Space X

[mikeylikey]

Yep. Mars is a year away when its close to us. And when you're there, you gotta stay there for a couple of years until earth gets close again. And this cycle only works every couple of decades. If you've got a problem, you just jumped off of the burning mayflower in the middle of the atlantic by night, while europe and amerika are moving away from you. Thats how space travel works.

(to further use their analogy against them....)

Then if you want to send a message, for further instructions, SOS, advice ....it would take your carrier pigeon 4 weeks to get the message home and back. (radio signals/light takes 5 minutes to go back-n-forth to Mars ... you can't even remotely-control robots in anything close to real time)
(if anything requires immediate intimate interventions from home base ...by the time 'it' happens you are toast).

There's probably less in terms of intervention from home base that's needed today than there used to be. When you look at Mercury/Gemini/Apollo and even a good bit of the shuttle era, a big part of what mission control did was analyze data and telemetry coming down from the spacecraft using computing capabilities that couldn't be included on the spaceship because the computers were too big and heavy. Now you can have basically an arbitrary amount of telemetry and data processing on board. There's not going to be a ton that Houston can see or do that the astronauts can't do themselves. The other thing ground control did was the heavy lifting for navigation. But now there's GPS around earth and by the time you're landing on Mars there will be GPS there too. So navigation can be self-contained as well.

[aurelius]

I'm not sure the analogy holds entirely. It USED to take years to get from China to Europe. It doesn't now. It is always going to take years to get from Earth to Mars using rockets. Unless you are positing an as-yet unknown method of propulsion.

This is just a discussion of logistics arguing that years long time frames is not something unreasonable nor unprecedented. For THOUSANDS of years it took decades to have trade between China and Europe (by land). Then the Portuguese figured out the wind patterns that would allow them to sail south around Africa. then it took years. Significant trade still happened.

Rockets are essentially the gun model. Pull the trigger, use the explosion as a propellant, and go. We are greatly limited by the amount of fuel that we can carry out of the gravity well. A lot of these issues would be alleviated once space infrastructure is built but producing large quantities of rocket fuel in space is probably a far off goal. In other words, you would expend more rocket fuel getting it off Earth than you would get into space.

A right now technology: Nuclear powered Ion propulsion. This will allow the ship to constantly accelerate to the target greatly reducing travel times. Even at relatively low acceleration compared to a rocket surge, the speeds of ships will be MUCH faster. Building such a system on Earth and getting it into Space is too big of a hurdle. But once we have space infrastructure...we have mocked up ships using nuclear powered ion propulsion that can get from Earth to Mars in 39 days. Less than what it took to sail the Atlantic. Years...dream bigger people!

*Deep Space 1 used a solar powered ion propulsion. And I think Voyager?

Help me connect some dots here. As you say, you've got to get out of a gravity well and you need (in the current state of the art) chemically propelled rockets to do that. And that's inefficient but it's the only way (currently). Whereas, there are cheap and and easy ways to move around once you're in space.

But you also need a lot of energy to re-capture stuff in gravity wells - without crashing - once you've built it in deep space. You build a giant space station in the asteroid belt, you need a shit ton of delta-V to push that towards earth, or mars, and then place it in a useful orbit there. That's the piece for me that's still missing.

You aren't missing anything.

It is likely it will never be effective to harvest resources needed in large quantities in space and return them to Earth. Maybe water? And would we even want to given how fragile the environment is. Mars is a different story. Closer to the asteroid belt and weaker gravity and atmosphere. But there are things that are scarce here on Earth. Like Rare Earth Materials needed for modern electronics. Who knows? That is the beauty of trade and specialization. Who knows what benefits will arise when there is a functioning space economy. I like calling things space 'x'.

*wrote my first response before seeing second...you know about ion engines. Cool shit.

[hsilman]

All I know about ion engines comes from Kerbal. And they are still pretty damn slow, if insanely efficient.

[mikeylikey]

Kerbal

[aurelius]

All I know about ion engines comes from Kerbal. And they are still pretty damn slow, if insanely efficient.

In the context of near space travel, the underlined is all that matters. A constant acceleration over time equals big time velocity. Space ships that use ion propulsion as their main drive will still need rocket propulsion for 'quick' maneuvers.

[aurelius]

In Space X related news: The FAA is going to do an investigation into the latest test flight.

[TommyJo]

The only reason for space travel is the lessons learned / tech. gained in the pursuit/performance of said space travel and then said tech applied on earth for earth things.

We have absolutely nothing to gain from going to the moon, mars, or fuck .... the no man's land between Saturn and Mars....as far as the destination itself.

... and ...

Also, whats the purpose of getting shit into space? Space is so gigantic and theres nothing worth it in the reach of mankind.

Because it's there. Seriously. What's the purpose of a symphony? Or the Indy 500? Or the world record domino falling-down chain?

Life shouldn't all be about subsistence and profits and things what makes sense on paper. We need things that are just plain inspiring too. If they serve some ancillary scientific or commercial purpose, super. And done with a significant fraction being Private Money* not Gub'mnt Taxes? What more could you want?

What is wrong with people? Walter Cronkite, a grown ass man, cried on TV when people landed on the moon. Not because it was scientifically beneficial or geopolitically advantageous. Just because it was awesome.

If you can't get excited about the fact that we might get to see people on fucking MARS in our lifetime I don't know what's wrong with you.

Good point. People need inspiring things. Especially now.
But many new space companies appear just with the expectation of making money. Because now you need a lot of companions. And someone has to run them.
We cannot know for sure what benefits a landing on the Moon or Mars will bring us. Maybe none. But it can definitely lift the spirits of many people.

[JonA]

Because it's there.

Good point. People need inspiring things. Especially now.
But many new space companies appear just with the expectation of making money. Because now you need a lot of companions. And someone has to run them.
We cannot know for sure what benefits a landing on the Moon or Mars will bring us. Maybe none. But it can definitely lift the spirits of many people.

I think the question "why" isn't an absolute question of "why should we go to Mars", but rather a relative question. Why should we (as a society) spend our money going to Mars as opposed to overcoming other seemingly insurmountable challenges, like building a colony in the Marianna Trench, moving Mt Everest 1' to the left, or finishing The Winds of Winter.

[mikeylikey]

I think the question "why" isn't an absolute question of "why should we go to Mars", but rather a relative question. Why should we (as a society) spend our money going to Mars as opposed to overcoming other seemingly insurmountable challenges, like building a colony in the Marianna Trench, moving Mt Everest 1' to the left, or finishing The Winds of Winter.

Or in other words, what is uniquely inspiring about going to Mars? I dunno, do YOU think moving Mt Everest an inch would be inspiring?

Spaceflight, especially when they went to the moon and now mars, just has a blend of elements that make for a great story. Mystery, technology, journey, heroics, teamwork, danger, adventure, exploration, homecoming. And new for Mars: SEX!

[JonA]

I think the question "why" isn't an absolute question of "why should we go to Mars", but rather a relative question. Why should we (as a society) spend our money going to Mars as opposed to overcoming other seemingly insurmountable challenges, like building a colony in the Marianna Trench, moving Mt Everest 1' to the left, or finishing The Winds of Winter.

Or in other words, what is uniquely inspiring about going to Mars? I dunno, do YOU think moving Mt Everest an inch would be inspiring?

Spaceflight, especially when they went to the moon and now mars, just has a blend of elements that make for a great story. Mystery, technology, journey, heroics, teamwork, danger, adventure, exploration, homecoming. And new for Mars: SEX!

Well, "move mountains" is the literal standard by which other difficult things are measured, so it would be pretty cool. Also "The Winds of Winter", at least in theory, would also have all the elements of a great story, but it will probably just be some retread, stuck in the Riverlands plot filler.

Also, I'd like to congratulate you for out-meta'ing me, with your subtle Spinal Tap reference to Stonehenge.

[mikeylikey]

Well, "move mountains" is the literal standard by which other difficult things are measured, so it would be pretty cool.

Landing on the moon is pretty idiomatic too....

[TommyJo]

Space exploration has brought about a lot of interesting things here on Earth. From cordless instruments to new medical techniques and instruments. Not everything is as straightforward as many would like. Yes, many will not notice the obvious direct advantages of this way of exploring the world. But once people talked about the uselessness of almost everything that is now normal.
For example, did you know that at the beginning of the 20th century, most big businessmen said that cars are a temporary phenomenon that will pass quickly?

[mikeylikey]

Space exploration has brought about a lot of interesting things here on Earth. From cordless instruments to new medical techniques and instruments. Not everything is as straightforward as many would like. Yes, many will not notice the obvious direct advantages of this way of exploring the world. But once people talked about the uselessness of almost everything that is now normal.
For example, did you know that at the beginning of the 20th century, most big businessmen said that cars are a temporary phenomenon that will pass quickly?

Meh, maybe. This is coming from a massive fan of space exploration mind you, but I don't really buy the whole "trickle down technology" argument. We would have eventually ended up with Velcro and T-Fal without going to the moon.

The same argument is often made about the technological and manufacturing advancements that supposedly come out of wars. Either way, the proponents fail to consider what could have been done if the resources spent on these programs were it left in the normal economy. In both spaceflight and wars, you're literally blowing up billions of dollars worth of stuff. And, what makes a good government contractor, whether you're building bombs or spaceships, doesn't necessarily translate to being a corporation that provides useful goods and services at competitive prices in the marketplace. As evidenced by the fact that so much of space and military hardware is provided by companies that specialize, if not deal exclusively, in such contracts.

At least with spaceflight you're not also intentionally killing a whole bunch of people.


I'm speaking here of the oft cited secondary benefits of spaceflight; many space applications have intrinsic value of their own; weather, GPS, communications and spy satellites for example.

[mettkeks]

For example, did you know that at the beginning of the 20th century, most big businessmen said that cars are a temporary phenomenon that will pass quickly?

Did you know that everyone in the mid 1900's thought we'd all drive flying cars by 2000?

Theres a lot of flat out tech-scam that's being pushed out with the intention of getting gov. funding.

Interplanetary travel isn't much of a technical problem, it's a logistical problem and always will be.

[TommyJo]

Space exploration has brought about a lot of interesting things here on Earth. From cordless instruments to new medical techniques and instruments. Not everything is as straightforward as many would like. Yes, many will not notice the obvious direct advantages of this way of exploring the world. But once people talked about the uselessness of almost everything that is now normal.
For example, did you know that at the beginning of the 20th century, most big businessmen said that cars are a temporary phenomenon that will pass quickly?

Meh, maybe. This is coming from a massive fan of space exploration mind you, but I don't really buy the whole "trickle down technology" argument. We would have eventually ended up with Velcro and T-Fal without going to the moon.

The same argument is often made about the technological and manufacturing advancements that supposedly come out of wars. Either way, the proponents fail to consider what could have been done if the resources spent on these programs were it left in the normal economy. In both spaceflight and wars, you're literally blowing up billions of dollars worth of stuff. And, what makes a good government contractor, whether you're building bombs or spaceships, doesn't necessarily translate to being a corporation that provides useful goods and services at competitive prices in the marketplace. As evidenced by the fact that so much of space and military hardware is provided by companies that specialize, if not deal exclusively, in such contracts.

At least with spaceflight you're not also intentionally killing a whole bunch of people.


I'm speaking here of the oft cited secondary benefits of spaceflight; many space applications have intrinsic value of their own; weather, GPS, communications and spy satellites for example.

To be honest, the topic of space travel is rather interesting for me. I am not a big fan of Mars and would not agree to fly even if I was paid. But those areas that can really benefit us that you mentioned for me are much more important.
For example, the launch of satellites in our time will become very important, since we will be able to get new communication technologies like inexpensive satellite Internet and 6th generation communication.
By the way, China has already launched satellites for testing 6g.
I also think that the problem of space debris in orbit is currently more important than travel to the Moon and Mars. There are now more than 50 thousand fragments. It must be removed somehow

[Hiphopapotamus]

Space exploration has brought about a lot of interesting things here on Earth. From cordless instruments to new medical techniques and instruments. Not everything is as straightforward as many would like. Yes, many will not notice the obvious direct advantages of this way of exploring the world. But once people talked about the uselessness of almost everything that is now normal.
For example, did you know that at the beginning of the 20th century, most big businessmen said that cars are a temporary phenomenon that will pass quickly?

Meh, maybe. This is coming from a massive fan of space exploration mind you, but I don't really buy the whole "trickle down technology" argument. We would have eventually ended up with Velcro and T-Fal without going to the moon.

The same argument is often made about the technological and manufacturing advancements that supposedly come out of wars. Either way, the proponents fail to consider what could have been done if the resources spent on these programs were it left in the normal economy. In both spaceflight and wars, you're literally blowing up billions of dollars worth of stuff. And, what makes a good government contractor, whether you're building bombs or spaceships, doesn't necessarily translate to being a corporation that provides useful goods and services at competitive prices in the marketplace. As evidenced by the fact that so much of space and military hardware is provided by companies that specialize, if not deal exclusively, in such contracts.

At least with spaceflight you're not also intentionally killing a whole bunch of people.


I'm speaking here of the oft cited secondary benefits of spaceflight; many space applications have intrinsic value of their own; weather, GPS, communications and spy satellites for example.

To be honest, the topic of space travel is rather interesting for me. I am not a big fan of Mars and would not agree to fly even if I was paid. But those areas that can really benefit us that you mentioned for me are much more important.
For example, the launch of satellites in our time will become very important, since we will be able to get new communication technologies like inexpensive satellite Internet and 6th generation communication.
By the way, China has already launched satellites for testing 6g.
I also think that the problem of space debris in orbit is currently more important than travel to the Moon and Mars. There are now more than 50 thousand fragments. It must be removed somehow

[TommyJo]

Wow! This is genius! I wonder if scientists have thought about such a method.
Huge orbital vacuum cleaner.
True, in the vacuum of space, a different operating principle will be needed.
Although a similar mission (as I found out while I started writing a comment) was announced back in 2013. But so far nothing has happened. It was called CleanSpace One.

[Hiphopapotamus]

Yeah, it's apparently a pretty serious problem that they don't really have an answer for. How do you clean up thousands of bolts and washers moving at 16,000 miles an hour, fast enough just tear through any 'net' you use?

[aurelius]

Yeah, it's apparently a pretty serious problem that they don't really have an answer for. How do you clean up thousands of bolts and washers moving at 16,000 miles an hour, fast enough just tear through any 'net' you use?

Controlled explosions to destabilize orbit and have them burn up in atmosphere.

I'm sure that is a very bad idea with all of the 5 seconds I spent on it.

[TommyJo]

Yeah, it's apparently a pretty serious problem that they don't really have an answer for. How do you clean up thousands of bolts and washers moving at 16,000 miles an hour, fast enough just tear through any 'net' you use?

Yes, there are no devices for very small fragments yet, probably.
For satellites, orbital launch systems have long been invented. Of course, a system for microsatellites is different from a system for a satellite weighing several tons. But it seems to me that these same devices can also be modified to capture satellites that have spent their time. Some companies create their systems right away with the expectation that satellites will have to be corrected or maintained. That is, one and the same device, like a payload control system, can either put a satellite into orbit or correct its trajectory, etc.
So they are already thinking about the problem. I wonder when these devices will start to be used.