When will we see a lot of spaceships?

[Crayz9000]

Back on topic, Burt Rutan recently unveiled a spaceplane that his corporation built without any government assistance. It's called SpaceShipOne and is essentially designed to be air launched, achieve an altitude of 62 miles, slow down, and re-enter; basically what the X-15 did, minus the hypersonic speed capability.

There's a Slashdot article on it.

[Patrick Degan]

Hard to say whether this thread should be moved. Arguments on the space programme, after all, are inevitably bound to touch as much upon politics as science.

As for the space shuttle... You know, I can still see a rationale for having a reusable orbital vehicle; particularly when it comes to in-flight satellite repair. But this system we've got really is a mess.

One of the reasons why the shuttle orbiter was designed so large was that it was supposed to retrieve satellites from orbit, to be brought back to Earth for comprehensive repairs. But frankly I can't even remember the last time this was attempted, or even if it was attempted at all. That part of the shuttle's mission went by the wayside years ago, and the expense of using a manned ship simply to put a satellite in orbit just makes no sense at all. Trying to make the shuttle an all-purpose utility vehicle helped to soak up the cash that might otherwise have gone into a space station which could have been built years ago, and even then, a station without a mission profile to justify the effort to build a large, multimodular structure in LEO is a waste of money and materiél.

What it comes down to is that NASA got itself trapped trying to justify a mission for a white elephant. None of the grand promises made for the STS system such as 14-day turnaround between flights, easy maintenance, profitable commercial satellite launch, orbital satellite recovery, platform for science missions, and space station construction and servicing, ever had a hope of materialising. They tried to make the STS system do everything perfectly and the result is that it can't really do anything without massive difficulty and parts of its mission were dropped early on. The design itself is inherently unsafe, particularly with those solid-fueled boosters which just had to be designed for reusability themselves (and added another layer of complication on the engineering), and ridiculously complex. A vehicle 2/3rds the size of the present orbiter mounted on an all liquid-fueled rocket system —with none of the lifting being performed by the orbiter itself but rather by a very large rocket with boosters strapped on as with the Soviet Buran/Energiya configuration— would have made far more sense. Furthermore, the carrier rockets and boosters should simply be expendible, to simplify the overall design and increase safety for the crew.

Now, NASA are finding themselves having to make some sort of decision as to what's going to replace the present shuttle fleet, and it appears they've learned nothing from the last twenty years. Their design object for the Next Generation Shuttle is for a totally reusable system; orbiter, boosters, and carrier rocket. There's no damn way that such a configuration can ever be economically constructed, much less operated. It guarantees an even more horrendously expensive programme for which the only beneficiaries will be the aerospace contractors and which will never fulfill any mission efficently or on anything resembling a regular schedule.

The way things look at this point, NASA have no conception as to how to run a practical space programme, and the result will be either the arrested development of another "cutting edge" system which will never see the light of day but will cost billions before the contract is cancelled and forcing continued dependence upon an increasingly obsolecent fleet of 1970s-era vehicles, or the present fleet's eventual replacement with an even bigger white elephant system than we've got now, and we will get no further out into space than we are now even fifty years from today.

[Tom_Aurum]

Well, my argument always boils down to "whenever we get nanotech." Fuel is easy enough to compress (hydrogen and oxygen.) But the only way to get large amounts of space-age material cheap is to go that route. Would I be incorrect?

[Crayz9000]

I believe that Wong would heartily disagree with you.

Nanotech is good for small-scale construction, but the logistics of scaling it up is insane. For the forseeable future, it will always be cheaper to use macro production techniques.

[kojikun]

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".

I'm sorry, but we HAVE the shit in small quantities and its more a manufacturing problem then it is an issue with the stuff existing.

People are talking about greatly reduced LAUNCH COSTS which is far less feasible then carbon fiber, considering we've made hydrogen and oxygen cryogenics about as cheap as theyre going to get. And unless you know of a fuel with more bang for the buck then hydrogen, and weighs about the same (haha doesnt exist, sorry) then youre plum out of luck.

I would trust the engineers when they say "1-5 years" more then I'd trust you. Why don't you do some research then debate it.

[SirNitram]

Following the construction of the first space elevator we should.. Should.. see a space boom. Given such a system is already being prepared, it's not as much of a pie-in-the-sky situation as it was. The existance of such things is incredibly important: It massively decreases the costs of movement of materials.

Modern estimates for mining an Near Earth Object runs into the ten of billions. Once the first few elevators are in place(And they become far easier to build once you have one in place), this should drop off, but the need for materials we can bring down will not collapse as easily. It might, once the few cubic klick of iron, nickel, and cobalt is delivered and revitalizes the economy of whichever country brought it in(Or possibly collapses it, given the intense inflation).

Sad, isn't it? We must fall back on companies to do this.

[kojikun]

Fuel is easy enough to compress (hydrogen and oxygen.)

EASY? Firstly, you don't compress hydrogen and oxygen, you freeze them until they liquify. Secondly, crygenics is one of the most difficult parts of a rocket system, which is why alot of early rockets, and smaller modern rockets use different chemicals for fuel, namely isopropyl and hydrogen peroxide, or the like.

LH and LOX are real bitches to work with, and are not meant for the space industry unless we're already in space where theyre not likely to destroy your ship just because the sun was shining at the wrong angle and your radiators aren't radiating heat. Cryogenics is a fragile system, and frankly, it's a stupid idea for something so vital as people moving.

Following the construction of the first space elevator we should.. Should.. see a space boom. Given such a system is already being prepared, it's not as much of a pie-in-the-sky situation as it was. The existance of such things is incredibly important: It massively decreases the costs of movement of materials.

Damn right.

Modern estimates for mining an Near Earth Object runs into the ten of billions. Once the first few elevators are in place(And they become far easier to build once you have one in place), this should drop off, but the need for materials we can bring down will not collapse as easily. It might, once the few cubic klick of iron, nickel, and cobalt is delivered and revitalizes the economy of whichever country brought it in(Or possibly collapses it, given the intense inflation).

Actually modern estimates for the VALUE of near earth asteroids is about USD $40,000,000,000,000 per asteroid, mostly from iron and nickle, but a sizable amount (6,000,000,000,000) from platinum and iridium. Mining it would cost nothing near the profit that could be made.

And then we must consider that once we get fusion rockets, their best fuel will be Helium-3 which can be mined from the gas giants for the rest of eternity without problem. Infact, it's so valuable that 10 tonnes of the stuff would be worth about $160,000,000,000, and if used to power the planet earth would have a value of $64,000,000,000,000 per year.

Sad, isn't it? We must fall back on companies to do this.

Not really. I trust boeing and lockheed, just not microsoft but once we get space elevators, its more that we'll rely on the ship manufacturers for our jet black space hotrods, not our ticket to space.

[Lonestar]

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 need a "Hand slapping forehead smilie".

If the Moon was tidelally locked with Earth, wouldn't the same side be always faceing Earth?

Kojikun

I'm sorry, but we HAVE the shit in small quantities and its more a manufacturing problem then it is an issue with the stuff existing.

I didn't say we were complete without the materials, I said we didn't have the quantity needed.

People are talking about greatly reduced LAUNCH COSTS which is far less feasible then carbon fiber, considering we've made hydrogen and oxygen cryogenics about as cheap as theyre going to get. And unless you know of a fuel with more bang for the buck then hydrogen, and weighs about the same (haha doesnt exist, sorry) then youre plum out of luck.

I have no issue with that statement, nor have I made a post indicating I do....

That said, I fully agree with the posts of others on this thread about what a clusterfuck the shuttle program is. Damn you, "Cost-plus" Government Contracts!

I would trust the engineers when they say "1-5 years" more then I'd trust you. Why don't you do some research then debate it.

I would love to see a list of companies that are seriously looking into mass-manufacturing carbon nanotubes. The entire argument that "The Space Elevator is feasible" hinges on this. Some space elevator enthusiests who spout off "1 to 5 years" does not a statement of practicality make.

[kojikun]

If the Moon was tidelally locked with Earth, wouldn't the same side be always faceing Earth?

It does.

I didn't say we were complete without the materials, I said we didn't have the quantity needed.

The fact that companies are already researching it and stand to make a hefty profit from doing it means that we WILL have the quantities in the future.

[kojikun]

And I would note that I said that I believe we'll have them within 50 years, not 1-5 like Highlift says.

[Lonestar]

If the Moon was tidelally locked with Earth, wouldn't the same side be always faceing Earth?

It does.

:: Head pops ::

So, the moon doesn't have a 28 day rotation period?

Or it could be I'm confusing the day/night cycle and assuming it must rotate.

And I would note that I said that I believe we'll have them within 50 years, not 1-5 like Highlift says.

If you did(too lazy to scroll down), than that is a more acceptable statement.

[Sea Skimmer]

:: Head pops ::

So, the moon doesn't have a 28 day rotation period?

Or it could be I'm confusing the day/night cycle and assuming it must rotate.

The moon orbits the earth every 28 days, but the same side always faces the earth. The moon doesnt rotate.

[Ignorant twit]

Any possibility we could simply build a gun-type device into a mountain and launch equipment into orbit without rockets? Or maybe a dual gun-rocket system?

Besides wouldn't it be cool to have a gun that can shoot anything, anywhere in the world

[Beowulf]

:: Head pops ::

So, the moon doesn't have a 28 day rotation period?

Or it could be I'm confusing the day/night cycle and assuming it must rotate.

The moon orbits the earth every 28 days, but the same side always faces the earth. The moon doesnt rotate.

Skimmer, the moon rotates once every 28 days, this has the net effect of making the same side always face the earth. If the moon didn't rotate, we'd see different parts of the moon's surface...

[kojikun]

a giant gun wouldnt work because of the acceleration (you'd be salsa at the back of the ship). a long accelerator, like a maglev train on crack, has been proposed, and the correct termfor it would be an electromagnetic catapult.

Island One has a nice article

The other version, rocket assist, is called a chemical catapult, and I1 has an article as well. One idea is to use a little bit of fuel at a time, sequentially, in tiny explosions or bursts, to gradually increase the speed of the craft. The same idea was being put into Germany's V3 launch system during WWII, but, as I'm sure you can tell, they didn't get very far.

Island One has a terrible lot of advanced propulsion articles, not all for launching, some for space travel. Check em out here.

[Sea Skimmer]

Any possibility we could simply build a gun-type device into a mountain and launch equipment into orbit without rockets? Or maybe a dual gun-rocket system?

Besides wouldn't it be cool to have a gun that can shoot anything, anywhere in the world

That's not practical. The gun would be absurdly large to launch anything of a useful size, just take a look at the barrel of Iraq's super gun that could have placed a small object into LEO.

[Howedar]

When we get fusion rockets.

[kojikun]

Fusion rockets wont work well on earth, or in any atmosphere for that matter, and the radiation would kill. Howwie, the issue is really launching cost, not propulsion in space. Once youre up there, it's not too expensive to get around, I would guess most propellant cost for ANY ship will be in launching. Look at the size of the Saturn V's versus the size of the little orbiter that went to the moon and back. That thing was a fraction of the size of it's boosters, and the boosters didn't go very far into space!

[Howedar]

But with a fusion system, you are having to lift a lot less mass into LEO. Thats the key. Saving a pound on the final vehicle is worth ten on the first stage.


I have no idea what the actual number is, but you get the idea.

[kojikun]

yes, thats true, a fusion system will be cheaper to lift, assuming the actual fusion core is lighter then the rocket and oxygen mass of a typical rocket, otherwise you will have issues.

[kojikun]

btw, I'm going to move to have this thread move to SLAM or OSF, because its not very political in nature.

[Ignorant twit]

Fusion rockets wont work well on earth, or in any atmosphere for that matter, and the radiation would kill. Howwie, the issue is really launching cost, not propulsion in space. Once youre up there, it's not too expensive to get around, I would guess most propellant cost for ANY ship will be in launching. Look at the size of the Saturn V's versus the size of the little orbiter that went to the moon and back. That thing was a fraction of the size of it's boosters, and the boosters didn't go very far into space!

Can't you build helium-3 fusion rockets that have little or no radiation? Of course getting helium-3 is a problem in and of itself

[kojikun]

He-3 rockets do produce minor amounts of radiation, but come to think of it, that wouldnt be so much of a problem, you can work around it.

Still, the real problem is maintaining the ridiculously low pressures in an open chamber. It's rather difficult to prevent air from rushing into the evacuated chamber when the only think you have to contain gas is meant to be used on plasma.

[kojikun]

Just for fun, I looked through my copy of Islands in the Sky. Chapter 11, page 190, says "The boron/hydrogen reaction produces no neutrons..." so boron/hydrogen fusion doesn't product neutron radiation, and I don't think any HE photons either, but B-H fusion may not be as easy to use in a reactor as He-3.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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?

This needs to be moved to Other Sci-Fi if it doesn't do so while I'm writing this.

By 2030, you can expect our fleet to consist of a few next-generation shuttles (shinier space canoes) and maybe a couple of Mars craft expended on getting a person to Mars. And if you're real lucky, you might have some canoes that could go to the Moon.

By 2050, you might have some small lunar projects going on. Touristry, permanent settlement, etc. The public'll have lost interest in Mars the decade before.

By 2070, there should be enough infrastructure built up and propulsion technology should be far enough along that minerals from asteroids would be competitive with minerals from Earth. Then, you might see a very small handful of mining operations being set up. With this, you might see more interest in Mars. People might actually go to visit it more often.

By 2100, you might see a permanent Mars colony being established. That'll mean ships scooting back and forth between Earth and Mars and the Moon, plus whatever ships come from asteroid mining efforts. And here, you might see the first interplanetary military vessels, as conflicts between asteroid miners start to come up.