NationStates Jolt Archive

Who here is excited about the prospect of space travel?

I know I am, that's why I decided to start this thread. What do you see as a reasonable timeline for humans in terms of space travel, IOW, when do you see us building moon bases and sending humans to Mars?

Also, how do you think it would pan out? When will we begin to develop fully-functioning reusable rockets that will take us to the moon and back?

That last question almost had me breaking out in song, but I refrained :p

So, discuss!

Cheers,
The Greek City States of Supville

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation this could very well be the beginning of the Space age ;) I found this link in a thread here on Nationstates but I forget which one and who posted it, otherwise I would credit them...

It's alittle far off for me to be getting too excited.

Who here is excited about the prospect of space travel?

I know I am, that's why I decided to start this thread. What do you see as a reasonable timeline for humans in terms of space travel, IOW, when do you see us building moon bases and sending humans to Mars?

Also, how do you think it would pan out? When will we begin to develop fully-functioning reusable rockets that will take us to the moon and back?

That last question almost had me breaking out in song, but I refrained :p

So, discuss!

Cheers,
The Greek City States of Supville


Oh me me me! But I don't think I'll be living there anytime soon. I am sure one day NASA or MacDonalds will posess reuseable shuttles but that is a long way off. Would you stay in a space hotel?

We could probably have a permanent base on the Moon in twenty years, max, less time if there's oil up there. :p But we could, seriously. And Mars? We could mount an expedition in the same time-frame, I think. There are some issues of the amount of radiation the crew will be exposed to but those should be surmountable (there's an article in Scientific American about that sometime back this year, I forget which issue). But we should do it, absolutely.

... Would you stay in a space hotel?
Sure! Wouldn't be the first time I was tied to the bed. ;)

Sure! Wouldn't be the first time I was tied to the bed. ;)
LOL! I am sure there would be gravity there due to terraforming! But nothing would stop you being tied up anyway!:fluffle:

What do you see as a reasonable timeline for humans in terms of space travel, IOW, when do you see us building moon bases and sending humans to Mars?

Also, how do you think it would pan out? When will we begin to develop fully-functioning reusable rockets that will take us to the moon and back?
I've always been fascinated by the prospect of space travel.

IMHO, NASA isn't the future of space travel. Until it can be made profitable to go into space, things will continue to proceed at a snail's pace. That's why "Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/)" is, IMHO, the future of space travel. They've already contracted for a spaceport (http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/news.asp) in New Mexico. :)

There's no mud in space. :(


...yet. ;)

LOL! I am sure there would be gravity there due to terraforming! But nothing would stop you being tied up anyway!:fluffle:

How would you create gravity by terraforming? The gravitational pull of a planet is defined strictly by its mass. Unless you wanted to make a planet SUBSTANTIALLY bigger (which I can't even figure out how you'd do that). gravity would not be affected by terraforming projects.

Probably easier to make magnetic floors or, in the case of an orbiting object, rotational velocity to create gravity "like" conditions.

I've always been fascinated by the prospect of space travel.

IMHO, NASA isn't the future of space travel. Until it can be made profitable to go into space, things will continue to proceed at a snail's pace. That's why "Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/)" is, IMHO, the future of space travel. They've already contracted for a spaceport (http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/news.asp) in New Mexico. :)

Virgin is everywhere, it's like Google and Micro$oft... combined!

And they say that being a virgin is uncool...:D

There's no mud in space. :(


...yet. ;)
Plenty of frozen mud on Mars. And Titan looks promising, assuming that liquid methane or ammonia can mix with dirt to make mud. :D

But seriously: we've been twenty years away from sending men to Mars for most of my life. At the rate we're going, we will continue to be twenty years away from Mars for the forseeable future. The one wild card in this is China - if they remain committed to their space program, they could do it. This might be just the stimulus needed to revive the moribund US, Russian and European space programs.

For a look at the technical aspects of getting there, see Robert Zubrin's two books: The Case for Mars and Entering Space.

How would you create gravity by terraforming? The gravitational pull of a planet is defined strictly by its mass. Unless you wanted to make a planet SUBSTANTIALLY bigger (which I can't even figure out how you'd do that). gravity would not be affected by terraforming projects.

Probably easier to make magnetic floors or, in the case of an orbiting object, rotational velocity to create gravity "like" conditions.

Well, I've got a lot of junk in my spare room. That could probably add a lot of mass, if you could get it to the moon. :D

Plenty of frozen mud on Mars. And Titan looks promising, assuming that liquid methane or ammonia can mix with dirt to make mud. :D

But seriously: we've been twenty years away from sending men to Mars for most of my life. At the rate we're going, we will continue to be twenty years away from Mars for the forseeable future. The one wild card in this is China - if they remain committed to their space program, they could do it. This might be just the stimulus needed to revive the moribund US, Russian and European space programs.

For a look at the technical aspects of getting there, see Robert Zubrin's two books: The Case for Mars and Entering Space.

China needs to have a major accident that kills some astronauts. Then we'll see their level of commitment. Accidents are inevitable and they sap the will for dangerous exploration. America's space program has barely survived them.

I can't wait until civillian space travel is safe and affordable. I want to see the stars and teh earth from a different perspective.

It's a shame warp drive is unlikely to ever happen. :(

I've always felt the future of humanity lies in outer space. I'm disappointed that we don't already have Moon and Mars bases and exploration of the moons of the gas giants.

China needs to have a major accident that kills some astronauts. Then we'll see their level of commitment. Accidents are inevitable and they sap the will for dangerous exploration. America's space program has barely survived them.

You do have to admit that Chinas' less than exemplary committment to the preservation of human life will make it far easier for them to disregard such incidents than it was in the US.

You do have to admit that Chinas' less than exemplary committment to the preservation of human life will make it far easier for them to disregard such incidents than it was in the US.

Yes, but it's also kind of embarrassing when your glorious manned rockets go 'FOOM' in front of 50 million school children. :p

China needs to have a major accident that kills some astronauts. Then we'll see their level of commitment. Accidents are inevitable and they sap the will for dangerous exploration. America's space program has barely survived them.

I saw a recent show about the history of space travel, and there were a lot of unpublished accidents, especially in the USSR. They didn't kill the space program then because each country was afraid the other would beat them.

What we need is a real space race with two or more countries trying to beat their rivals, just like in the 60's.

Yes, but it's also kind of embarrassing when your glorious manned rockets go 'FOOM' in front of 50 million school children. :p
It's not so embarassing when you control the press so you can pretend it never happened.

Ponder this:

Disregarding the Cold war, did the wars that Humans have waged amongst each other in the Modern era, ultimately help, or hurt the Space program?

I'm not sure myself of whether it hurt or helped. I know that they used rockets designed for war in the propelling of astronauts and cosmonauts into space, but the World Wars alone saw millions upon millions of deaths, and each country was so caught up in developing anything military related that, of course, completely disregarded space as a possible solution.

But hey, who can blame them, they were fighting a war after all...

I saw a recent show about the history of space travel, and there were a lot of unpublished accidents, especially in the USSR. They didn't kill the space program then because each country was afraid the other would beat them.
In fact, in the early days, the Soviets had a policy of not announcing their manned space missions until after the crew had returned safely to earth.

I've heard rumors of one crew that suffered catastrophic life-support failure in orbit, another that burned up on re-entry, and a couple of cases where the capsule's parachutes failed to deploy after re-entry. There is, of course, no official documentation of any of this, so I don't know how credible these rumors might be.

On one hand, the future of humanity in my opinion is definitely in space. Realistically, I can see moon bases within 20-30 years - only 100 years ago, we were first learning the secrets of flight. Seeing us on Mars in that time would be pretty cool.

On another, it does seem a little silly spending billions upon billions of dollars on a dick waving competition to see who can get their phallic national symbol on the surface of Mars first while people the world over are starving to death and dying from easily preventable diseases. Maybe waiting a bit is the best idea - I can't think of too many concrete benefits out of shipping a small group of astronauts out to Mars so that they can have a jolly little stroll around for a bit and then have a nice long trip back home that would really justify the expense at this point in time.

On one hand, the future of humanity in my opinion is definitely in space. Realistically, I can see moon bases within 20-30 years - only 100 years ago, we were first learning the secrets of flight. Seeing us on Mars in that time would be pretty cool.

On another, it does seem a little silly spending billions upon billions of dollars on a dick waving competition to see who can get their phallic national symbol on the surface of Mars first while people the world over are starving to death and dying from easily preventable diseases. Maybe waiting a bit is the best idea - I can't think of too many concrete benefits out of shipping a small group of astronauts out to Mars so that they can have a jolly little stroll around for a bit and then have a nice long trip back home that would really justify the expense at this point in time.
People will always be starving and dying of curable diseases. If we put off colonizing space, we may all die out.

I'd say we could definitely have a permanent lunar base in a 10-20 year timeframe. We could get to Mars in similar, but the question is, do we want to? Sure, government sees it as an inspirational, historic thing to do, but space exploration is no longer slaved to them.

If we're going to get there, it's going to be primarily through private industry. And is there necessarily a lot of actual benefit in going there? I'd say there's more benefit, commercially and scientifically, in going to trans-Jovian space.

Not to say there's no benefit there - scientific questions are still left unresolved, it must have resources, and terraforming prospects are interesting - but it seems likely that it would play second-fiddle to several other areas of the Solar System.

I'd say we could definitely have a permanent lunar base in a 10-20 year timeframe. We could get to Mars in similar, but the question is, do we want to? Sure, government sees it as an inspirational, historic thing to do, but space exploration is no longer slaved to them.

If we're going to get there, it's going to be primarily through private industry. And is there necessarily actual benefit in going there? I'd say there's more benefit, commercially and scientifically, in going to trans-Jovian space.
But wouldn't Mars be a stepping stone to the asteroid belt and the gas giants?

But wouldn't Mars be a stepping stone to the asteroid belt and the gas giants?

Only if you have to. Inserting that extra stepping-stone would cost us a decade of development. If we can get from Earth orbit to Jovian orbit in a single hop, that's definitely preferable.

A man will be on Mars in the next 10-15 years. I don't think permanent residences there would be feasible yet because costs for sending settlers (and the supplies for building habitats) would be prohibitive, at least until spaceships can go a lot faster.

Only if you have to. Inserting that extra stepping-stone would cost us a decade of development. If we can get from Earth orbit to Jovian orbit in a single hop, that's definitely preferable.
What propulsion system are you using? I'd think Mars would be neccessary, at least at first, as a fueling station if not a valuable resource in its own right.

People will always be starving and dying of curable diseases.

You see, that's where I differ. Figures have estimated time and time again that providing basic necessities, such as two meals a day and clean water to everyone in the world (at least, as many as possible), is attainable - in the tens of billions of dollars, I believe the figures were...perhaps more, but certainly attainable. The US is considering implementing somewhere between $200 and $250 billion dollars towards space exploration over the next 20 years, if i'm not mistaken, so surely it's within our power to do so.

Put simply, In my lifetime, I would rather see a hundred million people who would otherwise die live normal lives than a dozen or so walk on Mars.

If we put off colonizing space, we may all die out.

Maybe. And maybe if we don't pay attention to specific problems at hand, we'll all die out anyway before we get the chance.

You see, that's where I differ. Figures have estimated time and time again that providing basic necessities, such as two meals a day and clean water to everyone in the world (at least, as many as possible), is attainable - in the tens of billions of dollars, I believe the figures were...perhaps more, but certainly attainable. The US is considering implementing somewhere between $200 and $250 billion dollars towards space exploration over the next 20 years, if i'm not mistaken, so surely it's within our power to do so.



Does that tens of billions of dollars include the money required to get rid of the dictators that are starving their people? It's not just a question of providing the necessities, it's making sure those necessities actually get to the people, many of whom are living under tyrants who benefit from keeping their people too hungry to revolt.

I love outer space. I'd love nothing more than to be able to travel the stars, and live Star Trek for real. But it just isn't realistic at this time. All I see are wasted tax dollars sending robots to mars to look at rocks. What have we truly gained of value? Nothing. Other than the fact that the camera's are cool, and the fact that we have machines there is neat. But in reality, I think there are alot better ways tax money could be spent.


Just my take on it....

Does that tens of billions of dollars include the money required to get rid of the dictators that are starving their people? It's not just a question of providing the necessities, it's making sure those necessities actually get to the people, many of whom are living under tyrants who benefit from keeping their people too hungry to revolt.

That's a drastic oversimplification. In many nations where malnutrition is common, the government does not have enough central control to forcibly starve their people, who may chiefly rely on substinence farming in areas of marginal fertility for a living - take many African nations in particular. North Korea isn't typical of the developing world.

But we are going off topic.

How would you create gravity by terraforming? The gravitational pull of a planet is defined strictly by its mass. Unless you wanted to make a planet SUBSTANTIALLY bigger (which I can't even figure out how you'd do that). gravity would not be affected by terraforming projects.

Smash another planet into it. In Mars' case a fleet of ships could sail (I always feel that sailing more acurately applies to space than 'flying') into the asteroid belt, pick up one or two of the really big ones (preferably one high in Iron) and drag it over to Mars. Smash them together and the force of the collision will melt the planets to a consistancy where they settle in a sphere around their centre of gravity. After that its just a case of leaving it to cool, and then begin on atmospheric engineering.

Smash another planet into it. In Mars' case a fleet of ships could sail (I always feel that sailing more acurately applies to space than 'flying') into the asteroid belt, pick up one or two of the really big ones (preferably one high in Iron) and drag it over to Mars. Smash them together and the force of the collision will melt the planets to a consistancy where they settle in a sphere around their centre of gravity. After that its just a case of leaving it to cool, and then begin on atmospheric engineering.



....I hope you're kidding. I'm almost certain you are, but theres still a hint of seriousness to that statement.

....I hope you're kidding. I'm almost certain you are, but theres still a hint of seriousness to that statement.

With a hint of seriousness is the best way to kid.

Realistically, it probably would not be a good idea, shards of Mars could fly off and end up hitting us, there are too many variables to consider.

But it would be fun to do in another star system, at the very least to see the huuuge smash.

Smash another planet into it. In Mars' case a fleet of ships could sail (I always feel that sailing more acurately applies to space than 'flying') into the asteroid belt, pick up one or two of the really big ones (preferably one high in Iron) and drag it over to Mars. Smash them together and the force of the collision will melt the planets to a consistancy where they settle in a sphere around their centre of gravity. After that its just a case of leaving it to cool, and then begin on atmospheric engineering.
But first, you wait a few million years for things to cool off. Never mind that there aren't enough asteroids in the entire belt to significantly increase Mars' gravity in the first place; the entire asteroid belt has about 4% of the mass of Luna. :rolleyes:

I love outer space. I'd love nothing more than to be able to travel the stars, and live Star Trek for real. But it just isn't realistic at this time. All I see are wasted tax dollars sending robots to mars to look at rocks. What have we truly gained of value? Nothing. Other than the fact that the camera's are cool, and the fact that we have machines there is neat. But in reality, I think there are alot better ways tax money could be spent.


Just my take on it....

I often wish that I was born 1000 years in the future (if the human race actually had warp and wasnt in any state of considerable/horrific turmoil. But like you I occupy this part of the timeline, and I am the only consciousness that I know truly exists. The universe exists only at this time from my perspective. But I could have been me sometime else. sigh.