When will we see a lot of spaceships?

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2003-04-20 04:25am

The US space program started in the 1960s, right?

And now what does our fleet consist of?

3 shuttles

When are we going to see spaceships that do more than orbit the Earth, like ones for actual travel, ones for cargo, and ones for militsry purposes. Just when are we going to build something more than space canoes?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-20 04:32am

No major spaceships until at the VERY LEAST 2100 I'd say.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-20 04:35am

FaxModem1 wrote:The US space program started in the 1960s, right?

And now what does our fleet consist of?

3 shuttles

When are we going to see spaceships that do more than orbit the Earth, like ones for actual travel, ones for cargo, and ones for militsry purposes. Just when are we going to build something more than space canoes?

When it costs less than 10 grand per pound to get there. When more than just rich buisnessmen and boybands can afford to go into space.

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2003-04-20 04:39am

This makes me wish Stargate SG1 was real, so things like the Prometheus would be produced and there would be a space boom

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-20 05:08am

Never, most people dont give a rats ass about space, being far mor e interested in the next episode of "Survivor" or "American Idol" than the space program. Its a grim irony that we traveled to the moon , planted our foot prints on another world , and then everyone completly lost intrest after we had done it.......

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-20 06:44am

The thing is that the American public really doesn't think that our tax dollars should go towards something like a space station when our economy is in the state it is in. Even without it many people think that those few billion we spend on NASA and our shuttle fleet would be better spent on social programs.

Hell I think we could take a mere fifty million or so and put it towards social security. Im disgusted the way the previous generation has handled it, and once I finally had a say in government it was already FUCKED TO HELL

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-20 11:22am

Darth Fanboy wrote:The thing is that the American public really doesn't think that our tax dollars should go towards something like a space station when our economy is in the state it is in. Even without it many people think that those few billion we spend on NASA and our shuttle fleet would be better spent on social programs.

Hell I think we could take a mere fifty million or so and put it towards social security. Im disgusted the way the previous generation has handled it, and once I finally had a say in government it was already FUCKED TO HELL

The Space Station is a cosmic mess. It shouldn't even be funded when the economy is in full swing.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-20 01:59pm

FaxModem1 wrote:The US space program started in the 1960s, right?

And now what does our fleet consist of?

3 shuttles

When are we going to see spaceships that do more than orbit the Earth, like ones for actual travel, ones for cargo, and ones for militsry purposes. Just when are we going to build something more than space canoes?

Reusable spacecraft like the Shuttle are an absurd waste of money. The shuttle weighs five times more then its payload, and we have to pay to put that all into orbit only to bring it back. If the US had simple build a small possibly reusable crew capsule that parachutes back down we could have placed thousands of extra tons into orbit by now for less money.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-20 04:13pm

We'll all see shitloads of spaceships when we finish our first few space elevators.

They have the potential to make getting to orbit cost a mere $7 PER POUND. Thats figuring the fact that there could be solar power stations and shit that would power it, etc.

Once we have space elevators, getting into space will be about as expensive as a tour of europe. I predict that withing 50 years of the first manned elevator trips we'll have a resort hotel or two on the moon. I mean, it'll cost less to build on the moon then it would to transport the material to a site on earth, mile for mile.

I would wager that by 2100 we'll have a mars colony with its own elevator. it'd be far cheaper then rockets.

once we have space elevators, we're in space seriously, and for good.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-20 04:25pm

It would still take 3-4 days one way and a big expensive rocket to get to the moon even with a space elevator to get to orbit.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-04-20 04:29pm

...Space elevator?

Reaching 1,000,000 floor: the ISS, Apollo 11, and the lunar lander???

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-20 04:35pm

We won't be seeing any big cargo and civilian spaceships until we can find a cheaper way (And more convienent in the case of civilians) to get into space. That's going to take a few decades.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-20 04:36pm

actually the trip is 2 days, and the rocket wouldnt be terribly expensive, if it would be used at all.

remember, the elevator mooring is in geostationary orbit with two cables extended towards and away from earth.

The whole PLAN is to continue along the other, more distance end of the elevator and let centrifugal force from the earths rotation kick you out into space.

Even so, Saturn 5 rockets werent much more expensive then the space shuttle, and they had much more kick. So if youre 65 thousand miles up in space, a quarter of the way to the moon, that gets rid of ALOT of the propellant from the rocket, making it CONSIDERABLY cheaper.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-20 04:37pm

...Space elevator?

Reaching 1,000,000 floor: the ISS, Apollo 11, and the lunar lander???

Precisely. Kind of. http://www.highliftsystems.com/

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-04-20 04:44pm

kojikun wrote:
...Space elevator?

Reaching 1,000,000 floor: the ISS, Apollo 11, and the lunar lander???
Precisely. Kind of. http://www.highliftsystems.com/

Only problem with that is it isn't practical for Earth.

But the moon and Mars however...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-20 04:45pm

Regarding the space elevator:

The [carbon nanotube] ribbon, the only component of the space elevator not commercially available, is the major hurdle in the construction of the space elevator.

Composites utilizing carbon nanotubes are also under development and may be ready in the next 1 to 5 years.

For the initial space elevator these recurring costs combined with repaying the initial capital investment would give us total launch costs of $100/kg ($45/lb or 1/10 to 1/100 of conventional systems).

And they wont be taking people up until 10-15 years after the lift is constructed. This will mean much lower prices.

But even at $45/lb, thats about $8,000 for the average person. Personal spacecraft would be expensive, yeas, about 200K-1M but rich people could afford them, and thats assuming theyre built on earth. With launch costs that cheap, and material thats already in space, it would be very easy to built a ship for a few thousand dollars. I would predict that the asteriod belt will become the major industrial center/s of the next millenia, due to sheer resource quantity, and location (space = cheap, while getting into space = not quite as cheap).

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-20 04:49pm

Only problem with that is it isn't practical for Earth.

But the moon and Mars however...

Why isnt it practical? Its PERFECT for earth!

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-04-20 09:25pm

kojikun wrote:
Why isnt it practical? Its PERFECT for earth!

I'm sure Mike can explain this better than me, but....

Unless you can come up with a bunch of 36,000 km long single-crystal graphite fibers with incredible strength-to-weight ratios, a "Beanstalk" designed to lift 1 ton would have to weigh quadrillions of tonnes.

With real materials, assuming a 36,000 km geostationary tether, the tether would have to get thicker and thicker as it moves away from Earth. The cross-section area of the at the orbiting satillite would be 10 to 20 orders of magnitude greater than that at the base, with similiar incredible ratios holding between the tether mass and the mass of the payload it is required to lift.

At the moment, or for the foreseeable future, we do not have the appropriate materials in quantity to build a space elevator. I highly doubt that we would come up with the appropriate materials in "1 to 5 years".

However over, on, say, the moon, the space elevator would only have to fight one sixth of Earth's gravity, and the satillite would only weigh a hundred more times than whatever it's designed to lift. Materials like Spectra can act as a tether in that case.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-20 09:45pm

wouldnt a space elevator be remarkably easy to sabotage?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-20 09:49pm

Lonestar wrote:
kojikun wrote:
...Space elevator?

Reaching 1,000,000 floor: the ISS, Apollo 11, and the lunar lander???
Precisely. Kind of. http://www.highliftsystems.com/
Only problem with that is it isn't practical for Earth.

But the moon and Mars however...

Actually, it's less pratical for the moon. Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, you need the center of mass for the tether to be in lunar synch. orbit. This requires an absurdly long cable, even longer than an one for the earth...

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-04-20 10:32pm

Beowulf wrote:
Actually, it's less pratical for the moon. Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, you need the center of mass for the tether to be in lunar synch. orbit. This requires an absurdly long cable, even longer than an one for the earth...

I think you may be incorrect. But, as I said a few posts up, I'm no engineer and I'll let Mike (when and if he wanders in here) to explain the engineering aspects.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-20 11:48pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:wouldnt a space elevator be remarkably easy to sabotage?

It would be fairly easy, if you had access to an aircraft and there wasn't some form of no fly zone that had fixed defenses ready to shoot at all times.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-21 12:09am

This thread isn't exactly Politics material. Would anyone object if I moved it to SLAM?

EDIT: Well, yeah it is, but it could just as easily be in SLAM, I think.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-21 02:03am

I don't objet

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-21 02:10am

Durandal wrote:This thread isn't exactly Politics material. Would anyone object if I moved it to SLAM?

The development of space is more a matter of money and politics then technology.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When will we see a lot of spaceships?

When will we see a lot of spaceships?

Re: When will we see a lot of spaceships?

Re: When will we see a lot of spaceships?