Future of space exploration

[Tenderlysharp]

The view alone wouldn't justify the exhorbitant amount of money early space tourism will cost.

If the cost of space tourism were considered an investment rather than an indulgence it would bear more weight in the minds of potential ticket buyers. There are some objections to the term Space 'Tourism', as though it alludes to a superfluous experience.

The Russian Space Agency has been successful in charging $20 million for personal flights, Virgin Galactic is beginning with $200,000 in 2009 and planning to bring the cost down to $100,000 in subsequent years. When Virgin Galactic's most likely competitors (including Rocketplane Kistler, Space Adventures, and Benson Space Company) jump into the fray prices should continue to drop.

The influence of the view from space on the minds of those who are already reserving their tickets will depend on their personal beliefs. It has been described as an awe inspiring and consciousness expanding encounter by those who have experienced it. I believe such an experience has a lasting lifelong influence on the hearts and minds of individuals. Creatively it stands as a symbol of achievement and an expansion of the scope and possibility of existence. This kind of experience fuels a great deal of motive power in the lives of those who experience it, and also in the minds of those who can only imagine it. The kind of people who are willing and able to pay already understand (and profit) from the pull of attraction space travel offers.

The future of private space travel depends on the duration of successful flights, with safe landings, to influence the number of willing participants.

[D'kian]

The Russian Space Agency has been successful in charging $20 million for personal flights, Virgin Galactic is beginning with $200,000 in 2009 and planning to bring the cost down to $100,000 in subsequent years.

The Russian trips include several days of uninterrupted weightlessnes, Virgin's sub-orbital flights will deliver a few minutes of it. It is a rather reasonable price, too, given the costs, and given that you cannot experience weightlessnes and that view in any other way. You can go weightless for short periods in a regular aircraft, and some companies offer such services for around $10,000, without a view at all.

[DragonMaci]

You create gravity by spinning the structure, or just a part of it (the part where people live).

That does not really work so well on a starship. You cannot really afford to have it spin like that, or the parts of it spin, as then it is hard to get from one part to another. For that matter it would be a hassle on a space station if only the parts spun. But you could get the whole structure to spin. So, anyway, how do you solve the issue of a starship since you cannot afford to have it spin like a space station could?

Anyway, most space tourists will want no gravity. The view alone wouldn't justify the exhorbitant amount of money early space tourism will cost. Nor would tourists stay up that long a time. Two weeks of zero gee are not harmful to most people.

Yes, but eventually you would need to create places with aretificial gravity. But as you say the spinning thing would do it.

Tourism, IMO, may get things started, but business in low Earth orbit will eventually prevail.

Indeed. Especially once they get space elevators up and running, which they intend to do. They are working on getting carbon nanotubes of a long enough and thick enough to do it, carbon nanotubes apparently being the best material for the cable, due to it being incredable tensile strength, even at very thin and small sizes. But so far they have not yet been able to get them long enough or think enough. Getting people and goods into and out of space will be a lot easier and cheaper once that has been done.

We've been hearing for years and years how many things are possible in zero gee that simply cannot be done in 1 gee. Yet no one has really set up any sort of fabrication plant in space. Largely it has to do with cost. Once costs come down to reasonable levels, I'm sure we'll see the beginning of space industries.

Well, I think one day we will see spaceships/starships built in space docks, like in Star Trek. Once the space elevators are up anyway. The beauty of that is that spaceships would be cheaper to launch since the massive fuel and massive fuel tanks needed to get a ship off this planet would no longer be necessary. The massive economic savings from doing that could then be spent on further developing space travel, tourism, etc.

[Prometheus98876]

Yes, but eventually you would need to create places with aretificial gravity. But as you say the spinning thing would do it.

Well, I think one day we will see spaceships/starships built in space docks, like in Star Trek. Once the space elevators are up anyway. The beauty of that is that spaceships would be cheaper to launch since the massive fuel and massive fuel tanks needed to get a ship off this planet would no longer be necessary. The massive economic savings from doing that could then be spent on further developing space travel, tourism, etc.

Actually you dont NEED artificial gravity on such. If you think otherwise, please tell us why.

Or strong enough, they havent been able to get the fibers strong enough. But lets hope they do, that would be one cool elevator ride, just dont look down if you dont like heights :-P.

You do realize that the material etc to build space ships etc dont grow on space docks? You still have to get the materials up from Earth, so it might not seem such a saving of fuel etc after all. But what you do is get the materials etc up by space elevator.

[DragonMaci]

Actually you dont NEED artificial gravity on such. If you think otherwise, please tell us why.

On a starship at least, an artificial gravity enviroment would make for much more efficient running of the ship than a no gravity enviroment.

Or strong enough, they havent been able to get the fibers strong enough. But lets hope they do, that would be one cool elevator ride, just dont look down if you dont like heights :-P.

Yes, but that is because they are not thick enough or long enough.

You do realize that the material etc to build space ships etc dont grow on space docks? You still have to get the materials up from Earth, so it might not seem such a saving of fuel etc after all. But what you do is get the materials etc up by space elevator.

Duh! Don't treat me like a moron! Obviously you use space elevators to send the material up to the docks because then you do save fuel, as the elevators require a hell of a lot less energy than rockets do, since they partually used the borrowed energy of an equal or greater weight going down. That is the whole point of them in the first place. So, in short, you did not need to point out to me that you need to get the materials up there, nor did you need to point out to me that you use a space elevator. I already knew that what with not being a moron.

[Prometheus98876]

No actually DragonMaci, I misread what you said in one of your other posts, opps my mistake, I thought you said something else which lead me to believe I needed to clarify. Sorry :-(

[DragonMaci]

No actually DragonMaci, I misread what you said in one of your other posts, opps my mistake, I thought you said something else which lead me to believe I needed to clarify. Sorry :-(

Ah, OK, I understand. Sorry for the comment then. Given the obviousness of what you had said, what you said seemed rather insulting to my intelligence. But I am glad it was just a result of a misunderstanding, not what I actually said.

[Tenderlysharp]

This is a great thread for the exploration of history, and new technology. I used to think space elevators were more science fiction, than actual science. It is interesting to me now to do some research online to see how practical they can become.

[DragonMaci]

This is a great thread for the exploration of history, and new technology. I used to think space elevators were more science fiction, than actual science. It is interesting to me now to do some research online to see how practical they can become.

Science of Discword, thougha little outdated by now, had a good section on them and other areas of science. If you read it try to get the 2002 revised edition. But even the original 1999 version is not outdated by much. Just mainly that some areas of what it talks about, such as carbon nanotubes, have advanced since even the 2002 version. The 2002 version also includes some edits that make it better. Also, do not let the "Discworld" part of the name deter you. Only half the book is actually about Discworld (the wizards of Unseen University are lloking in on our universe) and the other half is about real world science. The way it works is that every alternate chapter is about real world science, while the other chapters are the wizards looking in on us.

[Prometheus98876]

Oh yes, apparently our universe is actually a construction of the wizards from Discworld. Talk about creating ones own reality :-P.

[DragonMaci]

Oh yes, apparently our universe is actually a construction of the wizards from Discworld. Talk about creating ones own reality :-P.

Yeah, I think it is called a "joke". But then I think you know that as you know that Discworld is a comedy series.

[Prometheus98876]

Indeed, I dont think they really think you can make your own universe that easily :-P. And I beleive that in that book or one of the sequels they make it pretty clear that the view that one defines ones reality is in fact pretty stupid (though it s was implied quite strongly too).

[DragonMaci]

Indeed, I dont think they really think you can make your own universe that easily :-P. And I beleive that in that book or one of the sequels they make it pretty clear that the view that one defines ones reality is in fact pretty stupid (though it s was implied quite strongly too).

Yes. They said something like, "While that may work in Discworld to some extent, it does not in the real world and to think otherwise is stupid and defies reality." Or something that meant the same or similar anyway.

[D'kian]

That does not really work so well on a starship. You cannot really afford to have it spin like that, or the parts of it spin, as then it is hard to get from one part to another.

Why couldn't an interstellar craft spin? Of course it depends on the design. but if you're going to ant gravity in your trip, you'll design it to spin.

For that matter it would be a hassle on a space station if only the parts spun.

Again, it depends on the design. The conventional spoked wheel design has a stationary center for ships to dock and depart (though they could do so more efficiently from the rim). Make the wheel radius large enough, and you only need a small angular speed. Or the spinning parts could be stopped to allow for passenger movements.

[D'kian]

You do realize that the material etc to build space ships etc dont grow on space docks? You still have to get the materials up from Earth, so it might not seem such a saving of fuel etc after all. But what you do is get the materials etc up by space elevator.

There's a lot of material readily available on the Moon. Even with a space elevator, it would be cheaper to get as much stuf from the Moon as possible. everything could be launched by an electromagnetic launch-track, powered by sunlight (with storage batteries for Lunar night).

Given advances in propulsion, like ion engines or nuclear rockets, it might even be cheaper to mine the asteroids rather than getting material from Earth. Solar sails might help with such endeavors, too.

[Prometheus98876]

True I forgot all about the moon...opps! That saves a lot of lifting things up an down the space elevator from Earth I suppose . I do wonder what minerals the Moon is abundant in ...hmm. And of course asteroids

And by the way DragonMaci, spaceships could be made to spin, as D'Kian suggests. If you look it up on the net you will possibly find all sorts of propositions for such a n idea, both credible and more far-fetched.

[DragonMaci]

And by the way DragonMaci, spaceships could be made to spin, as D'Kian suggests. If you look it up on the net you will possibly find all sorts of propositions for such a n idea, both credible and more far-fetched.

I never said it couldn't be done. I said it would not work as well. Not wrking as well is still working. You should of read what I said properly. That is four times today you failed to do so, three times in the art thread and once now. Either you done that again or you relied on his flawed intreptation of what I said. You are not exactly on a roll today are you?

Why couldn't an interstellar craft spin? Of course it depends on the design. but if you're going to ant gravity in your trip, you'll design it to spin.

Can you imagine something like the Enterprise or Voyager spinning? Oh, and I never said it couldn't be done. I said it would not work so well. Not working so well is still working. Next time try reading what I say properly.

Or the spinning parts could be stopped to allow for passenger movements.

Edited June 7, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Moebius]

It seems fantastical that less than 600 years ago humans thought it was impossible to cross the ocean.

Polynesians island hopped across the pacific over a thousand years ago.

The life expectancy is getting longer with each generation. It may have a lot to do with higher standards of food and water, but I believe it has a great deal to do with quality the of inspiration and information available to us today, giving us more to live for, and a greater scope to live up to.

I think 99.9% of it probably has to do with the less hazardous ways we live, the ease of procuring food, better sanitation, and more advanced medicines.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Polynesians island hopped across the pacific over a thousand years ago.

All the more remarkable since the Polynesians had no fixed star to guide them at night (there is no fixed or pole star in the Southern Sky). The Polynesians were the greatest open water navigators prior to modern times (the time of sextants and chronometers).

The Tahitians managed to colonize Hawaii sailing the open Pacific at double hulled sailing craft.

Bob Kolker

[D'kian]

Can you imagine something like the Enterprise or Voyager spinning?

I can't imagine either one actually working. A hundred years from now, they'll be Xmas tree ornaments.

The shape of a ship depends on its purpose and function. However, as there is no need for aerodynamic shapes in space, there is a lot of latitude in spaceship design. Therefore cylindrical, spherical or toridal ships are all possibilities. adn spinning them is easy.

With a temporary loss of gravity. It would be inconvineint to have a temporary loss of garvity. So, again it is better to have the station spinning as a whole rather than parts spinning seperately. Cheaper as well I would imagine.

Maybe. But think of the possibilities. Signs onboard like "It is rude to interrupt your fellow pasengers by abruptly turning the gravity back on."

Seriously, I can see advantages. Tourists might like to be weightless during the day but would rpeffer gravity for sleep. Industrial concerns may find it useful to have gravity in their quarters and offices but not in their labs or manufacturing facilities. It might then be cheaper to rotate aprts rather than having separate stations for separate funstions.

[DragonMaci]

I can't imagine either one actually working. A hundred years from now, they'll be Xmas tree ornaments.

I meant a ship with their appearance or a similar appearance, not their technology. Something that looks like them would look silly if it was spining.

Edited June 7, 2007 by DragonMaci