Will it be ever possible to have long term space travel?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
It's a similar phenomenon to "matrimonial bed death." Once the relationship becomes as permanent as a marriage, sex becomes rare.
I'm actually quite happy with NASA's new objective - land a man on the asteroids. The asteroids are full of Mineral and Metallic wealth that can be exploited to make space travel viable. They also have the organic compounds necessary to set up off-world colonies.
All these resources can be sent back to LEO (low Earth orbit) to construct a cheaper space craft. By getting rid of the need to break Earth gravity you significantly reduce the cost.
Going back to the moon was Bush's attempt at winning over some space cadets. It's been done. There's nothing much there and it's best left to controlling our tides.
That last sentence reminds me of a film I saw where the moon exploded through over-mining, causing a global catastrophe. What was that?
All these resources can be sent back to LEO (low Earth orbit) to construct a cheaper space craft. By getting rid of the need to break Earth gravity you significantly reduce the cost.
Going back to the moon was Bush's attempt at winning over some space cadets. It's been done. There's nothing much there and it's best left to controlling our tides.
That last sentence reminds me of a film I saw where the moon exploded through over-mining, causing a global catastrophe. What was that?
The Time Machine. Supposedly humans accidentally shattered it using nuclear warheads trying to get at the materials under the crust.
Although you're slightly wrong about there being "nothing much" on the moon. It has about the same metal and mineral content as near Earth asteroids, especially titanium and platinum.
I believe the impact theory. It's the most logical one.
Pretty similar is not identical. The moon's mantle is no longer convective and hasn't been for billions of years; Earth's mantle is still convective, and is therefore still undergoing geologic evolution.
The differences can be accounted for by the fact that the Earth and the Moon WERE extremely similar, but since that time the Earth has changed and the Moon has not.
A jouney of a thousand miles begin with the first step.
The biggest problem with both short and long term space travel is the cost per pound to low Earth orbit. get the cost down low enough and commercial concerns can by-pass government involvement to access space and obtain resources, private groups (those willing) can colonize planets, moons and open space.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
About the resources available in space and space commercialization:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15633
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15633
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
And here I thought you were talking about TUC.
That cost is a short-term problem, but not a long-term one. One of these days, when the technology is feasible, we’ll construct a space elevator, and then it will be cheap to get stuff into low Earth orbit. Use matter collected in space as a counterweight, and the net work required to get the payload from Earth into orbit (and the other payload from orbit down to Earth) is close to zero.
You do know that there's a big difference between going straight up 200 miles and maintaining an orbit that's 200 miles high right? The ISS has to maintain a velocity of 17500 miles an hour to stay in orbit at that altitude.
One of these days, when the technology is feasible, we’ll construct a fleet of shuttlecraft that use subspace field generators to negate the pull of gravity and reach orbit. If you don't have to worry about gravity, getting into space is easy.
One of these days, when the technology is feasible, we’ll construct a fleet of shuttlecraft that use subspace field generators to negate the pull of gravity and reach orbit. If you don't have to worry about gravity, getting into space is easy.
The center of mass of a space elevator is in geostationary orbit. Hop off the elevator at that point and you’re in orbit. Hop off the elevator at a higher point and you’ll need to fire the braking thrusters a bit to establish a stable orbit — otherwise, you’ll be flung out into space, which is what we’re after in this discussion.
^^ So instead of 200 miles up you're talking over 22,000 miles up for a geostationary orbit. That would take alot of building material. and the only thing floating around in our neighborhood besides the moon is a bunch of old and dead lightweight satellites.
We have more than enough of the raw ingredients to build a space elevator. The problem is that material science has not yet advanced to the point where we can build a cable that’s strong enough. NASA and private enterprises are actively working on the problem.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Captain Rob
Carbon nanotubes should be resistant enough to build space elevators - which would be a ribbon (hardly anything fancier) extending from Earth to space.
Also, the space elevator would not need to be as long as you suggest, Captain Rob.
Indeed, the space elevator is coming closer to becoming feasible each year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#21st_century
Carbon nanotubes should be resistant enough to build space elevators - which would be a ribbon (hardly anything fancier) extending from Earth to space.
Also, the space elevator would not need to be as long as you suggest, Captain Rob.
Indeed, the space elevator is coming closer to becoming feasible each year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#21st_century
Similar threads
