Thread: The space program and the future

Do you think it will ever be possible to do space mining and space colony ?

I mean for space mining and space colony to happen or majority of people on earth going into space even 10% of the people on earth going into space we need a new propulsion systems and none of the propulsion systems seem to do that .The problem with chemical rockets is it is way way too costly.

That look at the some of the propulsion systems.

1.Ion propulsion or plasma propulsion does not have enough thrust to take any thing up into space must be used in space for deep space only.
2.laser propulsion and microwave propulsion has major problems The engineering problems with laser is we do not have a laser powerful enough and we need gigawatt power not to say microwave like laser will not work in space has there is no air in space.

4.fusion so there is no point putting money into that to we get a working fusion power station

5.anti-matter very very very costly not to say very very hard to make and cannot be stored has fuele has we do not know how to store it yet.It is very very costly and even if in 50 or 100 years we can make anti-matter very cheap and can find out how store it and use it like fuel well it will be banned in earth do to size of rock would destory all of New York city.No one will take that chance.

it have be used for deep space.

5.fission propulsion not read much about it but looks like it may work

In end it looks like fission propulsion or we are stuck with chemical rockets.

None propulsion system.

1.space elevator problem some one was saying to me if the cable snapped it would do alot of damage to the earth

2 Launch loop I have not read much on it.

3. space gun well you could not send people on it do to the G-force.

What is your thought and your pro and cons of this .

None of this will work other than fission propulsion and chemical rockets

Nothing above seems to bring the cost down.

I recall reading, a long time ago, of a system that eliminates the need for on-board fuel. It was called a Brussard Ramjet or something like that. It involved using extremely large electromagnetic field 'scoops' that suck-up interstellar Hydrogen ( more abundant than we think ) as the craft moves along, and this is then used as propellant in the fusion, ion or other propulsion system. Don't recall the details, but it made sense at the time.

Originally Posted by MigL

I recall reading, a long time ago, of a system that eliminates the need for on-board fuel. It was called a Brussard Ramjet or something like that. It involved using extremely large electromagnetic field 'scoops' that suck-up interstellar Hydrogen ( more abundant than we think ) as the craft moves along, and this is then used as propellant in the fusion, ion or other propulsion system. Don't recall the details, but it made sense at the time.

Don't hold your breath waiting for one. Interesting notion but the devil is in the details.

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

As other says, it's least 200 years into the future. We just don't have the tech to ferry humans that far into space. It wouldn't be possible to stockpile enough food for the journey as of now, so either it has to be recyled or the humans has to be in hybernation.

Do you think in the future when we have carbon nanotubes than the space elevator or Launch loop will be possib?

I think space mining and space colonies within our own solar system are a lot closer than 200 years. Chemical rockets is all we really need for the inner solar system. The problem is what's of value enough to be worth the huge expense? Nothing so far. Perhaps helium-3 if we successfully design fusion power plant technology--but that seems decades off.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I think space mining and space colonies within our own solar system are a lot closer than 200 years. Chemical rockets is all we really need for the inner solar system. The problem is what's of value enough to be worth the huge expense? Nothing so far. Perhaps helium-3 if we successfully design fusion power plant technology--but that seems decades off.

Right.

The reason that there are so few space launches is simply that we have found few economically attractive commercial reasond to go to space. Communication and surveillance satellites are about all that passes the economic test to be good business.

It costs about $3000/lb to LEO and roughly double that for GEO or earth-escape. We aren't going to spend that to launch equipment to secure iron.

NASA, or the government could cut the exploration of Mars budget and maby plan a launch to the Moon instead

Or move up the next, better WMAP type satellite to see if there are the gravitational waves to support inflation theory; however, I guess Mars is the reasonable thing to have done with.

Originally Posted by Spaceman

NASA, or the government could cut the exploration of Mars budget and maby plan a launch to the Moon instead

The only booster with a chance of getting to the moon is being funded by a continuing resolution and is targeted for cancellation by the administration.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Spaceman

NASA, or the government could cut the exploration of Mars budget and maby plan a launch to the Moon instead

The only booster with a chance of getting to the moon is being funded by a continuing resolution and is targeted for cancellation by the administration.

That's good

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Spaceman

NASA, or the government could cut the exploration of Mars budget and maby plan a launch to the Moon instead

The only booster with a chance of getting to the moon is being funded by a continuing resolution and is targeted for cancellation by the administration.

That's good

You have a rather odd notion of "good".

Originally Posted by nec207

Do you think in the future when we have carbon nanotubes than the space elevator or Launch loop will be possib?

not a chance

Highly probable.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Highly probable.

Extremely improbable.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Highly probable.

Extremely improbable.

Based upon politics, physics, engineering, or prejudice?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Highly probable.

Extremely improbable.

Based upon politics, physics, engineering, or prejudice?

Engineering and technology, plus economics.

We lack materials and design capability for anything at the scale of a space elevator. Carbon nanotubes are not going to do the trick. (note the "nano" in nanotubes}.

Economics adds to the problem.

The real problem with going to space is the lack of a commercially attractive reason for going there. As I said elsewhere, communications and surveillance satellites are pretty much the whole market.

Scientific and exploration missions require government support because there is no commercial incentive, and that government support is waning at this time.

There is no commercial reason for a space elevator. It is limited to one, uninteresting, destination.

The launch loop is even wackier. These wild ideas are a dime a dozen A lot more practical ideas come along and fail to be realized regularly.

It is tough enough to design and actually build space launchers. Designs never get into trouble until they graduate from PowerPoint presentations and somebody tries to build and test hardware.

Scale effects are important, and radical designs that are not amenable to small-testing will run aground during development. Just look at the huge number of DoD and NASA programs that are canceled -- and those are nearly so radical.

I can give you an educated guess that if and when the need arises for new technology for launch and long-range space missions with heavy payloads, that the solution will be the resurrection of nuclear thermal propulsion. That is tough but doable.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Spaceman

NASA, or the government could cut the exploration of Mars budget and maby plan a launch to the Moon instead

The only booster with a chance of getting to the moon is being funded by a continuing resolution and is targeted for cancellation by the administration.

That's good

You have a rather odd notion of "good".

For now, yes. I mean that if Nasa or the government drag down the budget of Mars exploration, then they save more money and can build a new moon rocket.

Originally Posted by Spaceman

For now, yes. I mean that if Nasa or the government drag down the budget of Mars exploration, then they save more money and can build a new moon rocket.

That is not how it works.