"How Far Will We Send Out Humans By c2100???" Topic

In your honest opinion . . .

What MANNED planetary missions will have been accomplished by, say, c2100???

* Mars?
* Asteroid Belt?
* Moons of outer planets?
* Beyond?

Also:

* Why or why not? (Why do you feel that way)

Thanks.

CC
PS. I mean both commercial and government-driven ventures.

Given the comercial interests – Asteroid Belt
My generation expected at least a moonbase by now

Mars
Asteroid Belt
Io
Permanent huge space station somewhere between Mars & Saturn.

Mars…
Starting on the asteroid belt when we have a planetary catastrophe…

None.

Mars, but when you say "we" I trust you include China, because that's who will be there

Maybe asteroid belt

Mars is definite.

HEO space stations and/or Earth-Moon Lagrange point stations are possible.

Extended lunar operations are probable.

Asteroid Belt ore studies/flag planting missions… maybe.

Europa life science studies… thin maybe.

The latter missions will require us getting our anti-nuclear underpants out of a twist and building viable torch or even Orion pulse drive vessels. (Space IS radioactive, you ninnies. Well, awash in radiation anyway.)

But if we *do* build an Orion, we might even put men on the surface of Titan. Though by 2100… I don't know.

Astriod belt. China First.

Nowhere…no money! Though we OUGHT to have moonbases staffed by ladies in silver suits with purple hair-Gerry Anderson PROMISED!!!!

Well, based upon the last 40 years or so, I would have to say they might get back to the moon.

That's about it sadly.

Plans will eventually be made to go to Mars, but not sure if that will happen by the turn of the century, given the slow current pace, and world economic climate.

Many robot probes to various destinations, but not much in the way of human travel.

The moon – if we're lucky.

Budgets are gonna be tight all around and the Earth Firsters will demand we help folks here before we spend money on space.

Not far enough!

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

I have to think that the potential for ore profits will drive commercial interests. So I'll go with the asteroid belt and maybe Mars.

There are only two sensible answers really;

If humans stay in charge, nowhere really. I suspect a permanent moonbase, a couple of trips to mars. Apart from that nothing.

If we have a singularity then… there might be no humans left alive. We might be more than humans… And there's every chance that a strongly superhuman intellect will build us FTL drives -- they're only a class II impossibility afterall…

Sadly not very far. The public at large seem to have lost much interest in Space Exploration.

For manned missions, I bet Mars, but really no further.

For unmanned, I bet we'll launch a long range probe that will take centuries to get to Alpha Centuri (and another 4 years to send back images).

China will push far, but I bet India pushes furthest. They've just announced a huge manned space flight program.

Its been 40 years since we'v landed on the Moon and the ISS is the best we can do. I would be hard press to believe that we as a race can even stop bickering long enough to even concentrate on such endevors. I can't even see us finally industrializing the resources of the moon. I mean lets face it, even today the ISS is far from anything near a real working platform as folks like us would invision one to be like. As much as I am amazed by the ISS. Its only a little log cabin in the woods compared to the vastness of just our little solar system.

There is just too much going on in the world right now that won't be fixed in the next 10-20 years. I would really love to believe that such things can be accomplished. And its not our capacity to develope the technology to achieve such things that I am skeptic about. Its our capacity to get behind such things as a common cause that I belive holds us back.

8\

given the state of the world we will not ever make it back to the moon.

But I hope I'm wrong

KatieL: "If we have a singularity then… there might be no humans left alive. We might be more than humans… And there's every chance that a strongly superhuman intellect will build us FTL drives -- they're only a class II impossibility afterall…"

I like how you think. I guess we'll go the way of the Neanderthals sooner or later, and the next stage in humanity will take over.

CC

There is a good chance humans may enter East LA in the next 10 years.

mjc

LOL.

CC

Humans in Space in 2100?

Naaa

wars YES, for food, water, oil, wood, fish,….

No time or resources for space

Fish aren't food? When did I wander into "Finding Nemo 3D"?

Never.

The economics are not there and may never be.

Governments will work to gain/hold the "high ground" but that's not outside our immediate planet.

Fantasy ( I hope) Extrapolation follows:

After North (or South) Korea starts WW3 before 2010 and China, India, Russia, Europe, and the US exhaust themselves into a stalemate no one will be in a state of mind to look at space travel/exploration except South America and Iran who will have a war over the Moon.

Gracias,

Glenn

I'm optimistic to a fault…
Barnard's Star
- ZG

Reason…
Look at the progress we have made since 1900
- ZG

I expect a few of us to make it to the slave mines on Tau Ceti …

Who knows ? When I was a kid , nobody expected to have a computer in our homes . History shows us that it only takes relatively small improvements in technology or scientific breakthroughs to have massive repercussions.

At the moment , it seems as if the will is there , but the cost is prohibitive . I don't see that lasting . Even with the current economic situation .

Experimental ISS-type moon bases, and some manned flights send to orbit around Mars (but no landings.) There won't be a "gold rush" until something really valuable is found….

I think we will have to wait for the Vulcans to give us a helping hand.

as always, please excuse my poor english.

The main problem with space exploration is the ridiculous big cost of sending anything from earth to space.

If nanotechnology get enough advanced to create cheap nanotubes, then a space elevator could become feasible (well, nanotubes and the asociated technology to build a space elevator).

Once you get a space elevator, any other project becomes a lot cheaper.

the problem now a days is that to get an iss doesn´t help too much (in the economic matter) to build a moon base or a mars base

Well, no, the current ISS is just about useless. The original plans called for it to be in a different orbit with far more practicality… back when it was a U.S. project called "Freedom." But then some diplomat had the bright idea that it could be a symbol of international cooperation. Fine and dandy, except that in order to make it "internationally" accessible (i.e. so that Russian rockets could reach it), the station was moved to an orbit that pretty much crippled the station's utility as a scientific research platform, compared at least to its original mission parameters. The new orbit also upped the costs, as did the changes necessary to make the international components compatible, etc., etc..

But the diplomats were happy with the photo op!

(Now, of course, most diplomats barely remember there even is an "International Space Station." They certainly don't care whether it's useful or not— they never did.)

Last I knew we still have major radiation problems sending anyone out past the ISS for any extended length of time.

We would need a decent solution for that little problem first.

I hate to kill it (CC said realistically though), but Peak Oil* will make any space adventures too expensive to warrant serious study or investment unless and until we achieve fusion. We won't even be going to the moon in 20 years unless things change dramatically. Hell, we'll be lucky to be posting on the internet in 20 years unless things change dramatically.

* Peak oil, or more appropriately, peak energy, is used as shorthand to describe the end of cheap energy as we know it. It is derived from the term Hubbert's Peak. Hubbert figured out that all oil wells have a life cycle and the world's total oil reserves could be placed on that life cycle. We are now 'past the peak' and will begin to see declining production despite massive investments.

Until you can get someone to pony up the cash for an orbital elevator that can handle millions of trips, it's going to be prohibitively expensive to get off this rock.

Once you get an Orbital Elevator, costs go to ~$100/lb instead of $50,000/lb. Still really expensive, but doable.

Sorry, sci-fi fans. Moon, maybe.
Even Mars is too risky. We would need to have a BIG craft so the astronauts could get artificial gravity by spinning. Otherwise the body deteriorates from osteoporosis with zero gravity.
THEN, it needs to be shielded from solar radiation. More weight = more expense. Not worth it.

As for exploring the stars, get real. The science is just not there. Only dreamy eyed speculation.

Well, prestige, bragging rights, and pet projects can still pull an incredible amount of money to various government projects. I think we'll put a man on mars (by "we" I mean humans, and I think the space race to get there will be between India and China), and eventually some sort of permanent (unmanned, or only occasionally manned) outpost on the moon, but that'll be it.

We won't get any further than that, not unless there's some paradigm shift in energy production or the economic profitability of being in space.

I'm with Zen Ghost. We'll surprise ourselves and fo farther then the naysayers can imagine.

I am with Parzival on this one…

What a bunch of quitters! Peak oil? Science just isn't there?

BAH!!!

Must I remind you all of that most famous of nay-sayer cliches:

"If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings!"

And you all call yourselves *gamers*…. BAH!! LOL!!!

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net
"Never give up! Never surrender!"

By 2100 we'll have turned the orbital space around Earth into a warzone, but not much further than that.

Once Iran controls the Earth, I don't think they will want to go to the Moon or Mars.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

I'd say Mars. Probably there'll be no incentive to take any longer hikes by 2100.

None.
What ever goes out there further than moon won't be human anymore.
One way or the other.

Personally I've planned to transfer my mind into a machine in about 40 years and work about a thousand years later as a storyteller on one of those deepspace seeding ships, where genetically specially engineered biomechanics are breed, when a fitting planet is found.
Then I will tell them about earth and what it was like to be human.
The only problem will be to survive the time between the next global war and the rise of a determined and agressive civilization that has the will to pay the price to go out there.
But I think until then there will be a need for remorseless killing machines with a human mind.
;-)))

Radiation shielding isn't a problem; it's called "the ship's water tank."

Artificial gravity isn't a problem. Either spin the ship with a tethered counterweight (basic engineering there). If the ship's capable of constant acceleration, that's effectively gravity too.

As for the effects of low gravity on the human body, we don't know. All we know is the effects of microgravity (free fall) versus Earth conditions. We've never had anybody or any living thing from Earth exist under any other conditions long enough (if at all) to determine the effects of lower-than-Earth-standard gravity.

Yup, simple solutions for unknown problems.

If you believe we landed on the moon, plus what was apparently seen/found up there being why we have not gone back, then we may build a larger space station in orbit around the Earth, but that's about it. something spooked us from any further manned missions beyond our own orbit. Why else has space exlporation stagnated for 40 years (it's not just the money side of things you know!). Perhaps a real moon landing (whether or not the first one happened) as it would lay that conspiracy theory to bed. strange no one has gone back there in all this time – the Russians haven't been there either.

"something spooked us from any further manned missions beyond our own orbit."

Interesting.

You think they found the monolith?

link

CC

You know, current scientific theory in 1492 was probably not on Columbus's side

I do think that we will be living on Mars – but the "we" will be Chinese – they have this as a goal of their space program – while the Indian government is also interested, I am not so optimistic, if only for the fairly dismal Indian track record in government infrastructure

Again, as to science – I am reminded of the turn of the last century, when there were lots of cries of alarm as to what would happen when the world ran out of coal

Yup, simple solutions for unknown problems

I'm not certain what "unknown problems" you mean.

Solar radiation is a known problem with a known solution: Use the ship's water tank as a radiation shield.

Micro-gravity is a known problem with multiple known solutions, from spin gravity to acceleration gravity to extensive exercise programs.

Low gravity (say 1/3G, or Mars gravity) is the only unknown. However, it may not be a long term health problem at all.

In any case, all health problems from even extended micro-gravity stays (as in Mir and the ISS) have proven to be naturally reversible upon return to Earth.

So none of the above are "mission killers."

"Mission killers" are things like the lack of will, unreasoning fear, "bread and circuses" politics, and societal laziness. Unfortunately, we seem to be abounding in all of these today. :-P

By the way, we don't need space elevators to get into orbit cheaply, although they are a great idea. We can get to orbit, and we can do it cheaper than we do now, either with BDBs ("Big Dumb Boosters") or SSTOs (Single Stage To Orbit) or MSTOs with recoverable stages… or even Project Orion, though you'd have the Fonda crowd in a spastic panic over that one (which makes it even more worth it to me ).

Once you're in orbit, you're "halfway to anywhere." A little boost and off you go.

It's all doable. We just need the will to do it.

Maybe Mars, even less maybe some of the asteroids.

I'm not sure how possible human exploration of the Galilean Satellites is, due to radiation… I'm pretty sure Io is right out, anyway. I'd bet money we aren't that far by 2100, anyway.
-Kle.

Frederick,

Actually, scientific theory WAS on Colombus' side. In fact, most learned men of the time already knew that the Earth was round because it is the only shape that allows for a disappearing horizon in every direction once you are out in the middle of the ocean. Even the Vikings knew the Earth was spherical.

In fact, the first guy to propose that the Earth was round was your old high-school friend Pythagoras in about 240 BC.

And, I have no idea why everyone thinks that the Chinese are going to be the dominant power. China has four times as many people as the US, a tiny percentage of the world's resources, and thus an economy less than 20% of the US. I'd put my money on Europe before I'd bet on China. Russia might be a contender since they still have loads of fossil fuel and incredible untapped resources. But, that is also a good reason for Russia and China to go to war. China wants the goods, Russia has them. But, Russia won't get straightened out because their power structure is already corrupted.

As in this financial crisis, the world still revolves around the U.S., and we are not going anywhere near Mars anytime soon.

BUT, I hopw that Black Widow Pilot (my long lost Traveller buddy) is right and we will all be kidding the shoes of a Sylean Emperor one day! For the Solomani!!!!