2030, I think a small commercial outpost on the Moon will host a rotating population of scientist from a multitude of nations.  There may be those who have a more permanent presence based on desire/funding availability, but anyone willing to pay for the 3-4 day trip there, a few weeks on the surface, and the 3-4 day trip back will be able to go there. 

Lastly, the people calling the shots on these outpost/vehicles will not be the US or Russian governments, but the company providing the service.  The contracts will be very clear and hopefully little in the way of political issues on the service providers end.[/spoiler]

And that is the real struggle - what product does an orbiting city provide to the Earth?  Answering that simple question makes the future so close, but so far away happen.  The technology exist and has for decades, it is a lack of will and/or need.

In essence, that'd require a consumer or military application where some of the components must be manufactured in zero-G (grown crystals or something like that).

The only way I see that happening is if governments and companies invest in studying what the free fall environment provides.  Another area that many advocate is the development of Space Based Solar Power (SBSP).  One of the biggest challenges of SBSP is collecting the required components in orbit.  It either requires a lot of launches or a program to capture an asteroid or mine the Moon.

The shuttle had some great achievements, but it was an unreliable craft.

May the next generation not cost so many lives.

This is a touchy subject.  Measured risk must be taken, it is something we all do everyday.  It may be that more lives are lost in the next generation of vehicles, but not because the vehicles will be less safe or safer than the Shuttle.  It will be because we, humanity, take a greater risk.  The first Astronauts & Cosmonauts were test pilots for a reason, they faced death everyday and understood the risk.

The mistake is tricking ourselves into thinking it will not be dangerous, that we can somehow make ourselves safe from the dangers that abound.

[Mithfindel]

The shuttle had some great achievements, but it was an unreliable craft.

May the next generation not cost so many lives.

This is a touchy subject.  Measured risk must be taken, it is something we all do everyday.  It may be that more lives are lost in the next generation of vehicles, but not because the vehicles will be less safe or safer than the Shuttle.  It will be because we, humanity, take a greater risk.  The first Astronauts & Cosmonauts were test pilots for a reason, they faced death everyday and understood the risk.

The mistake is tricking ourselves into thinking it will not be dangerous, that we can somehow make ourselves safe from the dangers that abound.

A next-generation craft - or even, an upgraded shuttle - would likely be expected to do better on similar missions, if that is what is wanted. (Which, as Dex noted, might not be the case.) Also worth to remember that those missions that end in a big bang get a lot more visibility than most "routine" flights. I don't have the facts, but I have a hunch that flying into space is safer than driving to work.

[Lyn Farel]

I don't think the economical power of the european countries is the real issue. France and Germany are the 4th and 3rd economical world powers. Like it has been said above, it is mostly a problem of priorities and "doctrines", which means the current goal is more to launch satellites to watch the big bang and the dark age following it, for pure cosmoslogical science (which is good, probably a lot more than space travel btw in term of potential results, and definitly less expensive). And priorities ? Well, space stuff is sadly one of the things that have the smallest priority in terms of investment to the eye of governements (and the national debts are nothing compared to the USA, so thats not even an excuse). Another problem is the EU in itself. It still lacks of power and coherence to fund something.

So unless the EU or some governements find a good and solid plan to guarantee advantages to private companies like Aerospace, and a solid help for them to start something, nothing will be done. But heh honestly I would like to see all the world nations that have something like a space programm to cooperate and do it together. It would be much more easier in term of resources.

[Raphael Saint]

it is mostly a problem of priorities and "doctrines", which means the current goal is more to launch satellites to watch the big bang and the dark age following it, for pure cosmoslogical science (which is good, probably a lot more than space travel btw in term of potential results, and definitly less expensive).

I've never really understood why so much is dedicated to such (like a few of the supercolliders).  What exactly are we to glean from knowing what happened in the first 0.000000001 miliseconds after the big bang?

[Lyn Farel]

Basically, everything. Some optimists even think they can unlock most of the physical properties of the universe when they will be able to see beyond the Dark Ages. Things like what happened to antimatter ? Where did it go ? How does quantum and relativistic physics work for black holes and supermassive phenomenas ? What was before it, if we ever are able to see beyond ? Multiverse theories ? And ofc the graviton particule we have been trying to put in evidence since centuries and have yet to prove it, and black matter/energy issues related to Big Crush/Big Rip theories.

tldr : We learn by watching the stars, or the infinitly small. It has always been like that, starting with particules theory, etc. If you know how the universe works, then you can reproduce it.

[Ken]

I've never really understood why so much is dedicated to such (like a few of the supercolliders).  What exactly are we to glean from knowing what happened in the first 0.000000001 miliseconds after the big bang?

Basically, we learn more about the fundamental nature of the universe.  Quarks, for instance, were demonstrated to exist by early particle accelerators.  Research into that really tiny and strange level of physics (that advanced experiments like the LHC help us map out) is the pure science that leads to applied science that helps us realize potential future technologies like quantum computing.  Think about it this way:

Imagine that both common sense and the current scientific model of math tells us 2 + 2 = 5.  Imagine that this has been observed, duplicated, proven, and widely accepted, but we know there's something not quite right about it (obviously).  The model seems incomplete, if functional for our everyday purposes.  When we look deeper and try to expand the limits and complexity of our understanding of maths we realize that our current model has allowed us to work only in integers.  So we take a closer look at what's happening, throw out some wild theories, set up some experiments, and see that what our old model proved, 2 + 2 = 5, is in truth a more precise and complex equation: 2.5 + 2.5 = 5.

The same value is inherent in research conducted in the zero-g environment of space... not to mention all the practical (now) everyday devices that were born of necessity in order to get us into space in the first place.  One thing to always bear in mind with science is that few experiments will ever be of the sort that break through to grand new discoveries and new realms of understanding.  Most science consists of meticulous planning, testing, tweaking, re-testing, analysis, and publication of rather mundane confirmations that the Trusty Old Theory is still solid or that the Crazy New Idea doesn't really hold up.  By no means, however, is that less cool day-to-day science unimportant or a waste of money.  It is, in fact, vital.

There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter.

[Ken]

As for NASA, they're still going out there.  Now, if only they had added a little Europa lander to this payload...

[orange]

Juno is a heavy bird and is amazing in terms of how little power it will have to conduct its science.

A Europa lander/digger is something being looked at, but it may need a bigger rocket and getting bigger than an Atlas V 531 means a Delta IV Heavy currently.  All of this drives up mission cost; when some members of Congress are calling to cut the Agency entirely.

[orange]

And the reason NASA will not be leading the way in the next 2 decades.

[Lydia Tishal]

I do not understand the preoccupation with the moon. From an energy standpoint Mars is significantly easier to reach than the Moon. It actually takes less energy to get to the Moon from Mars than it does to get there from Earth.

[Ken]

It actually takes less energy to get to the Moon from Mars than it does to get there from Earth.

Too bad we're not on Mars

Energy efficiency beside (although I would like to see your hard numbers on the energy needed for Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars transits and landings), the Moon is much closer to the bulk of humanity.  We can reach the Moon inside a few days and have an endless supply of convenient launch windows.  Lunar development would supply us with a convenient staging point for deep space flights that require--yep!--a lot less energy than any we'd have to lift out of Earth's gravity well first.  In addition to being close and readily visible, I'd argue that the Moon is our natural "harbor" for striking out into the solar system and beyond.

[orange]

Delta-V Budgets Comparison

You can use less fuel going somewhere with an atmosphere by using Aerobraking to slow down.  Because of Aerobraking, an option is to it is 6.4 km/s delta-V to the Moon and that has to all be done with fuel & rockets.

In theory you can use areobraking to come out of the To-Mars transit orbit, enter Low Mars Orbit (LMO - it even has a Muppet mascot), and then to the surface.  This means you have to create only 3.8 km/s delta-V to get to the To-Mars transit orbit.

In general, I disagree with the idea of going to the Moon to go elsewhere.  Arguments in favor of mining the Moon for fuels or materials and refining and manufacturing parts there seem to forget the "getting to the Moon" part and how many Earth built rockets, delta-V, and fuel that will take.

[Seriphyn]

Isn't the issue with space travel right now is that there is no real point to sending humans into space, when robots can do the same job for far far cheaper?

[Lyn Farel]

I have heard that you can find so much deuterium on the Moon with which one single ton of it could light the Earth for one year. Not sure though if it is harvestable yet in terms of technology.

[Lydia Tishal]

Dex hit the nail on the head. . .not only can you use the Martian atmosphere to aerobrake into LMO or a surface approach, you can ride parachutes almost all the way to the surface. With the Moon, you have to use rockets for everything.

Another factor is the relative orbital velocity of Earth and Mars. A rocket leaving Earth orbit can do so with a low velocity relative to the Earth and a high velocity relative to the Sun because it starts with Earth's orbital velocity as a base. On Mars approach the rocket still has a high sun-relative velocity, but because Mars is moving in the same direction it can have a low Mars relative velocity. You can essentially tailor the orbit to keep your Mars approach velocity low. You can’t do that with the Moon, because it moves with the Earth around the Sun so there’s no velocity difference to take advantage of. You can use the same trick going from Mars to either the Earth or the Moon. That’s why takes less energy to get to the Moon from Mars than from the Earth.

Finally, you can use the Martian atmosphere to produce both propellant and oxygen for life support. The propellant can be used both for a return space vehicle (sparing you from having to haul the propellant from Earth) and as fuel for combustion engines for ground vehicles. I don’t remember the specific reactants off the top of my head, but it is possible to build an air-breathing engine using locally produced fuels that will combust with the CO2 in the Mars atmosphere. The Moon may have a shallower gravity well, but you also need to spend energy to land the propellant you’ll need to take off again.

Using the Moon as a staging area for interplanetary missions sounds good, but the math just doesn’t work. Even allowing for a large quantity of easily accessible water on the Moon, it would still be easier to ship it in from Mars.

@Seriphyn: Yes. . .and no. The real problem with manned spaceflight right now is that it shares funding with unmanned missions, and money used in support of manned flight takes money away from robotic missions. But there are things robots just can’t do, not because the robot is incapable, but because of the 40 minute communications delay between Mars and Earth and the fact that even the best expert system is really stupid. Besides, at some point humans are going to have to learn to live off world. Moving from science to settlement requires humans. And there is good logic in the argument that advanced propulsion systems won’t be developed until there is an economic reason to get somewhere quickly. And that means a goodly number of people living on the other end.

@ Lyn: I think you’re thinking of Helium-3. Deuterium exists on the Moon (and on Mars) but also on Earth. It may be more plentiful on the Moon, but not to the point where it would be worth importing it. Helium-3, though, is deposited on the lunar surface by the solar wind (but not on the Earth or Mars, because of their atmospheres) and it is fantastic stuff when used for theoretical fusion reactors (De-He3 reactions are much “cleaner” than De-T reactions. Tritium is pretty nasty stuff, actually) but those fusion reactors do not exist and there will be no market for lunar He3 until they do. Someday, we will mine the Moon for He3, but that day is a long way off.