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

The US is striving to return to the moon and establish a permanent presence there by the 2030's. IF all goes to plan, the Constellation Program, with it's Orion CSM and Altair landers will establish a base on the moon and then use that (they hope) to go on to Mars after 2030. These aren't just pipe dreams. The Orion module and its Ares Booster rockets are in late stages of testing, as is the new flatbed lunar rover (nicknamed the chariot). The schedule is set and Constellation has already begun its very early phase. In other words, barring some later President calling it off, the moon is a go.

But NASA are not the only ones. Nations might well lose interest eventually, but presently over six national space agencies around the world are aiming to be on the moon by the 2030's. The US, Russia, India, Japan and China (and I think the European Space agency too) are all pursueing space programs to return us to the moon to re-establish and maintain some form of presence there. Far from losing interest in space, there has actually never been more interest than there is now, at least on a governmental level. I think this is a combination of a bit of an arms race (china vs US) and panic over depleting resources. We are running out here – or will within a century – so now the race is on to find them elsewhere – i.e in space.

But for all that I think it is actually business that will send us out there in the long run. It is an exciting time for space travel, what with the ISS, plans to return to the moon and the first commercial flights (albeit sub orbital) about to begin (thank you Virgin!). 2001 is happening, albeit a littel behind schedule.

Once the likes of Virgin Galactic have shown it is commercially viable to do so, it is Private Enterprise that will push out to the stars in search of the big profit. Once Virgin Glaactic is operational and successful you can bet others will jump on the bandwagon (if they are not already). Tourism, mining and who knows what else will (eventually) be more frequent than NASA missions. So I don't think it will be national operations pushing beyond the moon so much as it will be privateers hunting for those vanishing resources and for the next big buck. Mining sites could grow into small colonies and well, who knows, it could develop into a new era of colonial expansion and empire building. Sure it willbe ridiculously dangerous, but since when has big business worried about safety when a profit was on the table? With all these different private and non-national interests out there, Space could potentially become the new Wild West for a while, least until some one somehow establishes law and order out there.

And Why China? Because they have come a long way in a short time (they have put men in orbit), are ambitious and most of all, don't fuss and hesitate over silly things like safety! Like the US, India, Japan and Russia, China have plans to have a presence on the moon by the 2030's. Unlike other nations such as the US who have to justify their budgets and keep the voters happy, the Chinese government actually has a lot more control over what they will and will not, can and cannot do. So now that they have a space program the Chinese are actually more likely to get "out there" than the US! Especially since they have agreed to cooperate with Russia, their moon project being a joint venture.

For decades the US people have thought of themselves as the leaders in Space. And their intent continues with NASA's ambitious Constellation Programme. But our adventures in Space are beginning to revolve around NASA less these days, with more and more governments and businesses expressing interest in the "final frontier". Already there are over half a dozen national space programmes around the world, of varying quality admitadly. But the quality and quantity of these will increase. Both national and private enterprises are proving themselves and getting better at what they do. Over the next few decades the US might actually find that its time of dominance in space has passed. Sure the US is the richest state, but NASA's space programme gets less and less of that money with every passing year – it's hand are increasingly tied. Other nations, such as, say, China, aren't holding back in the same way. The Universe is opening up to more and more of us and NASA, with its cash stripped budget and limited government set objectives, might find itself actually struggling to compete. In fact the US need to wake up, because the way things are going, in a few decades NASA might even be all but irrelevant and Space might well belong to someone else.

So in one hundred years as far as I can see: we'll be on the moon, some lucrative asteroids and Mars. But most of these operations will be industrial and commercial in nature. Many may well be Chinese. Or Japanese. Or Indian. Of course conditions will be terrible, atrition atrocious, but in the name of power, money and resources we'll be there anyway.

Wasn't there a movie in the late 70s about a staged (fake) Mars landing? I think it was Mars.

CC

That'll be Capricorn One

imdb.com/title/tt0077294

Thanks EG!

That's the one.

CC

You're welcome!

Current technology (ie, single-use or semi-reusable rockets) has an OBSCENE cost/lb to orbit. I wasn't joking about $50,000 per lb. The space shuttle is better, somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 per lb. Semiballistic toys, like Rutan's Space 1 or Virgin Galactic's stuff, are significantly cheaper, but they don't put men in ORBIT.

Single-Stage-to-Orbit craft, like the National Aerospace Plane or the Venture Star are cheaper, but are still roughly $10,000 per lb to orbit. Until you get the engineering to back up either skyhooks (orbital elevators that don't go all the way down to the surface) or full-blown orbital elevators, it's just NOT affordable to get to space. And until it doesn't cost a half-million dollars to put Joe Public in space for an hour or two, it's not going to happen in the business world, unless there's a HUGE profit to be made (between 6x and 10x the cost of getting there).

Economics is important to study, but it is NOT your friend if you're trying to get into space.

Mars.

And, at the risk of being horribly offensive, if we don't send men to Mars first, then where will the Chinese "obtain" the technology to send their own people?

Ooooo. You're gonna get a lot of heat for that one! :)

CC

I know, I know. I already regret saying it, to be frank. But, I had a moment of total honesty and let my guard down. Ah well, let the chips fall where they may.

It is fair to say that the Chinese have caught up quickly because they are employing the lessons learnt during the trials, advances and discoveries others made in previous decades. Of course that won't help them in the future but they are not without their own resourcefulness. That they have done so much so quickly at all is testament to that. Even allowing for all the knowledge others pioneered, it is still no mean feat to put someone in space. So don't knock them too much. Also, China will have the help of Russia, who have a lot of experience in Space. And I would say that China and Russia combined are just as capable as anyone else to get to the Moon or even Mars, first.

For all the talk of money, it is worth considering that it has been said that the money the US has spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have funded the NASA space program for decades, such is the disparity in funds (that info could be incorrect, but somehow, I don't think it is far off). So the notion of America splashing loads of cash on Space isn't really that accurate. It is a lot compared to some other countries, but not compared to the overall US budget. Other countries and other programmes presently enjoy almost as much success in orbit as the US. Though they do it with rockets instead of a Shuttle, they are catching NASA up. The US government seem to um and ah over space and financially and politically tie NASA's hands behind it's back more and more, while at the same time giving it ambitious and far reaching goals. It is not a recipe for success. All in all, considering the lack of expenses and support, it says a lot for NASA's professionalism and capability that there have not been more sad disasters than there has been, and that it has managed to accomplish what it has.

Regarding the present expense and technologies. Well I will grant you that it is all experimental, risky and initially expensive, but if it works, the likes of Virgin Galactic are going to make a viable profit, since they can charge what they like such will be the demand. They are doing just that, and there is the demand. Is there ever. Virgin Galactic is a fact, its first commercial flights are launched within a year or so, and it already has its first flights booked up. So long as it does not suffer catastrophic mishap (fingers crossed) you can bet your life that it WILL have competition, sooner rather than later. The other big airlines will surely not want to miss out on the new gold mine, nor allow Virgin an unopposed monopoly once space is proved lucrative.

So tourism will be the first commercial business in space. Sub orbital at first, but later, further up and beyond. In a century tourists may even be going to the moon. Mining will follow not far behind, just as soon as we are capable of doing so. Which should happen in our lifetime. Or our children's.

The funny thing about current technology is that it doesn't last long. Tech is advancing very quickly, – just look at how far we've come in just sixty years, since the V2. So "current tech" restricting us isn't really an issue since tech limitations will not limit us for long. We always seem to find a way, if we want it badly enough. For instance, as far as I am aware the forthcoming Orion Space module will be using an ION drive in Space. An ION drive! The Drive is already developed (and has been used on probes) and will only be further enhanced by the time the Orions take to flight operationally. If we already have the ION Drive for once we are in space, what new tech will allow us to get there from the surface in ten, twenty or thirty years? How many times in history have people said "It cannot be done" only for advances in tech and science to make it happen? Mankind is getting better an better at space travel and the resources involved are getting cleverer and cleverer. One hundred years from now our tech of today that you say will hold us back will look laughably antiquated to those on the Moon or possibly Mars.

Earth is increasingly busy, crowded and competitive and bold pioneers wanting to make their fortune may think the empty virgin frontier of space, open to exploitation to anyone brave enough to go, is well worth the expense and the risk. It is how it happened in America after all. Once the new frontier becomes reachable and viable, business WILL go there; maybe later rather than sooner, but they will go. I suggest that one hundred years from now, space will be big business.

We are privileged to be living in an incredibly exciting time for space travel. The stuff of Science Fiction is actually coming true. the wonders of science and technology are pushing us furtehr and further faster and faster and we are employing these advances in space. I can't wait to see what things will be like in 2050. I only hope I live long enough to see it. As for my children and grandchildren, I envy them.

The inner city.

We need to spend this money on the masses…haven't you been following the news?

There's no future in space….we need "a chicken in every pot".

There's no future here either once the asteroid hits. And it will. Asteroids have hit us many times before and we've had several near misses in living memeory alone. If humanity wants a future it will have to be out there, not here.

From the news at 11:00, NASA budget slashed to bone, only 1 more shuttle flight allowed. Looks like the USA is out of the race now….

We're not going to get far, or stay long. I'd bet that a manned lunar base will prove to be a massive money-hole unless it garners huge returns in energy or material.