NationStates Jolt Archive

NASA has got a lot of money to explore space. Okay, we want to learn. What have we learned from space (not space-tech). We learned about our moon and mars and our solar system. Great. What have we really gotten out of space. It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one. So why is the US spending so much in space. Russia already won the space-race. Give up.

It may be possible to colonize our moon and use the whole surface area of earth for agriculture, but it would be easier to go underground.
Underground- too little sun
Space-waaaaaay too much sun

It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one.
I thoroughly disagree with you on both counts.

I thoroughly disagree with you on both counts.

How could humans inhabit another planet? The moon maybe. But not another planet.

How could humans inhabit another planet? The moon maybe. But not another planet.

It's called terraforming. And if that's too long term for you, we can easily do the same thing we'll have on the moon on other planets: permanent colonies.

It's called terraforming. And if that's too long term for you, we can easily do the same thing we'll have on the moon on other planets: permanent colonies.

This is very true, but it would be less expensive, easier, and more practical to make underground cities than do that. I am not suggesting this, just an example. Al the sun is a big factor, nobody would want to spend their average day in a protective suit. Plus getting resources to them would be a lot of energy and gas.

There are several types of experimentation that can only be accurate if it takes place in free-fall so that the gravitational forces of the earth do not affect the results. Studies of other stars also provide a great deal of information on the origin of the universe and our own solar system. Studies of light and other energy forms have advanced physics a great deal. Mars is still being studied as a possible location for a colony, but technology has not quite advanced enough to send humans. Perhaps sometime in the future we will have the technology to send humans and create a permanent colony.

This is very true, but it would be less expensive, easier, and more practical to make underground cities than do that. I am not suggesting this, just an example. Al the sun is a big factor, nobody would want to spend their average day in a protective suit. Plus getting resources to them would be a lot of energy and gas.

Underground colonies only work so long as Earth has the resources to support them. The point of colonies on other planets is to avoid using the limited resources of Earth.

And the idea is that eventually we will advance technologically enough that gas will not be the source of energy used to power spacecraft, making it more cost-effective and hopefully faster as well.

You need to read more sci-fi. Your imagination is lacking.

Recommended reading: The Legacy of Herot by Nevin and someone else I can't remember. Fiction but workable someday.

I for one would rather spend $$ on NASA and exploration than lots of things. Just my 2 cents worth. :)

Research at the International Space Station has advanced medical science. That's money well spent!
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_5_2001_i_EN.html
Medical research on the International Space Station might have won Philippoussis Wimbledon
6 July 2001
Persistent knee problems cropping up at the most inconvenient times, such the one that has prevented Mark Philippoussis playing at Wimbledon this year, may become a thing of the past thanks to artificial cartilage developed through research planned by the European Space Agency on the International Space Station (ISS).

Research at the International Space Station has advanced medical science. That's money well spent!
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_5_2001_i_EN.html
Medical research on the International Space Station might have won Philippoussis Wimbledon
6 July 2001
Persistent knee problems cropping up at the most inconvenient times, such the one that has prevented Mark Philippoussis playing at Wimbledon this year, may become a thing of the past thanks to artificial cartilage developed through research planned by the European Space Agency on the International Space Station (ISS).

YAY, who will be able to afford the trip in space?

YAY, who will be able to afford the trip in space?

It took a non gravity atmosphere to develop the technology. The patients do not have to fly to the space station. (the link is from 2001. I think the problem was fixed)

It took a non gravity atmosphere to develop the technology. The patients do not have to fly to the space station.

Oh, sorry, I must have misinterpreted segment of article I read. My mistake

The US isn't "spending so much on space."

The Iraq war cost - depending on who you ask - $600 billion to $4 trillion to date.

Whereas in comparison, NASA's entire budget - since its inception in 1958 - amounts to $419.420 billion, less than the Iraq War (to say nothing of the military budget). NASA's current budget comes out to a little more than 1 penny for every 1 tax dollar.

So, for less than the money it took to kill from a few hundred thousand to a million Iraqis, we've pioneered space exploration for 50 years, advanced the scope of scientific knowledge and engineering - computers, rocketry, materials science, physics, applications across the board in just about every science or technical field there is.

Complaining about the budget for NASA is like complaining that someone is tracking mud through your kitchen while there's a herd of 50 elephants having a drunken orgy in what used to be the living room.

The US isn't "spending so much on space."

The Iraq war cost - depending on who you ask - $600 billion to $4 trillion to date.

Whereas in comparison, NASA's entire budget - since its inception in 1958 - amounts to $419.420 billion, less than the Iraq War (to say nothing of the military budget). NASA's current budget comes out to a little more than 1 penny for every 1 tax dollar.

So, for less than the money it took to kill from a few hundred thousand to a million Iraqis, we've pioneered space exploration for 50 years, advanced the scope of scientific knowledge and engineering - computers, rocketry, materials science, physics, applications across the board in just about every science or technical field there is.

Complaining about the budget for NASA is like complaining that someone is tracking mud through your kitchen while there's a herd of 50 elephants having a drunken orgy in what used to be the living room.

*Standing ovation!*

NASA has got a lot of money to explore space.
Not nearly as much as they'd want or should have. A lot of important projects get put on the back burners at both NASA and the USAF due to lack of funding.

Okay, we want to learn. What have we learned from space (not space-tech). We learned about our moon and mars and our solar system. Great. What have we really gotten out of space.
A lot of technology and a better understanding of the origin of our world and the universe.

It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one.
What makes you say that? We've already had a few space stations and there were engineering studies for the colonization of the Moon and Mars back in the 50s. If it was theoretically possible then, why wouldn't it be possible in the present or the future?

So why is the US spending so much in space.
We're not.

Russia already won the space-race. Give up.
The Soviet Union lost the space race when America landed people on the moon and the Soviets failed to.

It may be possible to colonize our moon and use the whole surface area of earth for agriculture, but it would be easier to go underground.
Underground- too little sun
Space-waaaaaay too much sun
Lolwut? I kind of understand what you're saying but I don't see the logic in it.

Who are you? You seem like a puppet troll.

The US isn't "spending so much on space."

The Iraq war cost - depending on who you ask - $600 billion to $4 trillion to date.

Whereas in comparison, NASA's entire budget - since its inception in 1958 - amounts to $419.420 billion, less than the Iraq War (to say nothing of the military budget). NASA's current budget comes out to a little more than 1 penny for every 1 tax dollar.

So, for less than the money it took to kill from a few hundred thousand to a million Iraqis, we've pioneered space exploration for 50 years, advanced the scope of scientific knowledge and engineering - computers, rocketry, materials science, physics, applications across the board in just about every science or technical field there is.

Complaining about the budget for NASA is like complaining that someone is tracking mud through your kitchen while there's a herd of 50 elephants having a drunken orgy in what used to be the living room.

Not to mention the amount of money the government has made from NASA(Due not only to taxes on commerce, but also stimulation of the economy due to products based on NASA tech). *Conservative* estimates the amount of money gained at about $7 gained for every $1 spent. And that's the way low end. If only every business could expect such a return on their investments, eh?

Russia already won the space-race. Give up.
Really? I guess I and the rest of the world missed that because we were too busy watching this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong#First_Moon_walk

NASA has got a lot of money to explore space. Okay, we want to learn. What have we learned from space (not space-tech). We learned about our moon and mars and our solar system. Great. What have we really gotten out of space. It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one. So why is the US spending so much in space. Russia already won the space-race. Give up.

It may be possible to colonize our moon and use the whole surface area of earth for agriculture, but it would be easier to go underground.
Underground- too little sun
Space-waaaaaay too much sun

Actually, we dedicated effort, humans could fairly easily colonise our own solar system. The differences between interplanetary travel and settlement and interstellar are very significant. The technology to be bale to travel to more or less any planet within our solar system within a year or so is well within our understanding of technology, it is simply engineering, experience and funding issues that block our progress.

Terraforming is a very complex discipline, but the technology of self contained biospheres is again an issue of engineering and finance (as well as gaining experience) rather than a fundamental lack of knowledge of how to go about such an operation.

You idea of using the whole surface of the earth for agriculture fails to take into account the fact that most of the surface of the earth is unsuited to agriculture and that to engage in such an activity that use of glass houses and mass use of artificially produced fresh water and fertilisers would be needed, by which time you are a good way toward harnessing the vast additional reserves of another planet anyway. Many planets of the solar system, despite having initially unsuitable climes, are rich in minerals and resources that could be potentially of great use. A wise nation would view the development of the technologies to claim and make full use of these new territories a key step in ensuring national well being for some time to come.

NASA has got a lot of money to explore space. Okay, we want to learn. What have we learned from space (not space-tech). We learned about our moon and mars and our solar system. Great. What have we really gotten out of space. It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one. So why is the US spending so much in space. Russia already won the space-race. Give up.

It may be possible to colonize our moon and use the whole surface area of earth for agriculture, but it would be easier to go underground.
Underground- too little sun
Space-waaaaaay too much sun
Quantify "a lot". Now compare it to other research.

The Soviet Union lost the space race when America landed people on the moon and the Soviets failed to.

The Soviet Union lost the space race when their economy fell apart, while America's was fine to keep going.

The Soviet Union lost the space race when their economy fell apart, while America's was fine to keep going.

Their economy fell apart long after they stopped trying to get to the moon. The real reason they lost is because they didn't think the US was really going to try for the moon. Once they realized we were serious, they were far behind.

NASA has got a lot of money to explore space. Okay, we want to learn. What have we learned from space (not space-tech). We learned about our moon and mars and our solar system. Great. What have we really gotten out of space. It seems as though we will never inhabit another planet or get resources from one. So why is the US spending so much in space. Russia already won the space-race. Give up.


1.We didn't learn about the solar system from direct (or even manned) space exploration. We learned about it using telescopes, spectrometres and lots of maths.
2.Iirc an account about the technological output generated by the NASA Apollo project was worth about 100 times the money that was spent for the project itself.

One of the reasons for researching other planets is the distinct possibility that a large body will hit the earth and be a bit inconvenient for us. Going underground won't solve that.

Plus I simply don't understand anybody who can look at the stars and not want to go there.

1.We didn't learn about the solar system from direct (or even manned) space exploration. We learned about it using telescopes, spectrometres and lots of maths.
2.Iirc an account about the technological output generated by the NASA Apollo project was worth about 100 times the money that was spent for the project itself.

The advances in fields ranging from computer technology, to soft drink technologies pay off on a daily basis!

Their economy fell apart long after they stopped trying to get to the moon. The real reason they lost is because they didn't think the US was really going to try for the moon. Once they realized we were serious, they were far behind.

It was a bit of both. The point of the space-race in the first place was to bankrupt the SU. It wasn't that the space-race itself bankrupted them, but it put additional strain on an economy that was busy trying to recover from a global recession while at the same time advancing technologically in 10 years what it took the rest of the world several decades. The reason the SU gave up is because they didn't think the US had the money to go for the moon, because the SU didn't.

Really? I guess I and the rest of the world missed that because we were too busy watching this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong#First_Moon_walk

A good PR stunt, and a commendable technical effort. It was very impressive, but technically the Russians have probably contributed more to space exploration overall, races and political dick waving aside. In addition most of the other firsts in space exploration belong to the Russians including:

First ever man made object in orbit
First ever person in orbit
First ever photographs of the dark side of the moon
First ever man made object on the moon
First mission to Venus
First ever space station

Much of the ISS project utilises Russian operational experience in long endurance space missions as well as tried and tested technology. Contrary to popular myth, in space tried and tested technology is preferable to fancy hi tech approaches, and the Russian approach of incremental improvement rather than radical redesigns has been very successful.

In addition, in the future, their knowledge ultra "tough" designs for their Venus explorations projects could become very important.

At the end of the day, first and greats aside, the Soyuz has been just been more useful to humanity than the Shuttle. It's the worlds most widely used vehicle for launching supplies and people into orbit, has been for the last 40+ years, and probably will be for a long time yet.

I take exception to the OP's statement that NASA gets a lot of money. they get a lot of money on the scale your average joe is used to dealing with. On the scale at which the Federal Budget operates, they get next to nothing.

Its really infuriating. people complain that the Space Program is a waste, because there are so few short term results, then say that it gets to much money when the lack of money is contributing to the lack of results.:mad:

It was a bit of both. The point of the space-race in the first place was to bankrupt the SU. It wasn't that the space-race itself bankrupted them, but it put additional strain on an economy that was busy trying to recover from a global recession while at the same time advancing technologically in 10 years what it took the rest of the world several decades. The reason the SU gave up is because they didn't think the US had the money to go for the moon, because the SU didn't.

The Soviets didn't spend nearly as much money on their space programs as the US did. In their eyes, they had won, and aside from a couple of propaganda stunts (Voskhod comes to mind) they were quite conservative in their development.

Probably the biggest issue, however, was organization. After Korolev died his sucessor failed to centralize space exploration to the extend that Korolev did. Hell, even when it was clear that the Americans were shooting for the moon, the Soviet Union was developing two different orbiters, two different landers, two different boosters, and lunar flight profiles using two very different techniques.

A good PR stunt, and a commendable technical effort. It was very impressive, but technically the Russians have probably contributed more to space exploration overall, races and political dick waving aside. In addition most of the other firsts in space exploration belong to the Russians including:

First of all, the USSR no longer exists, so regardless of what the USSR contributed, Russia has contributed rather little.

I reiterate that the point of the space-race was a challenge of economies: the Soviets launched Sputnik to show off to the US, who responded with their own space program. The point of the race from that point on was to see whose economy could last the longest. To that end, the US clearly won, since the US still exists and the SU does not. Now:

First ever person in orbit

Died on reentry. The US was the first to put a person into orbit and return him safely.

Much of the ISS project utilises Russian operational experience in long endurance space missions as well as tried and tested technology.

Several years ago ISS was stalled when Russia could not build the next piece that was supposed to go up because they couldn't afford it. So the US built it for them.

Regardless, the ISS came long after the Soviet Union, and hence, after the space-race.

Contrary to popular myth, in space tried and tested technology is preferable to fancy hi tech approaches, and the Russian approach of incremental improvement rather than radical redesigns has been very successful.

That has very little to do with how well it works. It has everything to do with the fact that Russia can't afford redesigns if they wanted it.

In addition, in the future, their knowledge ultra "tough" designs for their Venus explorations projects could become very important.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with the space-race. The space-race ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

At the end of the day, first and greats aside, the Soyuz has been just been more useful to humanity than the Shuttle. It's the worlds most widely used vehicle for launching supplies and people into orbit, has been for the last 40+ years, and probably will be for a long time yet.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with the space-race.


I'm not saying the US is awesome, or not awesome. I'm not saying the Soviet Union is not awesome, or awesome. But please, the space-race is long over and the outcome was what it was: the Soviet Union no longer exists. /Discussion.

A good PR stunt, and a commendable technical effort. It was very impressive, but technically the Russians have probably contributed more to space exploration overall, races and political dick waving aside. In addition most of the other firsts in space exploration belong to the Russians including:

First ever man made object in orbit
First ever person in orbit
First ever photographs of the dark side of the moon
First ever man made object on the moon
First mission to Venus
First ever space station

Much of the ISS project utilises Russian operational experience in long endurance space missions as well as tried and tested technology. Contrary to popular myth, in space tried and tested technology is preferable to fancy hi tech approaches, and the Russian approach of incremental improvement rather than radical redesigns has been very successful.

In addition, in the future, their knowledge ultra "tough" designs for their Venus explorations projects could become very important.

At the end of the day, first and greats aside, the Soyuz has been just been more useful to humanity than the Shuttle. It's the worlds most widely used vehicle for launching supplies and people into orbit, has been for the last 40+ years, and probably will be for a long time yet.

I agree in a sense. The Soviet Union/Russia has had a very consistent approach to space exploration. The evolution of Soyuz has turned it into a very consistant, reliable, and safe spacecraft.

However, it's important to note that landing on the moon is several orders of magintude more difficult then an earth orbital mission. With an earth orbital, all you really need is a capsule, a retrofire system, and of course a powerful booster. Technically, it is not that difficult assuming the materials science is there.

Remember also that the milestones the US accomplished in the runup to Apollo were more difficult. Specifically, orbital rendezvouz and docking. It wasn't even known if docking was possible before Aldrin developed the theory and Armstrong proved the theory. I believe, in fact, that the Soviet Union didn't try orbital docking until ASTP.

Also, Leonov almost died during his spacewalk. This illustrates a key difference between the Soviet programs and NASA. NASA made every effort not to expose it's astronauts to undue risk. The Soviets were much more cavalier with the lives of their Cosmonauts.

We;ve learnt bugger all about space from our efforts BUT we have learnt about various things along the way to LEARNING about how to discover bugger all.

Fibre optics,
SAtellite technology (therefore mobile phones, SAT NAV, ect)
Special materials such as nylon and kevlar,
plasma tv,

It goes on and on.

Also, Leonov almost died during his spacewalk. This illustrates a key difference between the Soviet programs and NASA. NASA made every effort not to expose it's astronauts to undue risk. The Soviets were much more cavalier with the lives of their Cosmonauts.

Voskhod 1 being the classic example of that.

Stripping nearly every safety element out of Vostok, and loading in an extra guy.

Died on reentry. The US was the first to put a person into orbit and return him safely.Who are you referring to? Yuri Gagarin returned safely and lived for another seven years.


And as to the OP, I suggest you read Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan for a more rounded view on space exploration and why NASA is important.

Who are you referring to? Yuri Gagarin returned safely and lived for another seven years.

Whoops. Nevermind. I remember someone the Soviet's sent up died because of a cracked heat-shield. Maybe it was one of the animals they sent up.

Who are you referring to? Yuri Gagarin returned safely and lived for another seven years.


And as to the OP, I suggest you read Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan for a more rounded view on space exploration and why NASA is important.

I do not think America really has much power anymore. It is sort of like America thinking that the Soviet Union was really dangerous. The Soviet Union was not really together enough to launch an attack. Not to mention that they lost more than 26 million people in WWII as compared to US's 418, 000
In numbers that looks like USSR 26,000,000
US 418,000

Poor poor layka :(

http://wa.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layka

I do not think America really has much power anymore. It is sort of like America thinking that the Soviet Union was really dangerous. The Soviet Union was not really together enough to launch an attack. Not to mention that they lost more than 26 million people in WWII as compared to US's 418, 000
In numbers that looks like USSR 26,000,000
US 418,000The power of America (or any other country for that matter) doesn't negate the need for space programs and continual space exploration.

Their economy fell apart long after they stopped trying to get to the moon. The real reason they lost is because they didn't think the US was really going to try for the moon. Once they realized we were serious, they were far behind.

Even then, the Soviets suffered way more losses in terms of humans and equipment than the US; at least the US got some Apollo craft near the Moon before #11, Russia just failed big time in the rocket tests that were supposed to go to the Moon.

Even then, the Soviets suffered way more losses in terms of humans and equipment than the US; at least the US got some Apollo craft near the Moon before #11, Russia just failed big time in the rocket tests that were supposed to go to the Moon.

IIRC, alot of that had to do with American superiority in Materials science. The soviets couldn't make materials to withstand the heat and pressure generated from an engine similar to the F1. Because if this, they chose a multiple engine approach. The problem is that as you increase the number of engines, the liklihood of one not properly igniting increases. It also increases a chance of a catastrphic failue in the plumbing.

But there were many reasons why the soviet space program had big problems when it's counterpart was doing so well.

I think that one of the biggest reasons for NASA and such is to keep up morale in America. They know that they are doing well as a country, but their personal lives usually suck. They all feel like they have money problems and marraige problems bigger than any other person could have. Americans are not patriotic, they need something tangible so that they can feel like they should be proud of their country. This is probably an overstatement, but I think that it is sad that this is true for much of America's population.

It's called terraforming. And if that's too long term for you, we can easily do the same thing we'll have on the moon on other planets: permanent colonies.

SPACE COLONIES!!! That can ultimately only lead to one thing....
















http://www.stolaf.edu/people/vangtk/index_files/image009.jpg

SPACE COLONIES!!! That can ultimately only lead to one thing....

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/vangtk/index_files/image009.jpg

Which gundam series is this?

Which gundam series is this?

Gundam Wing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_Wing

I reiterate that the point of the space-race was a challenge of economies: the Soviets launched Sputnik to show off to the US, who responded with their own space program. The point of the race from that point on was to see whose economy could last the longest.

Not really. What do you think were the first applications of sub-orbital and trans-orbital craft? Ballistic missiles. ICBMs, their precursors, V-2 rockets. The space-race was first and foremost, a military race to see who could blow the other up before the other could do the blowing up. Sputnik made America realize that their interceptor craft were no good for stopping transonic warheads coming down from the edge of space, while their heavy bombers could be shot down.

The space program was just the civilian front of the space race.

I think that one of the biggest reasons for NASA and such is to keep up morale in America. They know that they are doing well as a country, but their personal lives usually suck. They all feel like they have money problems and marraige problems bigger than any other person could have. Americans are not patriotic, they need something tangible so that they can feel like they should be proud of their country. This is probably an overstatement, but I think that it is sad that this is true for much of America's population.

Do you live in the US? That is a completely inaccurate description. NASA receives very limited publicity over here and when it does get covered, it's usually over some engineering failure.

Space research and exploration should be one of our highest priorities. I simply cannot believe that there are still people who think that it's a good idea to reduce space funding even a little, much less stop it entirely! Seriously, if you have your doubts about space, just type "benefits of space program" into your favorite search engine and just read. Read as much as you possibly can, and if you still think that space research is pointless, or that we should wait until we "solve all our problems here on earth first"(:rolleyes:), then you're simply being willfully ignorant.

People seem to be focussing on the technological spinoffs, but really, this is the least of the potential benefits of space exploration. Trillions of dollars of profit from asteroid mining, development of sustainable societies on other worlds, and knowledge about the fundimental nature of life and the universe are inestimably more important.

The problem is that these gains require long term investment, which has not been forthcoming. The blame lies on a mix of factors, including self-interested politicians who have little interest in investments that don't pay back by the next election, geo-political manuvering, interference from anti-nuclear and environmental activists(the latter is especially obnoxious given the way the environmental movement has benefited from the space program), and even NASA's rediculously clumsy PR.

first of all, I don't know where the OP is getting their notion that the USSR won the space race, but beyond that, mankind's destiny is in space. With some terra-forming we could inhabit Mars, and from there it's anyone's guess what technology will be able to do for us in order to get out of our solar system. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it is all within the grasp of mankind.

Damn right its our destiny. What are the two most profound goals for the Human Race? I would say species survival and discovering our place in the Universe. Space exploration is probably critical to both efforts, as having more resources, territory and diversity (culturally, and in the long term, biologically from colonies on new worlds) will benefit the former, and study of the natural universe may benefit the second. There is no higher calling or grander goal, not better purpose for our efforts or focus for our minds that I can see.

With some terra-forming we could inhabit Mars

No we couldn't. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field worth talking about. It's core is mostly solid. Without a natural magnetic field, there's not really much keeping solar winds from blowing off much of the atmosphere if you tried turning it into a viable biosphere. You're going to need a lot more than just Terra-forming.

No we couldn't. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field worth talking about. It's core is mostly solid. Without a natural magnetic field, there's not really much keeping solar winds from blowing off much of the atmosphere if you tried turning it into a viable biosphere. You're going to need a lot more than just Terra-forming.

That's not as much of a problem as you might think. Enhancing the atmosphere (probably by banging a few comets in) would be pretty easy, and atmosphere loss is a fixed and very slow rate (it's not the magnetic field, btw. The problem is that Mars has only 2/3rds Earth Gravity.)

The lack of a magnetic field means no Van Allen Belts to protect against Solar Radiation, but Mars' greater distance from the Sun mitigates that, as does the fact that we'll need to create a significantly deeper atmosphere in order to have Earth Normal atmospheric pressure on the surface.

That's not as much of a problem as you might think. Enhancing the atmosphere (probably by banging a few comets in) would be pretty easy, and atmosphere loss is a fixed and very slow rate (it's not the magnetic field, btw. The problem is that Mars has only 2/3rds Earth Gravity.)

The lack of a magnetic field means no Van Allen Belts to protect against Solar Radiation, but Mars' greater distance from the Sun mitigates that, as does the fact that we'll need to create a significantly deeper atmosphere in order to have Earth Normal atmospheric pressure on the surface.

The magnetic field plays a role in the atmosphere keeping. As I understand it, when Mars core went solid, the lack of magnetic fields meant solar radiation could more easily boil off the atmosphere. Mars had a much thicker atmosphere in its earlier phases, and unless someone's been scooping it's mass out on the sly, the most viable explanation for the atmosphere loss is solar winds and radiation blowing it off.

I wouldn't be making any long term plans for colonizing a terraformed Mars until that atmosphere loss problem is fixed, and preferably not by having to crash a few asteroids into it every now and again or cracking water to produce oxygen and hydrogen.

The magnetic field plays a role in the atmosphere keeping. As I understand it, when Mars core went solid, the lack of magnetic fields meant solar radiation could more easily boil off the atmosphere. Mars had a much thicker atmosphere in its earlier phases, and unless someone's been scooping it's mass out on the sly, the most viable explanation for the atmosphere loss is solar winds and radiation blowing it off.

I wouldn't be making any long term plans for colonizing a terraformed Mars until that atmosphere loss problem is fixed, and preferably not by having to crash a few asteroids into it every now and again or cracking water to produce oxygen and hydrogen.

Well, something has been scooping Mars' atmosphere - the planet Jupiter.

Jupiter is a long way away, but it has MAJOR gravity, and it takes it's little scoop once every 2.2 years or thereabouts. It doesn't take much, but when you multiply that by several BILLION years...

Anyway, it's stll a very slow process. If we built up Mars' atmosphere again (like I said, comets, lots of gas and water) we could just leave it be. It would take literally millions of years before you started losing a detectable amount of gas.

The magnetic field does play a major role. Do you really want to sit on a planet where the high energy radiation (higher than what CERN will do) comes through only passing through a few 10km of atmosphere?... That is the most important part of the magnetic fields: deflect the (charged) radiation (or the charged products of the interaction of uncharged radiation with atmospheric atoms) towards the poles.

And I think the loss of atmosphere would be too high for a sustainable colony on Mars.

About the ressources: There is no way to get more ressources back to earth than we spent to collect them. There is no way for interstellar travel ( as you will always stay sub-lightspeed, indeed very limited speed) and no way for large spaceships (size of a star destroyer or something). There is a good prof at munich who gives brilliant lectures on that. They should be online somewhere too.

Well, something has been scooping Mars' atmosphere - the planet Jupiter.

Jupiter has been scooping Mar's planetary mass? News to me. My point is that the planetary mass of Mars can be reasonably ascertained to be constant from its early phases, well after it's formation, to today. That means any atmosphere it had from the start has been exposed to unprotected solar radiation that would have put it on a slow boil.


Anyway, it's stll a very slow process. If we built up Mars' atmosphere again (like I said, comets, lots of gas and water) we could just leave it be. It would take literally millions of years before you started losing a detectable amount of gas.

You do realize that to build up the atmosphere you'd need to dump in something on the order of nearly twice the total gas currently on Earth? And it would have to be breathable gas. The majority of Earth's inert gas is nitrogen, so you'll need either that or something similar to it. You do NOT, want a majority oxygen biosphere. Not unless you want it to be the easily flammable sort.

And even if you did find it, you'd need to dump enough of it in a short amount of time that atmosphere boil off doesn't offset it.


About the ressources: There is no way to get more ressources back to earth than we spent to collect them.

This is only true if everything was manufactured planetside. Asteroid mining and the like is very profitable if you simply rule out manufacture of starships inside a planetary gravity well. The initial capital costs will be staggering, without a doubt, but once you have an orbital industry, you can acquire, mine, process and refine unbelievable amounts of raw material for the cost of the reaction mass and life support needed to bring them back to orbit.


There is no way for interstellar travel ( as you will always stay sub-lightspeed, indeed very limited speed)

This sounds so much like the people who claimed humans would never fly, or go to the moon, or that computers would only be of use to very few, well funded, organizations.

Never, ever, assume that the limits of applicable knowledge have been fully found. That way is stagnation and death.


and no way for large spaceships (size of a star destroyer or something). There is a good prof at munich who gives brilliant lectures on that. They should be online somewhere too.

Why? Insufficient reaction mass? Structural integrity? Maintaining life support? Radiation shielding? There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of people, from engineering students up to NASA, working on the idea of colony ships of immense sizes for over thirty years. And this professor claims it to be impossible? He had better have a very convincing argument.

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

-Commander Jeff Sinclair, Babylon 5

one day the sun will die and it will take the Earth and our species with it.

i feel, as a matter of protecting the species' survival, it is highly important to explore space and colonise new worlds. its very long-term, but you have to start somewhere.

plus, in the medium term (a few hundered years, perhaps, as opposed to thousands) we could find ourselves with greater resources, which can only be a good thing.

so, yeah, i agree with Jeff there

You know, I'm curious. Currently, three people have voted "no" on the poll; I'd like to know why. It wouldn't be too much trouble, would it?

I like the idea of colonizing the moon and the planets, but reallyy, how much would that cost? We would lose more money than we stand to gain, I think.

I like the idea of colonizing the moon and the planets, but reallyy, how much would that cost? We would lose more money than we stand to gain, I think.

Why would there have to be monetary gain?

Why would there have to be monetary gain?

The government that has the power and will to run this sort of thing anymore is America. And even that is a stretch, considering their debt. In capitalism everything is about money. There has to be monetary gain for capitalists to even consider the issue.

The government that has the power and will to run this sort of thing anymore is America. And even that is a stretch, considering their debt. In capitalism everything is about money. There has to be monetary gain for capitalists to even consider the issue.

That's not why we went to the Moon.

No we couldn't. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field worth talking about. It's core is mostly solid. Without a natural magnetic field, there's not really much keeping solar winds from blowing off much of the atmosphere if you tried turning it into a viable biosphere. You're going to need a lot more than just Terra-forming.

Venus doesn't have a magnetic field write home about and it has the deepest atmosphere of the rocky planets.

It's an issue of size: Mars has cooled off to a point where there are no active volcanoes spewing gas into the atmosphere and the size of the planet isn't enough to hold on to a non-renewing atmosphere. This means that the only way to terraform Mars would be to import gases elsewhere (or extract them from the martian soil) and constantly replenish the supply.

For that matter, taking gases from Venutian atmosphere and transporting them to Mars would terraform both planets! Albeit, using ice comets would probably be much easier (anyone ever played Sim Earth? :cool:)

Though, instead of terraforming isolated self-sustaining biospheres would be much more cost effective and more importantly viable with current technology.

That's not why we went to the Moon.

America went to the moon because the people believed that they were being beaten by the Soviets. The soviets had less funding and still were crushing America. morale booster. I would not believe this if they did not shove it in everyone's faces. really, they lost the space race, but they won a couple of battle. Since they got to the moon first, they decide that it was the most important accomplishment. Who cares if Russia got the first man in space.. we got to the moon. It is all about who wins, if you do not win, then make it appear that you have. Clinton did the same thing, she lost a primary but told the audience that it was a victory because she got more votes than she expected to get. Clinton's supporters got to feel proud.

Venus doesn't have a magnetic field write home about and it has the deepest atmosphere of the rocky planets.

It's an issue of size: Mars has cooled off to a point where there are no active volcanoes spewing gas into the atmosphere and the size of the planet isn't enough to hold on to a non-renewing atmosphere. This means that the only way to terraform Mars would be to import gases elsewhere (or extract them from the martian soil) and constantly replenish the supply.

For that matter, taking gases from Venutian atmosphere and transporting them to Mars would terraform both planets! Albeit, using ice comets would probably be much easier (anyone ever played Sim Earth? :cool:)

Though, instead of terraforming isolated self-sustaining biospheres would be much more cost effective and more importantly viable with current technology.

Venus is the best planet for us to colonize. It already has an atmosphere and has oxygen and carbon dioxide.

In capitalism everything is about money. There has to be monetary gain for capitalists to even consider the issue.
Not only that, the monetary gain usually has to come within next quarter ;)

If someone promised unlimited resources with an investment of 10 trillion dollars in 50 years no one would take the offer even if the net capital gain could be in order of millions per dollar invested.

Investors, voters and lobbyists are also afraid of putting large amounts of money into new things while being completely content at throwing billions of dollars into bombers and whatnot.

In the end, getting into space has to be a government/global project - Not beacuse of its cost, but because it involves unacceptable risks, experimental ideas and nuclear power. It's convincing the people that a space mission is worth more than a B2 bomber that's the problem..

Venus is the best planet for us to colonize. It already has an atmosphere and has oxygen and carbon dioxide.
I disagree, moon is the best planet to colonize first.

1. It's cheap
2. It's reachable
3. It's been visited
4. It's only one light second away.

Not only that, the monetary gain usually has to come within next quarter ;)

If someone promised unlimited resources with an investment of 10 trillion dollars in 50 years no one would take the offer even if the net capital gain could be in order of millions per dollar invested.

Investors, voters and lobbyists are also afraid of putting large amounts of money into new things while being completely content at throwing billions of dollars into bombers and whatnot.

In the end, getting into space has to be a government/global project - Not beacuse of its cost, but because it involves unacceptable risks, experimental ideas and nuclear power. It's convincing the people that a space mission is worth more than a B2 bomber that's the problem..

At this point.. I think we should be begging China to go ahead and take over America. After that China might become a big enough country that others would go ahead and go along with it. The power is split up right now so much that nothing will get done. Too many chiefs and too few indians.

I disagree, moon is the best planet to colonize first.

1. It's cheap
2. It's reachable
3. It's been visited
4. It's only one light second away.

the moon is not a planet. it is a satellite. so why bother italicizing planet when you are proving yourself wrong. the moon has not atmosphere, if we want to colonize a planet, it would be best to use one with an atmosphere.

America went to the moon because the people believed that they were being beaten by the Soviets. The soviets had less funding and still were crushing America. morale booster. I would not believe this if they did not shove it in everyone's faces. really, they lost the space race, but they won a couple of battle. Since they got to the moon first, they decide that it was the most important accomplishment. Who cares if Russia got the first man in space.. we got to the moon. It is all about who wins, if you do not win, then make it appear that you have. Clinton did the same thing, she lost a primary but told the audience that it was a victory because she got more votes than she expected to get. Clinton's supporters got to feel proud.

Ok then. Money isn't the only motivator.

Ok then. Money isn't the only motivator.

Nope, money is not the only motivator. But it sure helps. America is even more corrupt now than it was during the space race. I think money will matter a lot more now than patriotism.

Nope, money is not the only motivator. But it sure helps. America is even more corrupt now than it was during the space race. I think money will matter a lot more now than patriotism.

Frankly I see capitalism as a good thing at any rate.

NASA goes out and spends obscene amounts of taxpayer money to come up with a system that routinely runs overbudget, underperforming and not reliable enough to compete seriously with the ESA...

...And some guy who owns his own company (Virgin) goes out and spends a few million bucks to build a prototype privately owned commercial space vehicle. Private investment is more efficient, faster, and attains results better than any Government agency.

Always.

Frankly I see capitalism as a good thing at any rate.

NASA goes out and spends obscene amounts of taxpayer money to come up with a system that routinely runs overbudget, underperforming and not reliable enough to compete seriously with the ESA...

...And some guy who owns his own company (Virgin) goes out and spends a few million bucks to build a prototype privately owned commercial space vehicle. Private investment is more efficient, faster, and attains results better than any Government agency.

Always.

So do you think NASA should be disbanded?

the moon is not a planet. it is a satellite. so why bother italicizing planet when you are proving yourself wrong. the moon has not atmosphere, if we want to colonize a planet, it would be best to use one with an atmosphere.

I italicized it so you wouldn't take the word literally.

Though would it orbit directly around the sun it would undoubtedly be categorized as a planet.

Here's my list of targets for colonization in order of preference:
1. Moon - Pros: Near, no hostile atmosphere, shallow gravity well, excellent source for He3. Cons: Water?, long day/night cycle, no atmosphere or magnetosphere to protect from cosmic rays/solar wind.
2. Mars - Pros: Most Earthlike planet, shallowish gravity well, abundant water (so it seems) Cons: Not as close as moon, lack of incentive to colonize, irradiated surface
3. Asteroids - Pros: No gravity well to talk about, abundant resources nearby Cons: Low to near 0 gravity, water can be a problem, irregularity.
4. Mercury - Pros: Plenty of solar power present, polar caps always within shadow which can contain water ice, abundance of heavy metals (based on density) Cons: Closeness to the sun carries a risk of flares, deadly daylight, no magnetic field for protection.
5. Europa - Pros: Ton of water ice, Cons: Distance, closeness to Jupiter
6. Titan - Pros: Atmosphere, Cons: Distance, closeness to Saturn
7. Venus - Pros: Atmosphere, relative closeness, Cons: Temperature, deep gravity well, lack of accessible water, extreme pressure on surface.

So do you think NASA should be disbanded?

No, it serves its purpose.

What I DO think is that people need to get used to the idea that space exploration will be carried out by private industry not Government agencies.

Government agencies rarely carry out long term goals. In a system where authority shifts from one person to another every few years and is always trying to keep up with shifting public opinion, any goal that goes beyond the next 3-5 years is an eternity. It boggles my mind that America was able to stay focused on the Apollo Program for as long as it did, but then, competition with the Soviets was a big factor.

Government agencies also seldom take real risks. Such agencies are answerable to a body politic that wants guarantees, not maybes and experiments.

On the other hand, private industry can handle long term goals and investments, and are less hesitant to take risks. This is more difficult with publicly traded corporations, but private industry can go anywhere a person with vision is willing to take them. Of course, making a return on the investment is necessary to keep a company going, but a healthy company can handle a very long term investment if they have the investment capital to do so.

This is only true if everything was manufactured planetside. Asteroid mining and the like is very profitable if you simply rule out manufacture of starships inside a planetary gravity well. The initial capital costs will be staggering, without a doubt, but once you have an orbital industry, you can acquire, mine, process and refine unbelievable amounts of raw material for the cost of the reaction mass and life support needed to bring them back to orbit.

So, if I rule out transportation, it would be profitable? Heck, GM would be really profitable if i could choose to ignore one single cost factor. So, I can process lots of stuff .... only close to a very fast moving meteorite, and I must ignore how to bring it to where the people are?
I agree with what you say, but you ignore that "cars don't buy cars", and thus oyu have to take into account the travel into a gravitational well and the energy to slow down your stuff and protect it from heat and so on.

This sounds so much like the people who claimed humans would never fly, or go to the moon, or that computers would only be of use to very few, well funded, organizations.
Again, energy is the key. Best energy source is fusion. You have to take the hydrogen with you. Collecting it from the interplanetary (or even worse: interstellar) space is futile: the density is too low. To collect it, you need to spend more energy (in magnetic fields, or mass in a collector that needs to be accelerated) than you can possibly collect. He did the calculations. They looked good. If you can come up with calculations that prove it is energetically feasible to accelerate *and* decelerate a sufficent mass (spaceship+crew+things the colony will need at the beginning+fuel) to a decent speed.... let's say 1%c, or better 10%c ... then I will isten to you gladly. It is not that I don't want to believe, but you have to prove the possibility, as I was proven the impossibility.

Why? Insufficient reaction mass? Structural integrity? Maintaining life support? Radiation shielding? There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of people, from engineering students up to NASA, working on the idea of colony ships of immense sizes for over thirty years. And this professor claims it to be impossible? He had better have a very convincing argument.
Energy. He showed the maths. If you can overcome that, I am very willing to believe. So far, you have only doubted him but not brought anything to support your claim that it is possible.
I recall that the funniest line we wouldn't be able to build a DeathStar was that our solar system (apart from the sun) does not have enough Iron to build a moon out of it.

No, it serves its purpose.

What I DO think is that people need to get used to the idea that space exploration will be carried out by private industry not Government agencies.
NO private industry with stock holders is going to accept the risk.

Especially when the risk involves NUCLEAR power and possible loss of life.

NO private industry with stock holders is going to accept the risk.

Especially when the risk involves NUCLEAR power and possible loss of life.

Oh? Then who sent manned Spaceship One into space atop the manned White Knight booster?

Virgin Galactic, a subsidiary of Virgin Atlantic, a publicly traded company.

Who owns the nuclear power plants in the United States? Private power companies. Who builds the warships used by the United States Navy, including the nuclear powered submarines and Aircraft Carriers? Privately owned shipyards.

I italicized it so you wouldn't take the word literally.

Though would it orbit directly around the sun it would undoubtedly be categorized as a planet.

Here's my list of targets for colonization in order of preference:
1. Moon - Pros: Near, no hostile atmosphere, shallow gravity well, excellent source for He3. Cons: Water?, long day/night cycle, no atmosphere or magnetosphere to protect from cosmic rays/solar wind.
2. Mars - Pros: Most Earthlike planet, shallowish gravity well, abundant water (so it seems) Cons: Not as close as moon, lack of incentive to colonize, irradiated surface
3. Asteroids - Pros: No gravity well to talk about, abundant resources nearby Cons: Low to near 0 gravity, water can be a problem, irregularity.
4. Mercury - Pros: Plenty of solar power present, polar caps always within shadow which can contain water ice, abundance of heavy metals (based on density) Cons: Closeness to the sun carries a risk of flares, deadly daylight, no magnetic field for protection.
5. Europa - Pros: Ton of water ice, Cons: Distance, closeness to Jupiter
6. Titan - Pros: Atmosphere, Cons: Distance, closeness to Saturn
7. Venus - Pros: Atmosphere, relative closeness, Cons: Temperature, deep gravity well, lack of accessible water, extreme pressure on surface.

your cons make pretty much every planet seem impossible to colonize. looks like you thought about the list, though. the only one of thos that i am really familiar with is venus. temperature and stuff is bad but

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080213214157AAifv4v&show=7

this is a pretty good link to a small discussion on space colonization.

I disagree, moon is the best planet to colonize first.

1. It's cheap
2. It's reachable
3. It's been visited
4. It's only one light second away.

It also has no atmosphere, so say hello to constant meteoric visitors.

At this point.. I think we should be begging China to go ahead and take over America. After that China might become a big enough country that others would go ahead and go along with it. The power is split up right now so much that nothing will get done. Too many chiefs and too few indians.

China announced some time ago, plans to go to the moon. Shortly after that, America announced that they would go back a little sooner than the Chinese. Competition will make the demand. And a little foresight from long thinkers. In that respect, China has a slight advantage. CCP doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in another 4 years.

Frankly I see capitalism as a good thing at any rate.

NASA goes out and spends obscene amounts of taxpayer money to come up with a system that routinely runs overbudget, underperforming and not reliable enough to compete seriously with the ESA...

...And some guy who owns his own company (Virgin) goes out and spends a few million bucks to build a prototype privately owned commercial space vehicle. Private investment is more efficient, faster, and attains results better than any Government agency.

Always.

As I understand it, SpaceShipOne and it's descendant aren't truly orbital craft. They're sub-orbital.

Jupiter has been scooping Mar's planetary mass? News to me. My point is that the planetary mass of Mars can be reasonably ascertained to be constant from its early phases, well after it's formation, to today. That means any atmosphere it had from the start has been exposed to unprotected solar radiation that would have put it on a slow boil.

I'm not sure what you mean by "slow Boil". The average temperature is a bit below the freezing point of water.



You do realize that to build up the atmosphere you'd need to dump in something on the order of nearly twice the total gas currently on Earth? And it would have to be breathable gas. The majority of Earth's inert gas is nitrogen, so you'll need either that or something similar to it. You do NOT, want a majority oxygen biosphere. Not unless you want it to be the easily flammable sort.

And even if you did find it, you'd need to dump enough of it in a short amount of time that atmosphere boil off doesn't offset it.


You wouldn't need anywhere near that much gas. Mars is small; surface area much less than that of Earth. And Mars already has an atmosphere with a median planetary level pressure (think sea level) roughly equal to the pressure at the top of Mount Everest.

As to gas composition, that's less of a worry than getting the pressure up. Gas transformation to more useful forms is relatively easy.

And since Mars has, I repeat, taken BILLIONS of years to reach it's current reduced pressure levels, we literally won't have a "boiling off" problem for thousands, maybe millions of years.

As I understand it, SpaceShipOne and it's descendant aren't truly orbital craft. They're sub-orbital.

Correct, but it doesn't matter. They still reached space, and it's one step in a progression of increasingly sophisticated and flexible craft. No matter how you look at it, it was very risky and could well have ended up with loss of life.

So, if I rule out transportation, it would be profitable?

Do you know what a gravity well is? Or maybe I wasn't specific enough. Any spacecraft built on Earth. The biggest cost and portion of weight to any surface to space vehicle is, and will always be, the fuel needed to get it to escape velocity.

So don't build them on Earth. Ship the infrastructure needed to start in orbit, or on the moon, where escaping the gravitational pull is tons cheaper. So you'll move 100,000 tons of building material to orbit. Say it'll cost a few billion dollars. That's a 100,000 tons you can spend on building a starship with much less of its bulk being taken up by fuel because it doesn't have to land on or leave planets.


I agree with what you say, but you ignore that "cars don't buy cars", and thus oyu have to take into account the travel into a gravitational well and the energy to slow down your stuff and protect it from heat and so on.


I have no idea what you're babbling about cars not buying cars. And if you had bothered paying attention, you would have realized I'm talking about building infrastructure and craft that are never meant to enter any planet.


Again, energy is the key. Best energy source is fusion. You have to take the hydrogen with you. Collecting it from the interplanetary (or even worse: interstellar) space is futile: the density is too low. To collect it, you need to spend more energy (in magnetic fields, or mass in a collector that needs to be accelerated) than you can possibly collect. He did the calculations. They looked good. If you can come up with calculations that prove it is energetically feasible to accelerate *and* decelerate a sufficent mass (spaceship+crew+things the colony will need at the beginning+fuel) to a decent speed.... let's say 1%c, or better 10%c ... then I will isten to you gladly. It is not that I don't want to believe, but you have to prove the possibility, as I was proven the impossibility.

Here's where your professor went wrong. He completely ignores the possibility of new technologies being developed, and declares "Nope, we'll never get there."

Anti-matter production for example. Inefficient, costly, and only miniscule in terms of production despite its immense energy potential. It doesn't mean it will always be that inefficient.

Never is a term no scientist should ever use, especially in regards to predicting future science.


Energy. He showed the maths. If you can overcome that, I am very willing to believe. So far, you have only doubted him but not brought anything to support your claim that it is possible.

Energy? That's his biggest gripe? The man is small minded. If the only energy source he knew is coal power, is he going to say that escaping planetary gravity wells is impossible for all time then?

This man doesn't have an engineer's approach to problems.


I recall that the funniest line we wouldn't be able to build a DeathStar was that our solar system (apart from the sun) does not have enough Iron to build a moon out of it.

First it was star destroyers, now you're going to deathstars. Changing goalposts are we?

And if we got to the point where we could build artificial planets, even just by technical capability, we had better be damn well out there in the stars and not just this particular mud ball.

I'm not sure what you mean by "slow Boil". The average temperature is a bit below the freezing point of water.

Gas rises to upper levels, solar radiation heats it up, gas escapes gravity well. That's pretty much it.


You wouldn't need anywhere near that much gas. Mars is small; surface area much less than that of Earth.

Isn't Mars nearly Earth sized?


And Mars already has an atmosphere with a median planetary level pressure (think sea level) roughly equal to the pressure at the top of Mount Everest.

Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa. Mars has about 0.7-0.9 kPa. You're still going to need a ton of gas.


And since Mars has, I repeat, taken BILLIONS of years to reach it's current reduced pressure levels, we literally won't have a "boiling off" problem for thousands, maybe millions of years.

If you could magic Mar's atmosphere to its early state instantly, yes, that would be likely. Given humanities more limited capabilities, I think it's going to be a very long project that will need as of yet uninvented technologies, and a few centuries at the least.

Gas rises to upper levels, solar radiation heats it up, gas escapes gravity well. That's pretty much it.


Yes, it happens. A bit worse on Mars thanks to the Jupiter effect and lower gravity, but still only tiny amounts each year.

Isn't Mars nearly Earth sized?

Nope. Mars is a little denser than Earth, IIRC, and only 2/3rds the gravity - total size is significantly less, only about twice that of the Moon.

Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa. Mars has about 0.7-0.9 kPa. You're still going to need a ton of gas.

Sure. But there are apparently tens of thousands of icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt, and similar numbers in the Saturnian Rings, many of which are literally kilometers in size. Send a few unmanned driver ships out and harvest as many as necessary; and just slam them into Mars. Since Mars is tectonically dead, all the damage will do is punch a few big craters, and Mars already has plenty of those.



If you could magic Mar's atmosphere to its early state instantly, yes, that would be likely. Given humanities more limited capabilities, I think it's going to be a very long project that will need as of yet uninvented technologies, and a few centuries at the least.

Sure, definitely a long term project. It may be a thousand years before a man or woman stands on Mars' surface and breathes oxygenated air under a blue sky. But all the technology to do it exists RIGHT NOW. We only lack the will.

Space research and exploration should be one of our highest priorities. I simply cannot believe that there are still people who think that it's a good idea to reduce space funding even a little, much less stop it entirely! Seriously, if you have your doubts about space, just type "benefits of space program" into your favorite search engine and just read. Read as much as you possibly can, and if you still think that space research is pointless, or that we should wait until we "solve all our problems here on earth first"(:rolleyes:), then you're simply being willfully ignorant.


That was sorta my initial reason. Well not to wait til we solve all our problems, that will never happen. But that the fed isn't required to continue space exploration etc. There are private programs and will continue to be.


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2558
http://www.spaceprojects.com/beal2001.htm / http://www.spaceprojects.com/Beal/



I still take back my no though. I wasn't thinking of all the tax money we waste on useless things.. and how little the funding to NASA was compared.

I still take back my no though. I wasn't thinking of all the tax money we waste on useless things.. and how little the funding to NASA was compared.

Honestly, this makes me really happy. :D

I know my earlier post may come off as condescending to some, but when someone dismisses the possibilities of space exploration, it's just depressing.

*sigh* There is no use in talking with someone as stubborn as you:

Do you know what a gravity well is? Or maybe I wasn't specific enough. ... And if you had bothered paying attention, you would have realized I'm talking about building infrastructure and craft that are never meant to enter any planet.

Yes, you were not specific enough, and you are still thinking too short.


Do you know what a gravity well is? Or maybe I wasn't specific enough. Any spacecraft built on Earth. The biggest cost and portion of weight to any surface to space vehicle is, and will always be, the fuel needed to get it to escape velocity.
So don't build them on Earth. Ship the infrastructure needed to start in orbit, or on the moon, where escaping the gravitational pull is tons cheaper. So you'll move 100,000 tons of building material to orbit. Say it'll cost a few billion dollars. That's a 100,000 tons you can spend on building a starship with much less of its bulk being taken up by fuel because it doesn't have to land on or leave planets.

For each ship that you build in orbit, you still need to get the ressources there, including the fuel. Maybe you get that from (fast moving) other planets, then you still need to match speeds of your orbital station and the supplies.
Second: Why yould I build a spaceship if I do not want to land or leave planets? Good, let's build "shuttles". And let's set up colonies..... and let's bring stuff down to the colony. Heck, we need to transfer to and fro our orbital spaceship to the ground and back. ... Come again with "no need to travel in/out graity wells" .... well, no need to travel at all then.

You still have not brought up a single simple number or prove that you have spent more time thinking on this than a lazy afternoon.

I have no idea what you're babbling about cars not buying cars. And if you had bothered paying attention, you would have realized I'm talking about building infrastructure and craft that are never meant to enter any planet.

You want to send persons somewhere, where they should be able to set up a camp? They need A HELL LOT OF STUFF that you need to ACCELERATE regardless of any gravity well. You want to travel how far: Next solar system?
That's 4 lightyears. You want to do it in what time? You need to be how fast? Your spaceship has what mass? You want to start from here (from a stop) and end there (with a stop)? .....With these points you can make yourself a rough estimate of how much energy you would need. This needs to be fuel.

Here's where your professor went wrong. He completely ignores the possibility of new technologies being developed, and declares "Nope, we'll never get there."

Anti-matter production for example. Inefficient, costly, and only miniscule in terms of production despite its immense energy potential. It doesn't mean it will always be that inefficient.

Never is a term no scientist should ever use, especially in regards to predicting future science.

You are not a scientist, I take it. You seem to be an Engineer (as guessed from your later comment where you set equal these two different professions).

Even matter-antimatter is E=mc^2, plus you will need rather strong fields to confine the antimatter. This limit was taken into account by him as well. Still didn't work.
DO THE BLOODY CALCULATIONS YOURSELF BEFORE DISMISSING THEM HANDWAVINGLY.

Energy? That's his biggest gripe? The man is small minded. If the only energy source he knew is coal power, is he going to say that escaping planetary gravity wells is impossible for all time then?

Yes, it is the trump card. And it is still trumping. We know the best ratio of mass to energy. This is all we need to know: speed we want to have => energy to accellerate and decellerate => fuel we need for this energy => extra mass that needs to be carried .... do the maths, then come back


This man doesn't have an engineer's approach to problems.


He did. You weren't there but judge him. You are assuming too much. You are full of yourself. You are arrogant.

Another point against interstellar travel with human beings:

The next star is 4 lightyears away. Let's say we send people there, at 1%c, because we can't afford more acceleration and deceleration. Takes them 400 years each trip, but we know cryostasis for them, all good.
So, in 800 years they are back:
We would not be able to understand them anymore. We probably wouldn't even remember they existed. That's like having someone from 1200 popping up here. These people would be very lonely and curiosities for the mass media.
Just to give you an idea about the implications.

Another point against interstellar travel with human beings:

The next star is 4 lightyears away. Let's say we send people there, at 1%c, because we can't afford more acceleration and deceleration. Takes them 400 years each trip, but we know cryostasis for them, all good.
So, in 800 years they are back:
We would not be able to understand them anymore. We probably wouldn't even remember they existed. That's like having someone from 1200 popping up here. These people would be very lonely and curiosities for the mass media.
Just to give you an idea about the implications.

Which is why we probably won't send anyone anywhere lightyears away until we can get them there and back in a reasonable time frame. Unmanned probes are another matter.

Which is why we probably won't send anyone anywhere lightyears away until we can get them there and back in a reasonable time frame. Unmanned probes are another matter.

There is no purpose whatsoever to sending someone there and bringing them back. We would send people there when we are ready to colonize.

Even matter-antimatter is E=mc^2, plus you will need rather strong fields to confine the antimatter. This limit was taken into account by him as well. Still didn't work.

Yes, it is the trump card. And it is still trumping. We know the best ratio of mass to energy. This is all we need to know: speed we want to have => energy to accellerate and decellerate => fuel we need for this energy => extra mass that needs to be carried .... do the maths, then come backI think the point he was getting at is that an incredibly small amount of antimatter is needed as fuel in comparison to conventional chemical fuel. And the fact that antimatter is theoretically the most potent fuel we know of.

DO THE BLOODY CALCULATIONS YOURSELF BEFORE DISMISSING THEM HANDWAVINGLY.It's hard not to dismiss the calculations defending your argument when you don't provide them.

Do you know what a gravity well is? Or maybe I wasn't specific enough. Any spacecraft built on Earth. The biggest cost and portion of weight to any surface to space vehicle is, and will always be, the fuel needed to get it to escape velocity.
I respect your knowledge on aviation, but here... not really.
Fuel is but a small fraction of cost, insignificant even. Say, a Space Shuttle, which is worth billions, contains only about $2,000,000 worth of fuel. Out of the per-launch cost of about $200,000,000, it's just 1%. Out of the $10,000,000 it costs to lift a ton of payload, fuel is just $100,000.

Buildings engines that can do it, fuel tanks light enough, and things that work in space is a greater challenge.


Anti-matter production for example. Inefficient, costly, and only miniscule in terms of production despite its immense energy potential. It doesn't mean it will always be that inefficient.But still pretty inefficient.

Though forget the cost. Even with antimatter, we are not close to 0.99c or something, still small fractions.


But really the actual reason I don't think humans are going to colonize any stars is... the birth rate. Look at it, the birth rate in developed countries is slowing down, and children:parents ratio is coming to less than unity.
Only immigrants and backyard nations are growing, but poor nations aren't the ones to afford space, and they'll slow down too as they develop.

We humans are too used to think of ourselves as above the nature, outside it at least, but we aren't. Not a bit. Humans follow the same laws as other animals. We just believe ourselves to do it out of our own free will, and indeed we are, but the very will itself stems from our biology and instincts, just their refinement.

Frankly I see capitalism as a good thing at any rate.

NASA goes out and spends obscene amounts of taxpayer money to come up with a system that routinely runs overbudget, underperforming and not reliable enough to compete seriously with the ESA...

...And some guy who owns his own company (Virgin) goes out and spends a few million bucks to build a prototype privately owned commercial space vehicle. Private investment is more efficient, faster, and attains results better than any Government agency.

Always.
Don't forget to think about the downsides of a capitalistic approach to space travel. For example, research. I reccon that, if space-travel is done by a capitalistic system, everything that people want to use should be economicly viable. That's the real danger, everything is weighed against "Can I earn money with this?" although sometimes, earning money isn't what's important. Should corporations be allowed to explore and exploit space as well? Sure, ofcourse, but a government program is important as well for other purposes.

Don't forget to think about the downsides of a capitalistic approach to space travel. For example, research. I reccon that, if space-travel is done by a capitalistic system, everything that people want to use should be economicly viable. That's the real danger, everything is weighed against "Can I earn money with this?" although sometimes, earning money isn't what's important. Should corporations be allowed to explore and exploit space as well? Sure, ofcourse, but a government program is important as well for other purposes.

Very true. I prefer democratic socialism.

For each ship that you build in orbit, you still need to get the ressources there, including the fuel. Maybe you get that from (fast moving) other planets, then you still need to match speeds of your orbital station and the supplies.

Getting to orbit from the surface will always be expensive, there is no getting around that. But once you are in orbit, you can pretty much construct your actual asteroid mining ships and what have you there without having to worry about them being trans-atmospheric. And if you must keep pointing out the costs of getting resources planetside, then build a bloody orbital ladder as your first step. So what if it will be expensive at first? Once you have a fully functional orbital ladder, you can throw away the costs of chemical rockets for something more efficient like magnetic climbers.


Second: Why yould I build a spaceship if I do not want to land or leave planets?

Because I might want to build orbital colonies, or use them to harvest asteroids which can then be used to create full blown colony vessels which won't do the actual landing, but carry landing pods to go with it, or maybe even the materials needed to construct an orbital ladder on another planet. You're already in space anyway.


Good, let's build "shuttles". And let's set up colonies..... and let's bring stuff down to the colony. Heck, we need to transfer to and fro our orbital spaceship to the ground and back. ... Come again with "no need to travel in/out graity wells" .... well, no need to travel at all then.

You, can stay earthbound with your naysaying. People like the Wright brothers on the other hand, will be destroying your arguments.


You still have not brought up a single simple number or prove that you have spent more time thinking on this than a lazy afternoon.

I don't see any numbers from you except in only this post.


You want to send persons somewhere, where they should be able to set up a camp? They need A HELL LOT OF STUFF that you need to ACCELERATE regardless of any gravity well. You want to travel how far: Next solar system?
That's 4 lightyears. You want to do it in what time? You need to be how fast? Your spaceship has what mass? You want to start from here (from a stop) and end there (with a stop)? .....With these points you can make yourself a rough estimate of how much energy you would need. This needs to be fuel.


And if you use coal as your fuel, you'll probably never get there in anything shorter than a few hundred generations.

You don't get it do you? If we had assumed a fixed energy source that would never have a higher energy density than coal, a lot of technologies today just wouldn't work. Your professor is doing the exact same thing by assuming fusion is the only viable source and no other.

Even if we did that, why not use Orion rockets then?

For the price of several nuclear devices, you could have propelled, according to the project lead at the time, large spacecraft to Pluto and back inside of a year.


You are not a scientist, I take it.


And maybe that's why this professor fails so badly. He assumes fixed constants, fixed parameters, and pretends that alternatives to achieving a goal doesn't exist. An engineer would never do that.


Even matter-antimatter is E=mc^2, plus you will need rather strong fields to confine the antimatter. This limit was taken into account by him as well. Still didn't work.
DO THE BLOODY CALCULATIONS YOURSELF BEFORE DISMISSING THEM HANDWAVINGLY.


E=mc2, yes. So for antimatter, the energy per unit mass (9×1016 J/kg) is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy (compared to TNT at 4.2×106 J/kg, and formation of water at 1.56×107 J/kg), about 4 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission (about 40 MeV per 238U nucleus transmuted to Lead, or 1.5×1013 J/kg), and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible from fusion (about 6.3×1014 J/kg for the proton-proton chain). The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²), or the rough equivalent of 47 megatons of TNT.

So for a few kg of antimatter fuel, how fast would you go compared to chemical, or even fusion powered rockets hmm? Ever did the comparative calculations? I bet you didn't. And even if we assumed a 50% energy loss due to entropy, that's still a huge amount of energy for very little mass.


Yes, it is the trump card. And it is still trumping. We know the best ratio of mass to energy. This is all we need to know: speed we want to have => energy to accellerate and decellerate => fuel we need for this energy => extra mass that needs to be carried .... do the maths, then come back


And if scientists a hundred odd years ago had assumed that maximum energy density = coal, we wouldn't be talking right now.

More densely packed, efficient forms of energy are right there in your face, and you keep pretending that they don't exist. If anyone is being stubborn, it's you.


He did. You weren't there but judge him. You are assuming too much. You are full of yourself. You are arrogant.

The man didn't. He assumed fixed parables and pronounced them universal, the worst sins of a scientist and engineer alike. My only arrogance comes from knowing what a small minded man this scientist of yours is.

Should we spend money in space? Depends on what they have to buy.

I respect your knowledge on aviation, but here... not really.
Fuel is but a small fraction of cost, insignificant even. Say, a Space Shuttle, which is worth billions, contains only about $2,000,000 worth of fuel. Out of the per-launch cost of about $200,000,000, it's just 1%. Out of the $10,000,000 it costs to lift a ton of payload, fuel is just $100,000.


Fair enough. I was thinking more in lines of the mass to thrust ratio really. The Saturn V had a mass of 3,038,500 kg but only a payload of 118,000 kg for low Earth orbit, which was what, a ratio of 3.8%?


Buildings engines that can do it, fuel tanks light enough, and things that work in space is a greater challenge.

Depends on the engine you want. An Orion engine is actually more efficient for bigger and heavier ships.


But still pretty inefficient.

Though forget the cost. Even with antimatter, we are not close to 0.99c or something, still small fractions.

So? That's a lot better than relying on chemical rockets. Or even fusion based plasma pushers. More energy density means weight savings in fuel. And besides, space is a huge field of potentiality. It's not like getting out there won't present new barriers, ideas or developments. Just going to the moon provided a whole hosts of technology that humanity takes for granted today but would have been unimaginable 20 years before the moon landing. Going beyond the moon will yield far more such discoveries I bet.

And besides, if we stay on this mud ball, we're practically begging to go extinct. That supervolcano in Yellowstone park will blow, or we'll get a smack from a levy-9 wannabe or some other cosmic put down will show up eventually. The Earth would survive, deep crust bacteria would probably survive. Humanity? Not a chance.

Oh? Then who sent manned Spaceship One into space atop the manned White Knight booster?
Taking a dip into space is not a big feat, going to orbit is bit more challenging, travelling to moon is an enormous effort, colonizing moon is nigh impossible in comparison.

Also, there are absolutely NO short term profit ventures in space business, beyond orbital tourism - Show me even ONE experimental private venture that has relied on uncertain profits coming after decades of investment.

Who owns the nuclear power plants in the United States? Private power companies. Who builds the warships used by the United States Navy, including the nuclear powered submarines and Aircraft Carriers? Privately owned shipyards.
A private business that's willing to take on a high profile enterprise where you run into a risk of contaminating huge swaths of land with nuclear waste and include a high risk of human casualties? I seriously doubt it.

Yes, I could be wrong - but IF a private business is operated by share holders who demand profit from space travel then all you're going to get is space tourism and orbital dips.

It is similar to fusion power research: Name a single private industry that's willing to spend billions on fusion power which is not only much easier project but also very profitable when you perfect the technique and doesn't run into risk of killing people or booster failing and dumping nuclear waste across the countryside. Furthermore, fusion power is also almost a requirement for eg. profitable moon colonization: Solar winds buildup Helium-3 within lunar surface and mining that could make a ton of money IF there was use for that...

So, why aren't there private entrepreneurs investing into fusion power? Because the profits would take decades to materialize, it dabbles with atoms and atoms are bad for publicity and the fact that oil business is profitable now.
your cons make pretty much every planet seem impossible to colonize.
Not impossible, just difficult.

Moon is easiest because we can launch more supplies there in relatively short notice - matter of days and weeks rather than years. The communication also happens almost in real time which makes dialogues easier. Not forgetting the relative easiness of immediate evacuation, naturally.

Nope. Mars is a little denser than Earth, IIRC, and only 2/3rds the gravity - total size is significantly less, only about twice that of the Moon.
Mars is less dense than Earth - Earth is the densest and heaviest rock planet followed by Mercury and Venus.

IIRC Mars's density is something like 4 kg/dm^3 while earth tops the list with 5.5 g/cm^3. Venus is close with something around 5 tonnes/m^3 (note: the units are equivalent ;)).

It also has no atmosphere, so say hello to constant meteoric visitors.
Moon is smaller than Earth therefore it gets less meteor visitors than our planet.

It's true that atmosphere is good at deflecting & burning up most of the smaller meteoroids in the process, but the risk of collision to a square kilometer - at maximum - area is very, very small.

No atmosphere means closed circuit biosphere, it's also a blessing for astronomers and thanks to no air drag (and low gravity well) building an acceleration rail throwing mass into orbit, to Earth and even elsewhere into solar system is much easier - That kind of acceleration rail operated with local resources equals to practically free transport system...after construction, that is.

So for a few kg of antimatter fuel, how fast would you go compared to chemical, or even fusion powered rockets hmm? Ever did the comparative calculations? I bet you didn't. And even if we assumed a 50% energy loss due to entropy, that's still a huge amount of energy for very little mass.
The problem is that you need to manufacture and contain the antimatter first - Also, a failure of containment and BOOOM! You just caused a 50 megaton nuclear explosion ripping the ship to shreds...Or perhaps the containment fails on Earth? That's Tsar Bomba equivalent in your neighborhood.

Using more standard nuclear methods - even for interstellar travel - are much, much easier, magnitudes less expensive and lot safer in comparison.

For example fusion, which has energy density of about 1% of antimatter, when used in something similar to projects Daedalus or Longshot would be more than enough to propel a ship to closest stars within a lifetime.

MATHEMATICS OF INTERSTELLAR FLIGHT

Let r(t) = distance from Earth of ship at time t, in light-years

s = time since launch, in years, by *ship’s* clock

s is not equal to t = time by *Earth’s* clock

u = ds/dt (time-dilation factor)

v = dr/dt, velocity by Earth’s frame of reference (by ship’s frame, of course ship’s velocity is always 0, Earth has velocity –v), in light-years per year (that is, as a fraction of light-speed, always less than 1); u = sqrt(1 – v^2)

w = v/u = dr/ds is the “warp velocity” which can exceed 1: it is perfectly possible that 9 light-years are travelled (as Earth measures distance) when only 1 year has elapsed (as the ship measures time), but at this “warp factor 9”, the true v = 9/sqrt(82) ~= 99.4% light-speed

x = 1/u = dt/ds is also the ratio of relativistic-mass over rest-mass. These can all be related as trig functions (I use “Q” for “theta” here, too lazy to hook in Greek font) with u = cos Q, v = sin Q, w = tan Q, x = sec Q

h = ln(sec Q + tan Q) is the base for an alternate representation in hyperbolic trig functions, u = sech h, v = tanh h, w = sinh h, x = cosh h. This “hypervelocity”, like the “warp velocity”, becomes arbitrarily large as v approaches 1, but does not grow as fast as w: at v = .994, w = 9 but
h = ln(9 + sqrt(82)) ~= 2.9

g = (dv/dt)(x^3) is the internal perceived gravity on the ship. If there are hatch-marks in the cargo bay marked one foot apart before launch, and Newton drops an apple in the cargo bay and measures its fall at 32 feet per second per second by those hatch-marks and the ship’s chronometer, if u = .1 then by the Earth’s frame the hatch-marks are .1 foot apart, the relative speed of apple and ship has grown to 3.2 feet per 10 seconds, that is .32 foot per second, after 10 seconds, thus the acceleration by Earth’s frame is .032 foot per second per second, in general dv/dt = gu^3

Now, dv/dQ = cos Q = u, hence dQ/dt = gu^2
dw/dQ = sec^2 Q = x^2, hence dw/dt = g
Also dh/dQ = sec Q = 1/u, hence dh/dt = gu, ds/dt = u so dh/ds = g

So w is the integral of g over Earth-time, h the integral of g over ship-time. If the ship maintains a constant thrust of one “light-gee” (light-year per year per year ~= 33 foot per second per second ~= 1.031 Earth-gee) for 2.9 years by the ship’s clock, it reaches h = 2.9, v = .994, w = 9 and thus 9 years have elapsed by the Earth’s clock.

Let m = present rest-mass of the ship, constantly decreasing where –dm/ds is the rate at which fuel is being consumed and expelled, and (-dm/ds)V = mg is the thrust given the exhaust velocity (relative to the ship) V. Assuming V constant, during acceleration we have:
(1/m)(dm/ds) = (-1/V)(dh/ds)
ln(m) = - h/V + C
m = Me^(-h/V)
where M is the mass at launch (when h = 0). During deceleration, the sign changes and m decreases with decreasing h, instead of decreasing with increasing h; we end up with:
P = Me^(-H/V)
where P = payload mass (when h returns to 0) and H is the sum of the absolute values of all changes in h. The exponential nature of the payload-to-mass-ratio equation (Google “Goddard’s rocket equation” for a very similar non-relativistic formula, the only change here being that the hypervelocity substitutes for the true velocity in the numerator of the exponent) is very discouraging. Note that the need to build up to a cruising velocity and then *brake* back down to zero does not double the fuel requirement, but rather *squares* it: if you can only get 1/20 of the original ship up to cruise velocity, you can only get 1/20 of that 1/20 back down to zero velocity. A round trip will resquare it: you could only get 1/20 of 1/20 of 1/20 of 1/20 of the original ship up to cruise velocity, back down to zero at the destination, back up to cruise velocity for the return trip, and back down to zero at Earth (assuming no opportunity to refuel at the destination).

The exhaust velocity V depends on the “effective antimatter fraction” A. You cannot really get V = 1: half-and-half antimatter and matter, completely annihilating to gamma-ray photons redirected straight back; for one thing, a “gamma mirror” is an engineering nightmare; for another, protons and antiprotons actually annihilate to a spray of pi-mesons, and the pions still have a rest-mass, and even if you could bend the pions all straight back you would get at best about V = .3 (in THEORY). More practical is to inject a little antimatter into a lot of waste matter (plain water would do); all the pions will crash into nuclei and convert into heat energy (and a boiling-water “mirror” is simplicity itself, a solid tank with single vent). If one gram of matter+antimatter contains A gram of antimatter, the new rest-mass is 1-2A and the relativistic mass (including the released energy) is still the old rest-mass of 1, thus 1-2A = sqrt(1-V^2) and:
V = sqrt(2A)
A possibly feasible fuel-mix is 1/200 antimatter, thus V = .1

The concept of “effective antimatter fraction” can be applied to non-antimatter reactions like the hydrogen-combustion
2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O
which releases about 120 electron-volts of energy out of a rest-mass of 36 amu ~= 34 billion electron-volts, which is like using 60 ev of antimatter. This is a pathetically small A around 2 x 10^-9, giving V about 6 x 10^-5 (I may be a little off here, this is back-of-the-envelope without my references, but orders of magnitude should be right). Usually the energy release of a rocket-fuel is measured in “seconds”, which is the number of seconds that one pound of fuel can give one pound of thrust; since that thrust is actually in gee-pounds, the “seconds” really mean “gee-seconds”, and a chemical reaction like hydrogen combustion can get up near two thousand gee-seconds, which is a pathetically small fraction of a “gee-year” (light-speed) at 32.5 million gee-seconds. The only chemical reaction in the whole periodic table which releases more energy per rest-mass than hydrogen + oxygen is hydrogen + fluorine, slightly better at a horrendous cost in storing pure fluorine. Nuclear reactions also have a limit: in the whole nucleon-binding curve, you cannot do better than deuterium fusion to helium-4, a reaction with effective antimatter fraction ~1/3000 for V ~= .025

So, we really really need antimatter drive. How much antimatter? That depends on the payload, and on how fast you want to get there. Say we want to get a human colony on Alpha Centauri, with a trip-time around 40 years so some of the people launched might still be alive to see the end. Then we are looking at a cruising h around .1 for H = .2, and P really can’t be brought down much lower than 100 million tons (we need a whole self-sustaining ecosphere like a “Biosphere II” that works, heavy lead-shielding around the whole package, plus engines and big fuel-tanks; even “staging”, shedding the fuel-tanks as they empty, doesn’t bring the overhead down much). Suppose we use A = 1/200 for V = .1 and P = Me^(-2), mass of ship at launch about 730 million tons, most of that fuel being water, but over 3 million tons of it being antimatter. That’s a LOT. For a sense of scale:

1 gram of antimatter would release energy about equivalent to a big fission bomb, 40 kilotons-TNT yield (Hiroshima + Nagasaki)

1 kilogram like a big fusion bomb, 40 megatons

1 ton would be more energy than the total nuclear and conventional arsenals of the planet

1 kiloton would be more energy than the human race has consumed since the Industrial Revolution

1 megaton is the “poker chip”, the amount you have to pony up before you can get serious about interstellar travel

Whoa: to look at the scale in the other direction,

1 milligram of antimatter is like a bombing raid on Hamburg in WWII (40 tons high explosive)

1 microgram is like the Oklahoma City truck-bomb

1 nanogram like a little black-cap

1 picogram is about as much energy as a human could barely feel

1 femtogram (10^-15 gram ~= 60 million antiprotons and positrons) is much more than any of our particle accelerators have ever been to manufacture at one time

Don't forget to think about the downsides of a capitalistic approach to space travel. For example, research. I reccon that, if space-travel is done by a capitalistic system, everything that people want to use should be economicly viable. That's the real danger, everything is weighed against "Can I earn money with this?" although sometimes, earning money isn't what's important. Should corporations be allowed to explore and exploit space as well? Sure, ofcourse, but a government program is important as well for other purposes.

True, which is why I said NASA serves its purpose. It isn't, however, the way we're ultimately going to colonize the Solar System.

Taking a dip into space is not a big feat, going to orbit is bit more challenging, travelling to moon is an enormous effort, colonizing moon is nigh impossible in comparison.


I don't think so... Everybody has to start somewhere. The Space Ship One did what Yuri Gagarin or John Glenn did but better. Just like with NASA, each step will be progressively greater.


Also, there are absolutely NO short term profit ventures in space business, beyond orbital tourism - Show me even ONE experimental private venture that has relied on uncertain profits coming after decades of investment.


SpaceShip One.

An Orion ship built in orbit would be far better for exploring the solar system.

An Orion ship built in orbit would be far better for exploring the solar system.
Thats why they are leaving most of the ship in orbit and just returning with the heat shielded part.

SpaceShip One.
Tried and true rocketry and nowhere near the innovation necessary even for orbital flight...let alone lunar travel. It was also cheap to achieve due to specs of the mission...Heck, a giant balloon can reach at least half of the "mission".

Furthermore, it has the potential for commercialization within 5 years considering there's already market present for that kind of adventure (ie. Russian space tourism).

There is no market present - or within foreseeable future - for colonization, permanent bases, of solar system. When first private industry invests on fusion power then there might be an incentive for mining colony for He3 but until then...Base on the moon is only for research and groundwork, aka. science project.

The unknown factor here is tourism, if someone can create an orbital launch system with price within reasonable range - say, 100k £$€ - then tourism might become primary source of funding of space travel which could lead to unexpected innovation, especially for orbital platforms.

I still can't see a situation where the first steps in going further in the system wouldn't be done internationally through the use of common wealth, tax payer money, rather than private capital.

Thats why they are leaving most of the ship in orbit and just returning with the heat shielded part.

I'm not talking about that one.

I'm talking about Project Orion.

A ship propelled by nuclear detonations.

Fair enough. I was thinking more in lines of the mass to thrust ratio really. The Saturn V had a mass of 3,038,500 kg but only a payload of 118,000 kg for low Earth orbit, which was what, a ratio of 3.8%?
Yet these 3.8% are about 60%-80% of the cost, the rest being about 20% the Saturn V engines, 6% its tankage and structure, and maybe 4% all that fuel.

Space isn't just expensive because of fuel, it's expensive because it's an extreme environment, where nothing comes for granted.
Where there's no heating and no cooling, and a spacecraft has to contain both heaters to heat its electronics and radiators to cool them. And the electronics themselves must withstand all of the space radiation. And it all should withstand micrometeoroid impact, while evading larger meteoroids. And if it's manned, there's an issue of keeping a precise artificial environment. And that's without even talking about the reentry, which could melt a solid ball of steel.

And still, with all the billions spent, and with such short lifetimes of space equipment, there are regular accidents.


Going beyond the moon will yield far more such discoveries I bet.
Discoveries, yes.

But actually settling there - that's very unlikely. Too much cost for too little gain. Maybe, in the far future, "settling" as in guys who control the mining operations, although the product must be truly valuable to make shipping worth it, like He3.


And besides, if we stay on this mud ball, we're practically begging to go extinct. That supervolcano in Yellowstone park will blow, or we'll get a smack from a levy-9 wannabe or some other cosmic put down will show up eventually. The Earth would survive, deep crust bacteria would probably survive. Humanity? Not a chance.
You are very, very idealistic. Who gives a damn? Did car companies stop producing SUVs and other gas-guzzlers because it threatens the planet?

People in power give a damn about themselves, people around them, but not the homo sapiens gene set. It's not too much help to know that some spacemen on the Mars will survive, when you and your children are going to be blown to bits by a comet.

Tried and true rocketry and nowhere near the innovation necessary even for orbital flight...let alone lunar travel. It was also cheap to achieve due to specs of the mission...Heck, a giant balloon can reach at least half of the "mission".

You say that as if they tried for more and fell short. It's like saying "Well John Glenn only managed a low orbit and landed in the water!! geez!"

Those were the exact parameters of the tests.

And of course they used rocketry... How is that a bad thing? It works for the Space Shuttle...


Furthermore, it has the potential for commercialization within 5 years considering there's already market present for that kind of adventure (ie. Russian space tourism).

Potential maybe, but not according to their business plan. Their goals are more long-term than that.


There is no market present - or within foreseeable future - for colonization, permanent bases, of solar system. When first private industry invests on fusion power then there might be an incentive for mining colony for He3 but until then...Base on the moon is only for research and groundwork, aka. science project.

The unknown factor here is tourism, if someone can create an orbital launch system with price within reasonable range - say, 100k £$€ - then tourism might become primary source of funding of space travel which could lead to unexpected innovation, especially for orbital platforms.

I still can't see a situation where the first steps in going further in the system wouldn't be done internationally through the use of common wealth, tax payer money, rather than private capital.

There are already private investors and corporate partners, namely Marriott, looking to get into lunar and orbital hotels. They have to take the development of the technology one step at a time, just like everyone else.

I'm not talking about that one.

I'm talking about Project Orion.

A ship propelled by nuclear detonations.

Ah my apologies I though you were talking about the orion missions

Nope. Mars is a little denser than Earth, IIRC, and only 2/3rds the gravity - total size is significantly less, only about twice that of the Moon.


Mars is slightly over half the size of Earth and 1/10th the mass of Earth.


It's true that atmosphere is good at deflecting & burning up most of the smaller meteoroids in the process, but the risk of collision to a square kilometer - at maximum - area is very, very small.


The ISS is a fraction of the size of a decent sized office block, much less the moon, and as I understand it, regularly gets micrometeor impacts. That's why they're planning to put up a laser interceptor to ablate any incoming impacts.


The problem is that you need to manufacture and contain the antimatter first - Also, a failure of containment and BOOOM! You just caused a 50 megaton nuclear explosion ripping the ship to shreds...Or perhaps the containment fails on Earth? That's Tsar Bomba equivalent in your neighborhood.

And that's why antimatter production is best done in high orbit, beyond the magnetosphere. Since there's no atmosphere to convert into blast, very little mass to turn into plasma, the damage will be much less severe than if it took place on Earth, although you'd still lose the facility.


Using more standard nuclear methods - even for interstellar travel - are much, much easier, magnitudes less expensive and lot safer in comparison.


The expense issue is a matter of scaling up production efficiency. It won't be today, or tomorrow where we'll see it becoming cost effective, but many years, decades perhaps, down the line.

Yet these 3.8% are about 60%-80% of the cost, the rest being about 20% the Saturn V engines, 6% its tankage and structure, and maybe 4% all that fuel.

This is only true if you don't factor in how many trips it would take to build any orbital facility of size. If we put in only pure payload, like say new modules for the ISS, we can consider that 60-80% as capital cost. The value remains. The remainder though, is literally burned up. A freighter may be worth a fraction of its total cargo, but if you had to sink it everytime it delivered something, that loss will tally up real quick.


Space isn't just expensive because of fuel, it's expensive because it's an extreme environment, where nothing comes for granted.
Where there's no heating and no cooling, and a spacecraft has to contain both heaters to heat its electronics and radiators to cool them.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but running the electronics should generate heat anyway, and doesn't the colder electronics run, the better?


And the electronics themselves must withstand all of the space radiation. And it all should withstand micrometeoroid impact, while evading larger meteoroids. And if it's manned, there's an issue of keeping a precise artificial environment. And that's without even talking about the reentry, which could melt a solid ball of steel.

Wait, are we talking about packages that are meant to return to Earth or orbital modules? Because I'm talking about things that are meant to stay in space once delivered there.


Discoveries, yes.

But actually settling there - that's very unlikely. Too much cost for too little gain. Maybe, in the far future, "settling" as in guys who control the mining operations, although the product must be truly valuable to make shipping worth it, like He3.


The way I see it, the first commercial ventures into space, other than communications satellites, would be into resource gathering. He3 is one of them. Depending on the viability of more efficient space worthy engines, metals from asteroids would be next.


You are very, very idealistic. Who gives a damn? Did car companies stop producing SUVs and other gas-guzzlers because it threatens the planet?

People in power give a damn about themselves, people around them, but not the homo sapiens gene set. It's not too much help to know that some spacemen on the Mars will survive, when you and your children are going to be blown to bits by a comet.

Actually, you will find that I'm rather pessimistic. It gets me surprised unpleasantly less.

The thing is that right now, for the last 30 years or so, there hasn't really been any serious contender for space. The US has been sitting on top of its space superiority like Microsoft, with Soviet Union being relegated to the role of Apple while the EU is the equivalent of early Linux. The whole thing has been stagnating.

However, with China's announcement of going to the moon, notice how little time it took for Bush to announce that America would be establishing a base there one day? Of course, it's not taken seriously now, and I'm betting it was just a bunch of hot air. But all it takes is for China to go there, establish a base, if possible, make a few breakthroughs and the race will be back, harder and faster than before. America doesn't like to have its nose blatantly rubbed in the fact that it isn't the best in everything.

Of course it's a long shot, but one thing that the CCP has going for it is that when they plan on doing something, they get it done, and they do it big unlike in America where truly big projects tend to founder when there isn't any international pressure of being left behind.

Eventually, yes we will go extinct. But even if the surface of the Earth decides to spontaneously combust and the oceans are poisoned, they have found a bacteria or somewhat living very near the earth's core. They are practically invincible and life will continue without humans. I know, it may be hard to imagine, but it is true.

Tried and true rocketry and nowhere near the innovation necessary even for orbital flight...let alone lunar travel. It was also cheap to achieve due to specs of the mission...Heck, a giant balloon can reach at least half of the "mission".

Furthermore, it has the potential for commercialization within 5 years considering there's already market present for that kind of adventure (ie. Russian space tourism).

There is no market present - or within foreseeable future - for colonization, permanent bases, of solar system. When first private industry invests on fusion power then there might be an incentive for mining colony for He3 but until then...Base on the moon is only for research and groundwork, aka. science project.

as we reach limits on food production on earth the moon can become a farming colony. The soil I read somewhere is actually very fertile. and no worries about ruining native Eco systems. While initial set up would be expensive it would be pretty cheap to send the food from the moon to Earth because of the low lunar gravity and the tendency of things that break free of moon's pull to get caught in Earth's pull. Still several hundreads years off though.

The unknown factor here is tourism, if someone can create an orbital launch system with price within reasonable range - say, 100k £$€ - then tourism might become primary source of funding of space travel which could lead to unexpected innovation, especially for orbital platforms.

I still can't see a situation where the first steps in going further in the system wouldn't be done internationally through the use of common wealth, tax payer money, rather than private capital.

This is only true if you don't factor in how many trips it would take to build any orbital facility of size. If we put in only pure payload, like say new modules for the ISS, we can consider that 60-80% as capital cost. The value remains. The remainder though, is literally burned up. A freighter may be worth a fraction of its total cargo, but if you had to sink it everytime it delivered something, that loss will tally up real quick.
Yes, but the point is not that we wouldn't like a high-payload, reusable, cheap launcher (just not as dirty as Project Orion). We would. But it won't lower the costs by orders of magnitude - rather just about twice. In time, through compromising on weight savings, maybe up to a few times, but that's about it. At any rate spacecraft are certainly going to be costlier than airplanes.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but running the electronics should generate heat anyway, and doesn't the colder electronics run, the better?
Not really. There's a certain narrow temperature range for everything. For instance, our usual CPU run between roughly -120C and +80C. Memory goes down already at -20C, and doesn't like to be over +60C. Of course, space electronics have a different temperature range, catering to their expected temperature (which drives the cost up), but it's still narrow for space.

Heat from electronics themselves is often insufficient, and there's not enough power aboard to afford electric heaters. So they use these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_heater_unit


Wait, are we talking about packages that are meant to return to Earth or orbital modules? Because I'm talking about things that are meant to stay in space once delivered there.


He3 is one of them. Depending on the viability of more efficient space worthy engines, metals from asteroids would be next. He3, perhaps, though not soon (we don't need it now anyway, it's just a proposed second generation fuel).
Metals, only if we find asteroids (preferably not meteorites) full of platinum, and have cheaper costs by then. Today even gold isn't close to being worth mining.
At any rate, we'd be talking about exotic materials valuable due to their scarcity on Earth.



Of course it's a long shot, but one thing that the CCP has going for it is that when they plan on doing something, they get it done, and they do it big unlike in America where truly big projects tend to founder when there isn't any international pressure of being left behind.
Maybe. But they have their reasons, and these are political and research.

Not saving the humanity (or, new kind of lol from greed and death, farming colonies).

The US space program: Pretty much dead in the water since 1969.

The best we can do is to put more money into things like Mars rovers and robots that will go to Ganymede, Titan, and Europa. As in, the moons that could potentially contain life or are Earth like.

Moving humans to the moon to stay there on a permanent basis is simply not going to happen. The honeycombing of your bones is just one of the first reasons why it's a bad idea.

Terraforming mars is out of the question. It would take thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years to do it properly. The atmosphere is is like 11 times thinner than ours and it's an average of -123 Fehrenheit.

Yes, but the point is not that we wouldn't like a high-payload, reusable, cheap launcher (just not as dirty as Project Orion). We would. But it won't lower the costs by orders of magnitude - rather just about twice. In time, through compromising on weight savings, maybe up to a few times, but that's about it. At any rate spacecraft are certainly going to be costlier than airplanes.

Isn't cheaper, reliable, trans-orbital transport good in any sense?


He3, perhaps, though not soon (we don't need it now anyway, it's just a proposed second generation fuel).
Metals, only if we find asteroids (preferably not meteorites) full of platinum, and have cheaper costs by then. Today even gold isn't close to being worth mining.
At any rate, we'd be talking about exotic materials valuable due to their scarcity on Earth.

Well, as I said, it would be tied to the efficiency of spaceworthy engines. Although demand also is an issue, which will probably be



Maybe. But they have their reasons, and these are political and research.

Not saving the humanity (or, new kind of lol from greed and death, farming colonies).

Preserving humanity from ELEs is just a side effect of going to space. The reasons that would open purse strings would be as you said, political, and research reasons, at least initially. Although I imagine the possibility of having secure research facilities not bound by treaty conventions would be one possible lure of orbital and lunar research facilities.

Commercially though, well, that would depend on whether any extremely valuable materials or medicines could be synthesized in zero-G. Combine that with less astronomical price tags for getting to orbit, and you'd have quite a few big ticket investors I imagine. Although the latter condition is a lot tougher to fulfill.

Isn't cheaper, reliable, trans-orbital transport good in any sense? It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.

However, just a brief look shows that at any point planes will be cheaper and more reliable, and spacecraft more expensive and less reliable.


Well, as I said, it would be tied to the efficiency of spaceworthy engines.
Not just the engines. The spacecraft required and the mining systems themselves aren't easy. And then there's reentry, also an expensive procedure.
Delivering back anything much less valuable than gold just isn't going to pay off.


Preserving humanity from ELEs is just a side effect of going to space.
Most likely, any space program in the lifetime of the current civilization (maybe some communist one could do it) will be far from being able to preserve humanity, except as frozen genetic material.

It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.

What's that got to do with trans-atmospheric travel?


However, just a brief look shows that at any point planes will be cheaper and more reliable, and spacecraft more expensive and less reliable.

Pfft, if you're referring to the Shuttle in comparison to the 747, might I remind you that there were only 5 shuttles with sporadic uses while the 747s were made in the thousands and used daily. Use and demand would naturally see constant upgrades and maintenance spread across the fleet, while problems would be found and added to the database across a much larger sample group than simply 5 shuttles.

Put them on a number and use similar to 747s, and their reliability would skyrocket as more flights are made and kinks ironed out.


Not just the engines. The spacecraft required and the mining systems themselves aren't easy. And then there's reentry, also an expensive procedure.

Which is why the first real challenge is creating a relatively cheap method of trans-atmospheric transit. To date, the best idea seems to be an orbital ladder. We just haven't gotten something with sufficient tensile strength, although if we can improve on carbon nanotubes some more, that would help.


Delivering back anything much less valuable than gold just isn't going to pay off.

Only if all of it was meant for earth. It's a vicious cycle. The fastest way to generate that much demand to justify space missions is to either start extreme megaprojects locally, or begin a serious effort at orbital industry and construction, which in turn would then demand the abundance of orbital minerals.


Most likely, any space program in the lifetime of the current civilization (maybe some communist one could do it) will be far from being able to preserve humanity, except as frozen genetic material.

China has had a civilization lasting millennia. If it lasts a few centuries more, and keeps its eyes forward, it's possible.

Or, if we can persuade Bush that there's oil on Mars, we might see it happening in a month. :p

What's that got to do with trans-atmospheric travel?



Pfft, if you're referring to the Shuttle in comparison to the 747, might I remind you that there were only 5 shuttles with sporadic uses while the 747s were made in the thousands and used daily. Use and demand would naturally see constant upgrades and maintenance spread across the fleet, while problems would be found and added to the database across a much larger sample group than simply 5 shuttles.

Put them on a number and use similar to 747s, and their reliability would skyrocket as more flights are made and kinks ironed out.



Which is why the first real challenge is creating a relatively cheap method of trans-atmospheric transit. To date, the best idea seems to be an orbital ladder. We just haven't gotten something with sufficient tensile strength, although if we can improve on carbon nanotubes some more, that would help.



Only if all of it was meant for earth. It's a vicious cycle. The fastest way to generate that much demand to justify space missions is to either start extreme megaprojects locally, or begin a serious effort at orbital industry and construction, which in turn would then demand the abundance of orbital minerals.



China has had a civilization lasting millennia. If it lasts a few centuries more, and keeps its eyes forward, it's possible.

Or, if we can persuade Bush that there's oil on Mars, we might see it happening in a month. :p

If only Obama were as stupid as little baby bush.

Mcain would die of heart attack lol

What's that got to do with trans-atmospheric travel? This:
Isn't cheaper, reliable, trans-orbital transport good in any sense?
Of course it is. The issue that having space travel cheaper than air travel is more of a dream than something that might actually happen.


Pfft, if you're referring to the Shuttle in comparison to the 747, might I remind you that there were only 5 shuttles with sporadic uses while the 747s were made in the thousands and used daily. [...]
Put them on a number and use similar to 747s, and their reliability would skyrocket as more flights are made and kinks ironed out.
There are hundred millions of anvils in the world and just a few hundred satellites. So the greater reliability of a hammer has nothing to do with its construction, if satellites were built by billions, they'd sure be more reliable than hammers!


To date, the best idea seems to be an orbital ladder. We just haven't gotten something with sufficient tensile strength, although if we can improve on carbon nanotubes some more, that would help.
It's compressive strength that matters, not tensile.
Also, keep in mind that the ladder only provides lift - not velocity. Actually, a transport between "space ladders" would require more fuel, as it needs fuel to decelerate as well as to accelerate..


Only if all of it was meant for earth. It's a vicious cycle.
We can't create self-replicators on Earth for now, much less in space.

Of course orbital construction does create an artificial scarcity, but then it must not be an end in itself. Still, Earth->Orbit is perhaps a cheaper way than Asteroids Mining->Orbit.


China has had a civilization lasting millennia. If it lasts a few centuries more, and keeps its eyes forward, it's possible.
Not everything is about supply. It's also a question of demand.

The US space program: Pretty much dead in the water since 1969.

I strongly disagree. The Space Shuttle Program and ISS are necessary steps toward any long term future endeavors. The technological achievements to accomplish these rivals the Apollo program, IMHO, and bring a more tangible benefit.


The best we can do is to put more money into things like Mars rovers and robots that will go to Ganymede, Titan, and Europa. As in, the moons that could potentially contain life or are Earth like.


These are important, but I feel their importance has more to do with gathering data about surface conditions on those worlds in preparation for human exploration.


Moving humans to the moon to stay there on a permanent basis is simply not going to happen. The honeycombing of your bones is just one of the first reasons why it's a bad idea.


A Moon colony would be hard to justify in economical terms, but as a test platform for experimental technologies for use on other, longer term colonies it is ideal. It's only 3 days away from Earth, communications is instant, and most environments in the solar system are milder than conditions on the Moon. (really!)


Terraforming mars is out of the question. It would take thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years to do it properly. The atmosphere is is like 11 times thinner than ours and it's an average of -123 Fehrenheit.

The problem with Mars is that the gravity can't hold sufficient atmospheric pressure for human life. No matter how much atmospheric gas you dump on the planet, it can only sustain so much.

This:

Of course it is. The issue that having space travel cheaper than air travel is more of a dream than something that might actually happen.

I said cheaper. I didn't say anything about cheaper than atmospheric flight.

This:
There are hundred millions of anvils in the world and just a few hundred satellites. So the greater reliability of a hammer has nothing to do with its construction, if satellites were built by billions, they'd sure be more reliable than hammers!


Mass production and use of any technology inevitably results in near constant improvements in efficiency and reliability. Stringent quality control for limited production can only do so much in terms of improvement via constant trial and error.


It's compressive strength that matters, not tensile.

Both matter I would suspect.


Also, keep in mind that the ladder only provides lift - not velocity. Actually, a transport between "space ladders" would require more fuel, as it needs fuel to decelerate as well as to accelerate..

Buh? The ladder wouldn't provide lift. It's not a damned rocket. The ladder provides what all ladders do. A support mechanism that allows mechanical ascent/descent. Trans-atmospheric flight right now is entirely based on thrust against an energy reactive poor medium, air. Huge amounts of thrust, for not very much payload.

In the case of orbital ladders, assuming they ever get to something on a scale that can sustain heavy duty cargo loads, electromagnetic rails would be more likely to be used, and the amount of energy required to drag a payload into orbit would be far less than putting it on a giant firecracker which has to carry its own fuel. It would take even less energy if you established a counterweight system.


We can't create self-replicators on Earth for now, much less in space.

I really don't get how you make these connections.


Of course orbital construction does create an artificial scarcity, but then it must not be an end in itself. Still, Earth->Orbit is perhaps a cheaper way than Asteroids Mining->Orbit.

Like I said, it's a vicious cycle. How else are you going to get that sort of need that will drive the race for more effective space travel? Short of a planet cracking doomsday asteroid coming our way that we have no chance of ever deflecting.


Not everything is about supply. It's also a question of demand.

He3 is a pretty attractive option. And as I said, if China keeps its eyes firmly fixed forward, this is a failing of American administrative policies, it may provide the impetus for other nations to get out there.