Did you know space travel is happening?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

I know you've had a lot of people commenting on this, but I have a different tack to take with it. You do know these are private corporations, and not the government, right? As long as it turns a profit for them (and come on, do you really think it won't?), it won't truly be money wasted.

OT: Pretty cool. I've known we'd have commercial spaceflight in my life time ever since Virgin won the X-prize. The real question is whether it will be available to the middle class in my lifetime, and also whether we'll get some kind of destination (low earth orbit hotels, a colony on the moon, a <link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ&feature=related>theme park on the moon...) or if it will be either a 21st century concorde for rich fatcats who need to get to the other side of the planet quickly, or a vomit comet that actually enters orbit.

 

[Baldr]

Bigelow Aerospace is a name I have not heard in years. I remember when the company was first announced. It is owned by a Vegas real-estate billionaire mogul who wanted to build a Vegas style hotel in Space(I kid you not)

Doesn't John Carmack own Armadillo Aerospace?

Never heard of Blue Origin, but Virgin Galactic, Richard Branson, and Spaceship One are pretty famous.

 

[Racecarlock]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

I know you've had a lot of people commenting on this, but I have a different tack to take with it. You do know these are private corporations, and not the government, right? As long as it turns a profit for them (and come on, do you really think it won't?), it won't truly be money wasted.

OT: Pretty cool. I've known we'd have commercial spaceflight in my life time ever since Virgin won the X-prize. The real question is whether it will be available to the middle class in my lifetime, and also whether we'll get some kind of destination (low earth orbit hotels, a colony on the moon, a <link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ&feature=related>theme park on the moon...) or if it will be either a 21st century concorde for rich fatcats who need to get to the other side of the planet quickly, or a vomit comet that actually enters orbit.

Space Tickets are $200,000 at the new mexican space port. Oh, and rich people don't like the term "Fatcat". They prefer "Poorness challenged person". (jk)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

I know you've had a lot of people commenting on this, but I have a different tack to take with it. You do know these are private corporations, and not the government, right? As long as it turns a profit for them (and come on, do you really think it won't?), it won't truly be money wasted.

OT: Pretty cool. I've known we'd have commercial spaceflight in my life time ever since Virgin won the X-prize. The real question is whether it will be available to the middle class in my lifetime, and also whether we'll get some kind of destination (low earth orbit hotels, a colony on the moon, a <link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ&feature=related>theme park on the moon...) or if it will be either a 21st century concorde for rich fatcats who need to get to the other side of the planet quickly, or a vomit comet that actually enters orbit.

Space Tickets are $200,000 at the new mexican space port. Oh, and rich people don't like the term "Fatcat". They prefer "Poorness challenged person". (jk)

This is off topic, but is your avatar from the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade Project?

 

[Racecarlock]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

I know you've had a lot of people commenting on this, but I have a different tack to take with it. You do know these are private corporations, and not the government, right? As long as it turns a profit for them (and come on, do you really think it won't?), it won't truly be money wasted.

OT: Pretty cool. I've known we'd have commercial spaceflight in my life time ever since Virgin won the X-prize. The real question is whether it will be available to the middle class in my lifetime, and also whether we'll get some kind of destination (low earth orbit hotels, a colony on the moon, a <link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ&feature=related>theme park on the moon...) or if it will be either a 21st century concorde for rich fatcats who need to get to the other side of the planet quickly, or a vomit comet that actually enters orbit.

Space Tickets are $200,000 at the new mexican space port. Oh, and rich people don't like the term "Fatcat". They prefer "Poorness challenged person". (jk)

This is off topic, but is your avatar from the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade Project?

It's a shrunken down wallpaper that I got from searching "Rebel Alliance" on google images. I do have regular X-wing alliance though. We could play sometime.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

I know you've had a lot of people commenting on this, but I have a different tack to take with it. You do know these are private corporations, and not the government, right? As long as it turns a profit for them (and come on, do you really think it won't?), it won't truly be money wasted.

OT: Pretty cool. I've known we'd have commercial spaceflight in my life time ever since Virgin won the X-prize. The real question is whether it will be available to the middle class in my lifetime, and also whether we'll get some kind of destination (low earth orbit hotels, a colony on the moon, a <link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ&feature=related>theme park on the moon...) or if it will be either a 21st century concorde for rich fatcats who need to get to the other side of the planet quickly, or a vomit comet that actually enters orbit.

Space Tickets are $200,000 at the new mexican space port. Oh, and rich people don't like the term "Fatcat". They prefer "Poorness challenged person". (jk)

This is off topic, but is your avatar from the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade Project?

It's a shrunken down wallpaper that I got from searching "Rebel Alliance" on google images. I do have regular X-wing alliance though. We could play sometime.

That would actually be kind of cool. It's still actively played, but it's locked up into "clubs," which is apparently Star Wars geek for "clans," and they refuse to play with anyone who won't join a club and play a set minimum number of games a month. Considering that it takes about a half hour to get a 10 minute game set up, even with tons of advance planning, it's a bit of a tough sell. I didn't have enough free time to stick with it back in high school; now that I'm in college, there's no way in hell I'd be able to play with those guys.

Edit: Unfortunately, It'll be a while before I can play a game. While I have a working copy of it, my discs are at home, and I'm at college. I'm not expecting to go back home at least until the end of the month.

 

[BlackWidower]

Dude, in order to qualify as space travel. You have to actually be in space. And no, the upper atmosphere doesn't count. You actually have to reach orbit.

 

[samsonguy920]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

Very insubstantial gain, hmm? How about the chance to mine the moon for resources that are already beginning to get difficult to find here on Earth(Like titanium, for one)? Or the asteroids or Mars? How about setting up infrastructure to start colonizing the Moon and Mars to gain new opportunities to help alleviate population?

Frankly, we should already have a moon base. I'm serious. The American moon landing program never should have stopped. Sadly, the combination of budgetary issues, governmental BS, and a general lack of interest on the world stage (i.e. the general public) stymied that endeavor. Had it continued, we would have likely had a research base on the moon by the late eighties or nineties and would already being using it as a launching station for mars missions today.

A moon base is no small thing, but I'd grant you it should be possible.

Why would it be useful for Mars missions, though? Now, a station orbiting the Earth would, IMHO, be a much better intermediate step for that than a moon base, unless you mean some sort of training/acclimitisation thing.

Well, for one, the Moon is a lot further outside of Earth's gravity well, which makes launching such missions a lot easier. Can put more on a ship to Mars that is launched from the Moon than you could from a station orbiting the Earth. Getting away from Earth's gravity well is basically the same thing as climbing Mt. Everest. Getting away from the Moon's gravity well would be more like just climbing a hill. And we already know how to get to the Moon easily enough. You just have to get halfway there.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

A space port....

Excuse me, I think I need another pair of pants.

While the whole Ark expedition thing ain't happening until artificial gravity or extremely fast transport happens, I'm glad to see a renewed interest in space. Probably not in my life time but maybe when my children are going to University they'll hear about laboratories built on the moon for experiments.

Exciting stuff indeed.

That FACE!

I'm sorry, low-content post, I know, but that killed me, right there. XD

 

[Kuranesno7]

Sorry, but someone had to post this, so it might as well be me.
Now, I hate to be cynical, but if commercial space travel actually happens in the short term, sorry to say that more likely than not it will be an incredibly expensive affair, only available to the obscenely rich, and most likely will only just breach our atmosphere.

dude, as fucked up as it is, everything we know and love that we have now is the result of wealthy people buying it. with the money rich people put into a product that's obscenely expensive, that will kickstart the product, leading to new techniques that result in lowered prices.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This sounds like a colossal waste of money and resources for very insubstantial gain. Not exactly thrilling.

Very insubstantial gain, hmm? How about the chance to mine the moon for resources that are already beginning to get difficult to find here on Earth(Like titanium, for one)? Or the asteroids or Mars? How about setting up infrastructure to start colonizing the Moon and Mars to gain new opportunities to help alleviate population?

Which is quite different from what they are actually doing. I daresay people would be much more excited if the moon was going to be mined.

Well, for one, the Moon is a lot further outside of Earth's gravity well, which makes launching such missions a lot easier. Can put more on a ship to Mars that is launched from the Moon than you could from a station orbiting the Earth. Getting away from Earth's gravity well is basically the same thing as climbing Mt. Everest. Getting away from the Moon's gravity well would be more like just climbing a hill. And we already know how to get to the Moon easily enough. You just have to get halfway there.

That is only true if the hypothetical station was much closer to the Earth than the Moon is. There's no reason why it should be, only that it's easier to get to, and there was no reason to go any further. You could put it as far out as the Moon, but in a different orbit (or phase), such as a Lagrange point. You'd reduce the effects of Earth's gravity as much as being on the moon, and also the Moon's as well.

You'd not be able to exploit the Moon's resources directly from there, of course, but you could build a seperate moonbase for that.

 

[Vigormortis]

Frankly, we should already have a moon base. I'm serious. The American moon landing program never should have stopped. Sadly, the combination of budgetary issues, governmental BS, and a general lack of interest on the world stage (i.e. the general public) stymied that endeavor. Had it continued, we would have likely had a research base on the moon by the late eighties or nineties and would already being using it as a launching station for mars missions today.

A moon base is no small thing, but I'd grant you it should be possible.

Why would it be useful for Mars missions, though? Now, a station orbiting the Earth would, IMHO, be a much better intermediate step for that than a moon base, unless you mean some sort of training/acclimitisation thing.

My statement is actually from the mouths of NASA, as well as a host of other astronomers, physicists, and other space programs.

See, the hardest part of space travel, oddly enough, is just getting there. It literally costs tens of thousands of dollars to lift a few pounds into space. And that's not just some budgetary red-tape that's forcing that cost. It's the man-hours involved, the equipment used, and more importantly the fuel.

However, if there were a Moon base of some sort, then a launch vehicle could be constructed there and used as the launch bed for a mission to Mars. It would require far less fuel and other assorted resources because of the reduced gravity and lack of atmosphere.

A station in orbit around Earth would be the worst option. Constructing anything in space is a ludicrously expensive, time-consuming, and incredibly hard endeavor. Even then, most of the time the parts are constructed Earth side and are then "shipped" into orbit via rocket lifts.

Therefore, as odd as it seems, building and then launching a craft from the Moon on a mission to Mars is the most viable, reasonable, and least expensive option.

Frankly, we should already have a moon base. I'm serious. The American moon landing program never should have stopped. Sadly, the combination of budgetary issues, governmental BS, and a general lack of interest on the world stage (i.e. the general public) stymied that endeavor. Had it continued, we would have likely had a research base on the moon by the late eighties or nineties and would already being using it as a launching station for mars missions today.

I just think that the space program budget allocation is and has been quite stupid. Space is cool, but largely useless till we get a space elevator, and after the first moon landing that should have been the main focus of NASA et al; even with the low interest in the protect there are already one or two materials close to being strong enough to do it, imagine if USA had pitched that dream to the public!

And also yeah, "Did you know space travel is happening?" sounds to me like saying "Do you know there is this awesome thing called the interwebz?", yeah, awesome, but... duh.

Here's the thing. First, the space program has never...never...been useless. Most of the time when someone tells me, "Why the hell do we fund NASA? They don't do anything useful.", it's because they are woefully ill-informed. (and I usually wanna punch 'em) This isn't the case here between you and I, so don't take that personally. Your statement just reminded me of some of the people I've crossed paths with. (again, not saying you are like them)

Ignoring the natural human endeavor of searching for truth and knowledge, part of the reason the space program is useful is because many of the materials, medicines, and technologies we take for granted today exist solely because of NASA and other space programs. As such, the existence of the space program has actually improved the quality of life of humanity.

That said, while a space elevator is an interesting idea, and a great addition to a bit of science fiction writing, it is far from being a real, viable option in the near future.

We have incredibly strong materials today, as well as design philosophies, that allow for extreme construction projects. But, none that could possibly be used to construct a functional space elevator. We're talking about a single construct several miles wide at it's base and anywhere from 150 to 300 miles high. That's construction on a scale we can barely fathom. Not to mention things like the cost and the fact that we don't have the knowledge or materials required to build something that could withstand the stresses involved.

So while it may become a reality in the far flung future, it's not likely to exist in our or our grand-children's life times. Until then, our only viable options are more efficient rocket designs, better fuels, and way-stations built in orbit and on the Moon.

 

[Vigormortis]

So remember that space port I talked about? It opened yesterday. http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/historic-day-in-new-mexico

Yeah. Starting flight prices are 200,000 dollars. Which IS cheap for a space flight.

That admittedly is cheap for lifting a person into space. However, seeing as these "space flights" taking off from this "space port", *snork*, are in fact actually just sub-orbital flights, that price is prohibitively expensive.

You could probably book a flight on one of the remaining, retired SR-71 Blackbirds and achieve the same thing for less.

But I digress...

 

[Thaluikhain]

See, the hardest part of space travel, oddly enough, is just getting there. It literally costs tens of thousands of dollars to lift a few pounds into space. And that's not just some budgetary red-tape that's forcing that cost. It's the man-hours involved, the equipment used, and more importantly the fuel.

However, if there were a Moon base of some sort, then a launch vehicle could be constructed there and used as the launch bed for a mission to Mars. It would require far less fuel and other assorted resources because of the reduced gravity and lack of atmosphere.

A station in orbit around Earth would be the worst option. Constructing anything in space is a ludicrously expensive, time-consuming, and incredibly hard endeavor. Even then, most of the time the parts are constructed Earth side and are then "shipped" into orbit via rocket lifts.

Therefore, as odd as it seems, building and then launching a craft from the Moon on a mission to Mars is the most viable, reasonable, and least expensive option.

You are, of course, correct about the expense of getting things beyond the Earth. However, for it to be cheaper to build the thing on the Moon instead, you need a truly massive mining and industrial ability to be created there first. Anything you cant find or build locally has to be shipped from the Earth, and if you are going to do that, you may as well make the thing in orbit anyway (again, yes, by make, I mean "assemble prefabricated bits").

Developing the Moon to that extent is beyond what I'd call a moon base. TBH, developing the Moon to that extent would, IMHO, be much, much more of an accomplishment than merely sending a temporary manned mission to Mars.

We have incredibly strong materials today, as well as design philosophies, that allow for extreme construction projects. But, none that could possibly be used to construct a functional space elevator. We're talking about a single construct several miles wide at it's base and anywhere from 150 to 300 miles high. That's construction on a scale we can barely fathom. Not to mention things like the cost and the fact that we don't have the knowledge or materials required to build something that could withstand the stresses involved.

Actually, you don't build such a thing from the bottom up (well, technically, nobody builds one at all, at least on this planet, but you know what I mean).

The current idea is to have a geostationary satellite that extends a cable down to Earth, while pushing a counter weight out the other way to balance it. The cable starts off narrow, but gets thicker and thicker as it goes on, as it has to suspend more weight.

Unfortunately, no material yet developed is strong enough...and if there was, they wouldn't tell anyone, for various reasons. It'd be the sort of sci-fi horror wire that's thin enough to be invisible (and exceedingly sharp), but strong enough to hold when someone blundered into it.

 

[Vigormortis]

Actually, you don't build such a thing from the bottom up (well, technically, nobody builds one at all, at least on this planet, but you know what I mean).

The current idea is to have a geostationary satellite that extends a cable down to Earth, while pushing a counter weight out the other way to balance it. The cable starts off narrow, but gets thicker and thicker as it goes on, as it has to suspend more weight.

Unfortunately, no material yet developed is strong enough...and if there was, they wouldn't tell anyone, for various reasons. It'd be the sort of sci-fi horror wire that's thin enough to be invisible (and exceedingly sharp), but strong enough to hold when someone blundered into it.

That's one idea on how to build one. There are several theories. Also, the suspended cable isn't what I'd call the "current" idea. It was dreamed up by some science fiction writer years and years ago.

The thing is, while you could cut down on the gravitational stresses imposed on a giant structure by using a suspended cable instead, you'd be faced with other, just as extreme forces. Things like wind, gravitation shifts, and even just the force of something tugging on the line (like something ascending) would pull the "counter weight" out of it's alignment, centripetal forces not withstanding. This would require there to be an array of very powerful thrusters in place on the weight to keep it stable. And this, in turn, would require a LOT of fuel. Something we'd have to constantly keep shipping up to it via rocket lifts.

This then begs the question, "If we're sending up rockets to fuel this thing, why not just use the rockets to lift our materials?" It's one of those catch-22 situations where the concepts of redundancy and diminishing returns come into play.

Besides, one piece of errant debris or space junk or some "docking" accident and the next thing you know the cable either snaps or bends so quickly that the counter weight, and the hundreds of miles of cable, come crashing down to Earth. That would be a very, very bad situation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's one idea on how to build one. There are several theories. Also, the suspended cable isn't what I'd call the "current" idea. It was dreamed up by some science fiction writer years and years ago.

Ah, my apologies, I mustn't be up to date.

Besides, one piece of errant debris or space junk or some "docking" accident and the next thing you know the cable either snaps or bends so quickly that the counter weight, and the hundreds of miles of cable, come crashing down to Earth. That would be a very, very bad situation.

Isn't that going to be a problem no matter how you build it?

 

[Vigormortis]

Besides, one piece of errant debris or space junk or some "docking" accident and the next thing you know the cable either snaps or bends so quickly that the counter weight, and the hundreds of miles of cable, come crashing down to Earth. That would be a very, very bad situation.

Isn't that going to be a problem no matter how you build it?

Oh, of course it'll be a problem. Regardless of build method. However, a structure like a tower offers the capability of withstanding an impact like that far better than a cable. A cable is basically one giant, single point of failure. You hit it at one point and the whole thing moves. (even if the cable is, say, one hundred feet across) However, a structure, like a building, doesn't move in quite the same way. The whole structure will react, sure, but being that it's constructed of disparate parts, it'll absorb and dissipate that impact energy faster and more efficiently.

Regardless, I still say the best idea isn't a space elevator but finding better, more efficient, and cheaper fuels and construction materials for our current and future launch systems. Hell, even a rocket "fling" track would probably be better.

 

[Vigormortis]

That's one idea on how to build one. There are several theories. Also, the suspended cable isn't what I'd call the "current" idea. It was dreamed up by some science fiction writer years and years ago.

Ah, my apologies, I mustn't be up to date.

Forgot to address this.

No worries mate. I wasn't calling your out on it or anything.

I don't recall exactly who the author was or what the story was, but I do seem to remember the idea surfacing quite a while ago. Not sure if the author thought it up or took the idea from a proposed theory from some physicist or engineer. I imagine a quick google/wiki/NASA.gov search will yield the answer, but I'm feeling lazy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Regardless, I still say the best idea isn't a space elevator but finding better, more efficient, and cheaper fuels and construction materials for our current and future launch systems. Hell, even a rocket "fling" track would probably be better.

I suppose a tower might make it easier to power the thing as well, though using a ground based transmitter seems plausible.

Regardless, I still say the best idea isn't a space elevator but finding better, more efficient, and cheaper fuels and construction materials for our current and future launch systems. Hell, even a rocket "fling" track would probably be better.

Not to mention, if you use the space elevator, whoever owns it has a monopoly on space travel (well, I'd imagine other nations would build rockets instead). Rockets could be built be any sufficiently developed nation, and launched from various sites across the world.

And it'd be easier to get funding to slowly improve rocket technology, year after year, but a space elevator isn't much good until it's been fully funded and developed.