General / Off-Topic The REAL future of space travel?

[Kipper]

(Yes, there was a long and convoluted post but I deleted that, I decided it was ramble and didnt ask the questions I set out to)

I am thinking about how TV shows, movies, games and indeed real life events have affected our perception of what the future will be like.

I think we are with space travel now what aeroplanes where as we entered the jet age.. Ie, everything is going to start changing quite quickly.

Will the future bring us large ships crewed by hundreds of people, like the battleships and cruisers of the seas? Or will it bring nimble, one and two seater craft like the fighter aircraft we see today? Will there be a Henry Ford of personal spacecraft that will make them accessible to the millions. How will humankind adapt to life among the stars?

 

[Darkman]

"Will the future bring us large ships crewed by hundreds of people, like the battleships and cruisers of the seas? Or will it bring nimble, one and two seater craft like the fighter aircraft we see today? Will there be a Henry Ford of personal spacecraft that will make them accessible to the millions. How will humankind adapt to life among the stars?"

Although I think both large cruisers and military craft will be the dominant presence in space initially, I can't see why we can't have personal craft coming into the picture at a later time as technology and costs should eventually allow. Although it would be great to be part of a crew or passenger manifest serving on a starship like the Enterprise-D, the prospect of owning your own personal craft (of various sizes etc) would be my first choice because of the freedom to go anywhere you want (except when trading cargo, mining etc).

To be honest I can see all sorts of craft appearing as the decades and centuries pass. As for adapting to life among the stars I think it will be hard, costly and dangerous at least at the beginning but as we continue to find new resources and develop new technologies it will get easier and more rewarding in the long run.

I would give anything to be exploring space right now, even if I was just limited to the solar system.

 

[caol]

I would give anything to be exploring space right now, even if I was just limited to the solar system.

Yeah - me too.

I have a feeling that humankind's exploration of and expansion into space (even near space) is still a long way off. You have to ask yourself two questions

1) Why would we want to go into space? (other than just purely to explore, with no specific purpose)

2) Is the vast cost (and this cost will get cheaper) justified? Can you recuperate the energy, resources, money, etc. expended?


Also I think humankind has too many problem here on Earth that need to be sorted out first before charging off into space (and hang the $billions spent). Wouldn't that money/effort be better spent trying to releave global poverty? Or is that just naive and not in human nature (well the nature of mass humanity - a seperate organism to individual humans). Anyone read "In Dubious Battle"?

 

[Bounder]

Darkman - if you haven't tried it yet, Orbiter is a bit of a blast. It's a freebie, too. The manual mentions one particularly interesting point - that it is only just possible, by a narrow margin, to launch a vehicle into orbit using chemical rocketry - almost as if nature 'wanted' us to go and explore, but not until we'd reached a critical level of technology. Apparently it's determined by the amount of energy that can be released by 'burning' fuel in the conventional sense. With nuclear engines of course there's a lot more oomph available from the same quantity of fuel, as per FEII/FFE. But Orbiter doesn't have these yet. You can fly shuttle missions and other classic launches like the Appollo flights, plus there's a futuristic 'Delta Glider' - a kind of advanced, small Space Shuttle with scram jets and a good thrust/weight ratio. And plenty of addon vehicles and missions. I highly recomend it, the learning curve isn't too steep, though it's a pure sim rather than a 'game'.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

 

[Kipper]

1) Why would we want to go into space? (other than just purely to explore, with no specific purpose)

There is every reason to go. Before we completely mine the planet hollow, there are plenty of asteroids comprising of plenty of raw materials and minerals that can be of use!

2) Is the vast cost (and this cost will get cheaper) justified? Can you recuperate the energy, resources, money, etc. expended?

Environmentally speaking, if we could use the power of the sun, for instance, to replace expensive and dirty (or environmentally questionable) power plants here on earth - the cost would repay itself with interest.

Wouldn't that money/effort be better spent trying to releave global poverty?

A better understanding of whats out there might lead to a better understanding of whats closer by. Besides I think theres nothing more guaranteed to unite humankind than realising we're not the only ones in the universe.

 

[Darkman]

Yeah - me too.

I have a feeling that humankind's exploration of and expansion into space (even near space) is still a long way off.

I got that feeling as well. Its great that Richard Branson is going into low-orbit commercially as well as other companies who have all kinds of things planned for orbit such as space hotels and stuff. However, although impressive, there is a long way to go before we have long-range craft out there. NASA's vision for space exploration to get us back to the Moon and onto Mars is a huge goal and we'll just have to see how that turns out.

You have to ask yourself two questions

1) Why would we want to go into space? (other than just purely to explore, with no specific purpose)

2) Is the vast cost (and this cost will get cheaper) justified? Can you recuperate the energy, resources, money, etc. expended?

A1) Space is rich in many materials that we can make use of here on Earth - mainly in asteroids, moons and planets. Not only that but Earth won't be here forever and Steven Hawking said himself that we need a future in space as soon as possible to ensure our survival otherwise we may risk exterminating ourselves through war or whatever else is threatening to our existence.

Another reason to get into space ? Because its there !

A2) All the costs of getting into space is not justified in the eyes of many, mainly because we aren't getting a lot back except scientific data and experiment results. Other side of the coin: we need to do these experiments and get scientific data to progress to the next phases of living in space longer and space travel. The ISS is just a platform for research and its still being constructed, but in the future it will be used as an intermediate stage for missions to the moon and beyond. At the moment space is an investment for our future but one day that future should bring many benefits.

Also I think humankind has too many problem here on Earth that need to be sorted out first before charging off into space (and hang the $billions spent). Wouldn't that money/effort be better spent trying to releave global poverty? Or is that just naive and not in human nature (well the nature of mass humanity - a seperate organism to individual humans). Anyone read "In Dubious Battle"?

Agreed, we do have too many problems here on Earth. I would be glad to get these problems sorted out first before we start moving out further into space. We do need to sort out global poverty and war first but one thing that going into space brings to many people is hope for the future and maybe a brighter one at that. Look at all the money that is being spent on war at the moment, it makes NASA's budget look like chicken feed in comparison. I think if we used the military budget to sort out our global poverty problems we would still have money spare for a space program afterward and other things such as cancer research too. Its a shame so much is being spent because of all the trouble causers in the world and they know who they are. The only way we can sort them out is to fight them I'm afraid.

 

[Darkman]

Darkman - if you haven't tried it yet, Orbiter is a bit of a blast.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Thanks for the link !

I've got Orbiter installed and printed out the manual as well as a tutorial that someone wrote to make the learning curve a lot less steep. Its a great sim and I think the additions you can get for it are fun to use. I have not spent much time on it yet, but I will do come winter time to soak up those dark nights .

 

[Darkman]

There is every reason to go. Before we completely mine the planet hollow, there are plenty of asteroids comprising of plenty of raw materials and minerals that can be of use!

When I submitted my post, you had beaten me too it in answering those questions so I'm sorry for appearing to repeat you there .

A better understanding of whats out there might lead to a better understanding of whats closer by. Besides I think theres nothing more guaranteed to unite humankind than realising we're not the only ones in the universe.

Agreed. That's part of the justification for doing the SETI research after all - the First Contact effect.

 

[Steel]

Hmmm.
Ok.

Space is rich in many materials that we can make use of here on Earth - mainly in asteroids, moons and planets.

What materials do you talk about? If it something like metals, than it's chepear to recycle those we already have on earth. If it something like organic, than we haven't found it yet.
Next. Even if we found something valuable on space objects like large amount of platinum, the trouble is that we need to build really large mining complex there. So we need to transport building matherials there. Does anybody knows how much the launch of one space rocket costs? And, i can say, that usefull weight of one launch is about 1,5 - 2,0 tonnes.
I just try to imagine the weight of one, not so modern mining complex, based on Earth, where we do not need life support systems etc.
Next, we need to transport ore or something we mined ther to Earth. Ok. First we need to ran out of the gravity area of that object, next, we need to fly to Earth. And than, we need to land that device.
All of those upper, needs HUGE amount of energy. We, DO NOT have such amounts. Just until we can build small (compact) fission reactors.
Btw. On this moment, the humankind does not have any.

Any questions?

 

[Darkman]

What materials do you talk about? If it something like metals, than it's chepear to recycle those we already have on earth. If it something like organic, than we haven't found it yet.

I agree, recycling would be the #1 option of course but there is only a set amount of materials on Earth that will one day run out. Particularly when we move out into space and start building huge ships, colonising etc there is going to be a soaring demand for meterials. Sure, the Earth has plenty to start with, but its a finite amount and if we spread out into space and our population increases exponentially. . .

Another thing to consider is that when we get back to the Moon and Mars we are going to be using the resources already there to construct bases etc but we will probably rely on materials that need to be harvested elsewhere.

Next. Even if we found something valuable on space objects like large amount of platinum, the trouble is that we need to build really large mining complex there. So we need to transport building matherials there. Does anybody knows how much the launch of one space rocket costs? And, i can say, that usefull weight of one launch is about 1,5 - 2,0 tonnes.
I just try to imagine the weight of one, not so modern mining complex, based on Earth, where we do not need life support systems etc.

I can see what you are saying and do agree with you but as we move into the future launch costs will go down per ton as I have read on space.com in the past. Mining techniques will change with technological advances that will make the process simpler but to start with we may have to use less efficient techniques. I really wish I had a link to an article that I read once that discussed the costs of mining resources in space and returning them back to Earth - it stated that at present the costs of extraction and transportation would outweigh the value of the resources returned but that has a high chance of changing in the future. If only we had tractor beam mining or something. . .

What materials can we make use of off world ?

I would say all kinds of metals and minerals would be the most obvious but I'm sure there are other materials that we can put to good use. I know that the regolith on the Moon is going to be used to construct solar panels and buildings etc.

There are some detailed articles on space.com that discuss everything in this topic and may be of interest to those who want to check into it, maybe post some links in this topic if anybody finds 'em. I sure will.

 

[redstar1]

The US announced going back to the moon for only one reason, and that is Helium-3, the fuel of choice for the Nuclear Fusion project. Is it a coincidence that Bush's announcement came days after the go-ahead was given to build the first full scale Fusion plant using Helium-3 as fuel?

 

[Steel]

About that widely known helium-3.
The problem is not only in regolith processing. This problem is almost solved. AFAIK.
The question is: How will you transport it to our own planet? For example, the pieces of something flying around, or flying by our planet, (i think that it's really hard things) just dropped from the orbit, and they pray for that things not to broke.
But! We have container with helium. Funny. Or, may be we will transport charged accumulators ?

Sorry for not so clear post, but i can't say better.

 

[redstar1]

It really depends on your view of Physics as to whats possible... myself? I'm a sceptic, I don't think theres warp or anything like that so I think we'll have to make do with one star for the next million years

 

[Kipper]

Apparently warp/wormholes are theoretically possible, and I understand all that about if you fold a piece of paper it shortens the distance from point A to point B and all that...

...But all the scientists in the world are gonna struggle to prove that one to me unless they show me it happening!

I'm with faster-than-light travel at the moment, seems to my simple mind that with enough thrust, and no drag, its only a matter of keeping the power on till you get to the desired speed. Now, navigation and stopping...... is the flaw in my plan.

 

[djbully]

I'm with faster-than-light travel at the moment, seems to my simple mind that with enough thrust, and no drag, its only a matter of keeping the power on till you get to the desired speed. Now, navigation and stopping...... is the flaw in my plan.

As I understand it, if you were travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, you would be able to travel many thousands of light years during your lifetime. This is because strange things start occuring to your body clock. So in theory you could travel to a solar system say 2000 light years away and only have aged a few years. If you then travelled back to Earth at the same speed you would again only age a few years. But once back at planet earth you would discover that 4000 years had passed, and the planet and the people on it would be vastly different.
Once you start going faster than light then you are actually travelling back in time, since time travels at the speed of light. Although it is debateable as to whether this is actually possible or not. Thats about as far as my knowledge goes on this subject.

Bully.

 

[Kipper]

Once you start going faster than light then you are actually travelling back in time, since time travels at the speed of light. Although it is debateable as to whether this is actually possible or not. Thats about as far as my knowledge goes on this subject.

See, i'm no Stephen Hawking either but my small human brain doesnt beleive that, I think that the passage time is constant, and irrespective of the speed that you are travelling.

We see because of light, and we see far off stars that may be different or gone, because of the thousands of years it takes from light to travel from there to the Earth.

So say we are looking at something 2000 light years away (to make the maths simple), we are seeing it as it was in the year 6 AD.

If we travel at 2000x the speed of light, giving us a 1 year journey time, and continue to look ahead at that star, it would seem to us to be changing quite quickly, as we are viewing that point in a mega-fast-forward roughly 2000x faster. If you could look back at the earth, it would appear to be moving backwards and de-evolving, its NOT, but you're just looking at it with 'old' light that left the earth all those years ago - the further away you go faster than the speed of light, the further 'back' you would see the earth. (But if you turned around and went back, it would re-evolve.

If your'e sat on our new planet, watching the the ship approach, (now this is getting confusing) - i'm thinking you would probably see it arrive after it already has, due to its light being slower than the vessel itself. Though the closer it gets, the less of a problem this is, since even though the light speed is constant, the distance it has to travel to reach your eyes/telescope/whatever is decreasing.

Assuming you could make the round trip in 2 years and you set off in 2006, you'd reach your new planet in 2007 (earth time) and look back at earth as it was in 7 AD, through your telescope. You could return to earth by 2008, and on earth, it would still be 2008.

Make sense?

 

[Darkman]

Assuming you could make the round trip in 2 years and you set off in 2006, you'd reach your new planet in 2007 (earth time) and look back at earth as it was in 7 AD, through your telescope. You could return to earth by 2008, and on earth, it would still be 2008.

Make sense?

Makes plenty of sense to me. If only we could ask Hawking what he thinks to this and see what he comes up with. I wonder if he ever posts on any forums at all, I know he has his own website but I can't recall him having a discussion board on there. He did post a question on Yahoo Answers 4 weeks ago on a topic about "if we are still here 100 years from now" and it was verified as being him:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD

 

[redstar1]

Assuming you could make the round trip in 2 years and you set off in 2006, you'd reach your new planet in 2007 (earth time) and look back at earth as it was in 7 AD, through your telescope. You could return to earth by 2008, and on earth, it would still be 2008.

Make sense?

I think current mainstream Physics would disagree with you there, and noones come up with an alternative theory that holds credence.

(Presuming that you indend travelling at or close to the speed of light)

 

[Steel]

Hey, folks!
May be I'm wrong, but the subject is "The REAL future of space travel?".
May be I just don't understand the meaning of word "real" ? Or just wrong

 

[caol]

It really depends on your view of Physics as to whats possible... myself? I'm a sceptic, I don't think theres warp or anything like that so I think we'll have to make do with one star for the next million years

The problem is that too prove it you need MASSIVE amounts of energy - more than is produced by all energy producing sources on Earth just now. You would probably need to directly harness the energy from a star or create some sort of controlled fusion reaction with vast amounts of fuel.

I'm with faster-than-light travel at the moment, seems to my simple mind that with enough thrust, and no drag, its only a matter of keeping the power on till you get to the desired speed. Now, navigation and stopping...... is the flaw in my plan.

According to Einstein's theories (many of these have now been proved) some rather strange things happen to spacetime as you approach the speed of light. These effects happen in very small amounts as you increase in speed and in much larger amounts after about 95% of the speed of light. The main ones that I know of are as you increase in speed:

1) Your mass increases
2) Time slows down
3) Your length decreases

If you were travelling at the speed of light you would be infinitely massive and hence have an infinitely strong gravitational field and the entire universe would collapse into a single point. And time would also stop. I think you might need an infinite amount of energy to do this though to overcome the increasing inertia as your mass increased. That is why it is impossible to travel faster than light in normal space.

As I understand it, if you were travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, you would be able to travel many thousands of light years during your lifetime. This is because strange things start occuring to your body clock.

Not your body clock but in fact time itself where you are (on a fast moving spaceship).

I think that the passage time is constant, and irrespective of the speed that you are travelling.

Wrong. It has been proved that the passage of time slows down as you increase the speed that you travel at. This was done with atomic clocks and high speed jet aeroplanes.

We see because of light, and we see far off stars that may be different or gone, because of the thousands of years it takes from light to travel from there to the Earth.

So say we are looking at something 2000 light years away (to make the maths simple), we are seeing it as it was in the year 6 AD.

If we travel at 2000x the speed of light, giving us a 1 year journey time, and continue to look ahead at that star, it would seem to us to be changing quite quickly, as we are viewing that point in a mega-fast-forward roughly 2000x faster. If you could look back at the earth, it would appear to be moving backwards and de-evolving, its NOT, but you're just looking at it with 'old' light that left the earth all those years ago - the further away you go faster than the speed of light, the further 'back' you would see the earth. (But if you turned around and went back, it would re-evolve.

If your'e sat on our new planet, watching the the ship approach, (now this is getting confusing) - i'm thinking you would probably see it arrive after it already has, due to its light being slower than the vessel itself. Though the closer it gets, the less of a problem this is, since even though the light speed is constant, the distance it has to travel to reach your eyes/telescope/whatever is decreasing.

That is true only if you could travel faster than light, but you can't. Still it's an interesting idea being able to watch time go backwards on Earth!

Assuming you could make the round trip in 2 years and you set off in 2006, you'd reach your new planet in 2007 (earth time) and look back at earth as it was in 7 AD, through your telescope. You could return to earth by 2008, and on earth, it would still be 2008.

No - the whole time that you were travelling through space, even though only two years had passed for you, thousands of years would have passed on Earth (the exact number depending on your speed during the trip).

Hey, folks!
May be I'm wrong, but the subject is "The REAL future of space travel?".
May be I just don't understand the meaning of word "real" ? Or just wrong

These are serious problems based on the fundamental nature of the universe and will have to be addressed if and when humankind ventures into deep space and attempts inter-stellar travel.


Sorry if I am being annoying, patronising or just a pain in the ****!

You can find out more about the some of the issues and physics involved here (if you're interested):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_theory_of_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light