Career in space

[Bluesteel]

Hi, everybody!
Hi Dr Bluesteel.

There I broke the ice.

Anyway lets get to the point of this. I'm studying a science course at the moment. I'm meant to apply for my university course next year. I know what I want to do. Something involving space.

The question is in what capacity? What I want to do is something that pushes us as humans faster towards space. Something that will not only fill my pockets with bundles of Adam Smiths but something that will last.

I'm looking around at various ascept that involves space and so far I found a few.

Satellites/Probes: This one to me seems the biggest sector especially here in Europe. So the chances of me struggling to find a job seems lowest here. It's does involve technological leaps because the people involved are always facing constraints that they have to get. For example the probe they want to send to Mars needs X amount of energy supply if the engineers don't find a way to supply that and make sure that it weighs less then Y while at the same time is hardy and resistant to breaking down then they the guys in the other section will have to take out some scientific instruments reducing the value of the mission and possibly the extra funding they might get if costs overrun.


Spacecraft: This one seems an another one. All though it's not as big here in Europe as it is in America. Building spacecrafts. Making more efficent, lightweight spacecraft which is also safe for humans to live in seems very exciting. I loved the part in Apollo 13 when the engineers were given a list of objects that Tom Hanks and his mates had in the module and how to make something out of these things to get rid of the CO2. Or the guy who was up trying to find a way to get more power for the guys trapped up.


Propulsion: This one is the one I have to say I set my heart on when I was younger before cynicism hit me. I've always wanted to be part of something that made it possible for humans to go beyond LEO. Go beyond the Chemical rockets we have today. Something that in the future would involve us going to Mars faster. I'm afraid this might just be a childish dream. I mean isn't it physicists who actually do this?


You know the worst thing is? When ever I try looking up engineering related stuff in the libraries around my area. I find stuff about cars. Absolutely nothing to do with engineering or Space.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You might want to check out the websites of SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace. That should give you a few ideas. Bigelow's inflatable space station is scheduled to launch on one of SpaceX's Falcon-9s once the system is ready; speaking of which, SpaceX is basically set to replace NASA as the primary (American) transport to the International Space Station. If the trend continues, your career in space will probably involving developing cheaper/more efficient space capsules that can transport crews to space stations in low orbit.

If you want a real feather in your cap, try figuring out a cheap way of getting fuel (but not workable craft) into orbit. This will allow you to build entire space craft in orbit that never ever have to return to Earth; dock a capsule and a lander or two, and you can take your time pushing this thing to the moon or Mars and back and just LEAVE it there between trips.

[/two cents]

 

[Browncoat]

If you want a real feather in your cap, try figuring out a cheap way of getting fuel (but not workable craft) into orbit. This will allow you to build entire space craft in orbit that never ever have to return to Earth; dock a capsule and a lander or two, and you can take your time pushing this thing to the moon or Mars and back and just LEAVE it there between trips.

[/two cents]

I would have to vote for this.

The potential of a career in space is laid on a foundation of how populated space (or extra-Earth planets) can be. Without a "gas station" of sorts, populating space will be (and has been) like trying to build a village on the other side of a desert, the only gas station being on the side from which you came. In other words, extremely difficult. Put a gas station between the two points, however, and suddenly it becomes much less difficult, and at the very least, realistic.

 

[SilentP]

If you want a real feather in your cap, try figuring out a cheap way of getting fuel (but not workable craft) into orbit. This will allow you to build entire space craft in orbit that never ever have to return to Earth; dock a capsule and a lander or two, and you can take your time pushing this thing to the moon or Mars and back and just LEAVE it there between trips.

[/two cents]

I would have to vote for this.

The potential of a career in space is laid on a foundation of how populated space (or extra-Earth planets) can be. Without a "gas station" of sorts, populating space will be (and has been) like trying to build a village on the other side of a desert, the only gas station being on the side from which you came. In other words, extremely difficult. Put a gas station between the two points, however, and suddenly it becomes much less difficult, and at the very least, realistic.

Aye, another vote for this route. Space travel of any regular support is going to rely on a good logistics system. Get into that, and you (and hopefully humanity if it works) will do well.

 

[Lindley]

Well, the gas problem will be licked as soon as we get a space elevator going. 'Cause if you can make a cable, you can certainly make a hose just as easy. And if it's length is double the distance to geosync, it suddenly becomes a siphon.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Space elevator is just a gimmick, I doubt it will ever be practical.

In terms of "cheap transportation of fuel" I was mainly thinking of a new type of launch vehicle. Probably a multi-stage rocket that uses turboramjet as its first stage and transitions to a standard rocket (probably a series of SRB or hybrid stages) high in the upper atmosphere where drag us reduced and the vehicle can trade some of its altitude for velocity and reduce its fuel requirements.

However you do it, economy of scale and government investment are going to be key to this. A government subsidy for the launching of spacecraft propellant would go a long way towards stimulating the commercialization of space, especially if Chang-Diaz gets his VASIMR thing working.

 

[Lindley]

Space elevator is just a gimmick, I doubt it will ever be practical.

Arthur C Clarke seemed to think it would be, and he's been right about many of his tech predictions. He "invented" communications satellites in the 1940s, did you know that?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Space elevator is just a gimmick, I doubt it will ever be practical.

Arthur C Clarke seemed to think it would be, and he's been right about many of his tech predictions.

He's also been disastrously wrong in others, sometimes in spectacular ways. Most famously his depiction of the HAL-9000 computer in A Space Odyssey, and the fact that even in 2009 we are still years away from a computer system that can reliably process human speech. Ironically, while HAL is superior to real computers in that critical way, he is vastly inferior in others; notably in 2001 the use of FORTRAN data displays instead of the more efficient MFDs used by nearly all modern space craft.

He also seems to have some problems predicting POLITICAL futures, since he pegged the end of Apartheid coming some time in the 2030s (only to have it end two or three years after the publication of 2061).

He "invented" communications satellites in the 1940s, did you know that?

Interestingly enough, A.C. Clarke predicted MANNED communication satellites. I.E. space stations that acted as the orbiting equivalents of modern telephone operators. He seemed to believe that regular space flights to and from geostationary orbit would become totally practical for most civilians by the year 1998. Since that prediction is based on the same logic used by proponents of space elevators, I'm inclined to take it with a gain of salt.

 

[Lindley]

That's fair enough. Still, it seems to me that at this point space elevator tech is purely an engineering problem, not a practical one.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's a practical problem as well as engineering. Basically, it's a hugely expensive infrastructure project whose operating costs have been grossly--and in some cases, intentionally--under-estimated by its proponents. Alot of it is merely a sloppy grasp of economics in some of the same ways that doomed the Space Shuttle program: then, as now, we had a handful of idealistic but woefully misinformed eggheads selling the line that the space shuttle program would eventually lead to payload costs of around $200/kg (which is almost exactly what the latest round of estimates for a future space elevator are). Not only did these low costs never materialize, the shuttle turned out to be more expensive in terms of payload costs than even CONVENTIONAL rocket systems, and then the artificial limitations imposed by the Challenger disaster more than tripled those costs.

So I don't expect any novel unproven technology to be any more efficient than a proven one without a few decades worth of trial and error, and even then with plenty of room for error and correction. A space elevator has NO room for error, because you can only build it once, and if it fails, you're stuck having to spend tens of billions of dollars building a new and improved version. That's money better spent on making ROCKETS cheaper and more practical, which at this point is purely an engineering problem, and a well-understood one at that.

 

[Bluesteel]

Logistics? That's not exactly what I had in mind. I'm a personal fan of nuclear propulsion or any kind of propulsion that uses a small amount of fuel. Chemical fuel to be honest is only useful for getting off and on to planets. Other then that they are pretty much useless. They run out to quickly and are a hazard.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Logistics? That's not exactly what I had in mind.

Me either. I was actually thinking about spacecraft development and efficiency. You could make big bones in the spacing industry if you can come up with a cheap launch system that can boost light payloads for less than $1000/kg.

Once you have that, your options for construction in space multiply insanely. If you only have to build it once and then keep refueling it all the time, you can build an entire fleet of permanent orbiters to whatever specs you like and experiment with them using ground control until you find one suitable for manned exploration.

I'm a personal fan of nuclear propulsion or any kind of propulsion that uses a small amount of fuel.

Best nuclear propulsion designs were the NERVA series, 1960s technology. Pretty competitive, but gas-guzzlers.

Franklin Chang-Diaz is still working on the VASIMR system and he swears that the thing will become the engine of the future IF combined with a decent nuclear reactor. This would be vastly more efficient than a nuclear thermal rocket; the problem is, it has a crappy thrust-to-weight ratio so it can only be used on-orbit. Until somebody finds a cheap way of getting fuel and payload into low Earth orbit, VASIMR is still grounded.

Chemical fuel to be honest is only useful for getting off and on to planets.

And it probably always will be. And since there isn't a whole lot going on IN space right now, if you're really interested in a CAREER in space, you're better off finding a way to make those chemical rockets cheaper to use so we can move on to the REAL stuff that only works in space.

 

[Bluesteel]

And it probably always will be. And since there isn't a whole lot going on IN space right now, if you're really interested in a CAREER in space, you're better off finding a way to make those chemical rockets cheaper to use so we can move on to the REAL stuff that only works in space.

That is one thing that scares me though. Cornering my self into a section that could die. I hope to get atleast 40 years long career in Space. That is a long time. I fear that something could happen and Chemical rockets could be a dead anchor and I'll be useless.

 

[iguana_tonante]

For the love of God don't go into astrophysics. We have enough people around here and the room is at a premium.

Ironically, while HAL is superior to real computers in that critical way, he is vastly inferior in others; notably in 2001 the use of FORTRAN data displays instead of the more efficient MFDs used by nearly all modern space craft.

Hey! I still use FORTRAN data display!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And it probably always will be. And since there isn't a whole lot going on IN space right now, if you're really interested in a CAREER in space, you're better off finding a way to make those chemical rockets cheaper to use so we can move on to the REAL stuff that only works in space.

That is one thing that scares me though. Cornering my self into a section that could die. I hope to get atleast 40 years long career in Space. That is a long time. I fear that something could happen and Chemical rockets could be a dead anchor and I'll be useless.

Anything that could drive chemical rockets into that degree of obsolescence will a) give you more than enough warning when it starts to develop and b) will probably require input from the old guard anyway.

Besides, chemical rockets have been THE primary option for the past, what, thousand years? I don't see them being totally replaced in the next 40.

 

[StarryEyed]

One possible interim solution to a space elevator is an inflatable tower reaching to near-space. It's a far cry from orbit but it would supposedly reduce launching to that point by 30%.

Somewhere along the way, we are going to have to find a way to get into orbit other than with chemical rockets. They will never be anything other than insanely expensive. It's their nature.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

One possible interim solution to a space elevator is an inflatable tower reaching to near-space. It's a far cry from orbit but it would supposedly reduce launching to that point by 30%.

Somewhere along the way, we are going to have to find a way to get into orbit other than with chemical rockets. They will never be anything other than insanely expensive. It's their nature.

Chemical rockets aren't expensive at all. LAUNCHING them is expensive. Launch pads, safety mechanisms, maintenance, design, construction, these things are the majority of the cost of a rocket. Both the engines, the fuel and the actual materials of the rocket are dirt cheap.

Any method you use to get into orbit is going to have these problems, because getting into orbit is incredibly complicated. A space elevator is going to have all of the same problems, compounded by the fact that you will now have a 30,000km pulley system full of electronics and moving parts that have to be kept in perfect working order at all times or the entire system comes crashing down.

Chemical rockets CAN be made cheaper, all you need is an inexpensive technique for launching and servicing them. This will mean a few major changes, not least of which is a move (finally!) away from cryogenic fuels like liquid hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[StarryEyed]

Show me how you are going to take a technology as mature as rocketry and reduce its costs by a factor of a thousand - because that is what it is going to take to make travel to orbit a routine thing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Show me how you are going to take a technology as mature as rocketry and reduce its costs by a factor of a thousand - because that is what it is going to take to make travel to orbit a routine thing.

If I could do that I wouldn't be poor.

But as I said, there are a number of big and obvious things you can change that would drop the cost IMMEDIATELY. Cryogenic propellants is the biggest one, since it adds a massive layer of complexity to every aspect of the operation. Once a room-temperature fuel/propellant source is obtained that achieves similar or better results than cryofuels, operating costs will fall precipitously.

 

[StarryEyed]

Show me how you are going to take a technology as mature as rocketry and reduce its costs by a factor of a thousand - because that is what it is going to take to make travel to orbit a routine thing.

If I could do that I wouldn't be poor.

Of course not; you would be richer than Bill Gates! The problem is nobody can do it and never will be able to do it. Rockets are what they are.

How much do you think costs could be reduced if we can come up with a non-cryo fuel with the same thrust/weight ratio as cryo fuels? Two, three, five times? More? Is such a fuel on the horizon? It would be a great thing and I'm not suggesting we should abandon such efforts but ultimately, we need a new paradigm. I don't know if the space elevator will be that paradigm or not but if we don't find something capable of getting costs down to single or at least double-digit dollars a pound, we won't have a future in space.