Topic: What will it take?

[Vipre]

This is a spinoff of an idea I had while thinking about the "Earth to Mars voyage radiation shielding." thread.


I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on what it'll take to make humanity a viable spacefaring race. Now I'm not talking about super SciFi I'm talking about practical accomplishable technology that we might even be able to field now.

Personally I think number one is we need to recognize the shuttle as the glorified taxi that it is. It's only value is as transport of people into orbit, materials can be launched on unmanned rockets, and it does a half baked job at that.

Number two is a workbee type craft. Sending a shuttle crew every time something needs fixing is stupid, the space station crew should have a vehicle for repairing satellites, the Hubble telescope and the station itself.

Number three is a "real" orbital space station. The one up there barely deserves the name. We need something with a real crew, a dedicated construction facility and a decent lab. If something breaks we should be able to launch an unmanned rocket with repair parts to the station and the crew engineers should hop into the workbee shoot over to the satellite and make repairs.

This brings us to the keystone to space travel, without which we'll never make it past the moon, Number Four.

Number four is a space fighter ala Colonial Viper, Space: Above and Beyond Hammerhead or A-wing. A small one man space based fighter craft. Why is this critical? I feel that unless we give the military a reason to go into orbit, or space itself really, that there will never be a real effort by any government put toward space travel. I mean really compare the DOD's budget to NASA's, no contest.

One suggestion would be using space based fighters to intercept ICBM's launched by foreign powers. Are those things still around? (ICBMs not foreign powers ) "The Star Wars Defense System" may have been quite an accurate name after all.

Anyway I'm just curious what others think on the subject. It's late, I'm bored, talk to me people! 

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

This is a spinoff of an idea I had while thinking about the "Earth to Mars voyage radiation shielding." thread.


I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on what it'll take to make humanity a viable spacefaring race. Now I'm not talking about super SciFi I'm talking about practical accomplishable technology that we might even be able to field now.

Personally I think number one is we need to recognize the shuttle as the glorified taxi that it is. It's only value is as transport of people into orbit, materials can be launched on unmanned rockets, and it does a half baked job at that.

Number two is a workbee type craft. Sending a shuttle crew every time something needs fixing is stupid, the space station crew should have a vehicle for repairing satellites, the Hubble telescope and the station itself.

Number three is a "real" orbital space station. The one up there barely deserves the name. We need something with a real crew, a dedicated construction facility and a decent lab. If something breaks we should be able to launch an unmanned rocket with repair parts to the station and the crew engineers should hop into the workbee shoot over to the satellite and make repairs.

This brings us to the keystone to space travel, without which we'll never make it past the moon, Number Four.

Number four is a space fighter ala Colonial Viper, Space: Above and Beyond Hammerhead or A-wing. A small one man space based fighter craft. Why is this critical? I feel that unless we give the military a reason to go into orbit, or space itself really, that there will never be a real effort by any government put toward space travel. I mean really compare the DOD's budget to NASA's, no contest.

One suggestion would be using space based fighters to intercept ICBM's launched by foreign powers. Are those things still around? (ICBMs not foreign powers ) "The Star Wars Defense System" may have been quite an accurate name after all.

Anyway I'm just curious what others think on the subject. It's late, I'm bored, talk to me people! 

If we can find a way to make money in space we will be there.

That would mean a transport system capable of beating the big investment in breaking the gravitational pull of earth.

Sure we can build stuff up there but not self sustaining.  Eventually stuff needs to be launched from earth.  Also the medical problems with sustained zero "g" living need to be overcome.  None of these are unsolvable.

But if history is a lesson our leaders need to believe there is a buck to be made in space...and vast riches abounding.  Our current motivation...space exploration...is a weak substitue for a short cut around the silk road.  So for a while, an indefinite while...they will pay lip service to the idea and fund it out of "prestige" and nothing much more.  The space shuttle was one such misdirection.

Thats what it will take I think. 

I guess a few scientists ought to fake some results and tell the government that there are a few hundred 2 kiklometer asteroids in the asteroid belt full of platinum, gold, silver and uranium.

Woot!!!  We'd be there in no time flat.  Damn the logistics...full speed ahead.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Quite simply, we need to give the Military a reason to get into space.  Private Industry has no incentive at the moment, and the Military can't be as bad as NASA has been.  A Space Cruiser, with shuttlecraft for traveling to and from the planet's surface would be huge.

Even if it's only armed with Cruise Missiles, It can still be a formidable force to reckon with.  imagine a Cruiser sitting over Iraq right now.  Terrorists plant a roadside bomb, the Cruiser should be able to go back through its logs, find who planted it, trace them back to their house, and drop a Tomahawk on the house.  The limitation with Spy Satellites is that you can only get a look for a limited time, while the satellite passes over head.  But with the Cruiser, since it's there the whole time, the only thing you have to worry about, is cloud cover, and even then if you put a good enough science package on the ship, you should be able to track them through other means.

The Miliitary needs to just ignore Greenpeace and the other enviromental whack-jobs, and put a Fission powered ship in orbit.  It's not going to blow up and destroy the world.

The Cruiser can perform non-military missions as well, Outpost construction, planetary surveys.  Almost all the technology is already available, the most difficult part would be getting the thing into orbit.  Make the ship with some modular components and it can be upgraded as our technology advances.  Develop a cost effective Laser/Particle Cannon, Fusion Power plants, Artificial Gravity, Impulse Technology, etc..

But certainly, the Military is going to HAVE to be the ones doing it, the technology wont advance until we're up there, and the Private sector won't go up until the Techonolgy advances...I guess we need another JFK...

[Skawpya]

Reasons to go into space in any major way.
Nanotech labs that can be sent into the sun if something goes wrong.
Solar power stations
Acheiving the ultimate strategic highground, the moon.
Someplace to have five thousand top examples of the human race in case we do something stupid like releasing wood pulping nanites, release of some super illness, nuclear war, etc.
Making sure the Chinese dont end up with the superior claim to the valuable planets and semi planets.

In any case, the projects that will get us there, the space elevator, and corporations with all this investment to make use of thanks to the contests are already in the works. Another big boost would be Gates or one of the other billionaires deciding to push out that way.

[Vipre]

"the medical problems with sustained zero "g" living need to be overcome" <-- This is already doable isn't it? Or am I missing the point that spinning something around in space doesn't create centrifugal force? It was used to create gravity in 2001 A Space Odyssey and B5.

"Fusion Power plants" <-- If we had these there wouldn't be need for discussion, we'd have a space fleet. On that note, whats the progress on the Ion drive?

"Someplace to have five thousand top examples of the human race in case we do something stupid" <-- Wouldn't work. Big myth that the human race can be repopulated by "top examples" or "the best and brightest". Thats a sure fire way to end the species.
The poorest and least educated breed like rabbits. It's a survival drive that the "top examples" seem to have lost. Oh, unless you were referring to just fixing what gets screwed up?


"need to give the Military a reason to get into space", "A Space Cruiser" <-- That's why Space Fighter is Number Four on my list, build a viable fighter and everthing else; Cruisers, Destroyers, Carriers will fall right into place. And the tactical advantage of a cruiser orbiting a hot spot is exactly my point.

As to making money in space I say again, unless the military spearheads the way, you'll never see mining freighters or transports.

[Skawpya]

when it comes to military in deep space, I doubt the line ships, carrier fleet, or dreadnaught with support ship models will be what will work. In the next two centuries we have four non american powers who I can see going up and feeling the need to project force. China, India, the EU, and Europe, with a resurgent Russia forming a possible #5.

The factors I would see at work
Bases vs Ships The ships would be far more vulnerable to destruction or disablement than the bases would. examples a fleet goes an embedded base on the moon. even after managing to wipe out the shielded turrets, there would still be the potential for turrets below the surface that would take sustained bombing to reach and the bulk off of the base population a mile or more below the surface.

Twitch. The fleet with the best sensors, sensor defeating measures, and weapons that are faster win until such time as something come along to provide shielding. Mostly what a human would be doing would be press the activate attack pattern and deactivate attack pattern buttons. the computers would be handling almost everything else given the speeds, distances, and reaction times.

Nanotech. One of the easier ways to defeat the twitch problem is to make your weapons indistinguishable from the ultrathin spread of gaseous molecules in space. This has the problem of having to be slow enough not to set off alarms

Drones vs Humans. As noted under twitch, most of the actual fighting would be done by computers while the humans watch and pray. As preserving the crew and the ship that keeps them alive would often be priority one. Part of that would be to keep the humans as the only element that can end the fighting, while leaving a huge number of automated weapons as the thing that needs to be defeated.

These are the elements that need to be considered that come to mind. Given that the most practical space force I would see would be basically a few stealth vessels surrounded by nanite swarms and drones

[Vipre]

when it comes to military in deep space, I doubt the line ships, carrier fleet, or dreadnaught with support ship models will be what will work. In the next two centuries we have four non american powers who I can see going up and feeling the need to project force. China, India, the EU, and Europe, with a resurgent Russia forming a possible #5.

The factors I would see at work
Bases vs Ships The ships would be far more vulnerable to destruction or disablement than the bases would. examples a fleet goes an embedded base on the moon. even after managing to wipe out the shielded turrets, there would still be the potential for turrets below the surface that would take sustained bombing to reach and the bulk off of the base population a mile or more below the surface.

Twitch. The fleet with the best sensors, sensor defeating measures, and weapons that are faster win until such time as something come along to provide shielding. Mostly what a human would be doing would be press the activate attack pattern and deactivate attack pattern buttons. the computers would be handling almost everything else given the speeds, distances, and reaction times.

Nanotech. One of the easier ways to defeat the twitch problem is to make your weapons indistinguishable from the ultrathin spread of gaseous molecules in space. This has the problem of having to be slow enough not to set off alarms

Drones vs Humans. As noted under twitch, most of the actual fighting would be done by computers while the humans watch and pray. As preserving the crew and the ship that keeps them alive would often be priority one. Part of that would be to keep the humans as the only element that can end the fighting, while leaving a huge number of automated weapons as the thing that needs to be defeated.

These are the elements that need to be considered that come to mind. Given that the most practical space force I would see would be basically a few stealth vessels surrounded by nanite swarms and drones

Ok, but...

1) To have a base you'll need something to protect the construction site until the base is completed. What good do plans for a fortified base do if your enemy has a fighter or gunship with the ability to intercept your material transport and destroy it? You need mobile attack/defense craft or you'll never be able to build anything. This makes fighters and frigates all the more important not less.

2) My original purpose here was asking what will it take to really get us into space, not really going so far into shields and futuristic weaponry. Basically taking a naval vessel making it airtight and blasting into space with it. Combat in space will work much like submarine combat, except without gravity.

3) I seriously doubt we'll ever be space explorers in the true sense of the term, but if we do I'll bet it looks less like Trek and much more like B5, BSG or Star Wars, except without artificial gravity, Hyperspace and FTL jumps.

4) "Mostly what a human would be doing would be press the activate attack pattern and deactivate attack pattern buttons. the computers would be handling almost everything else given the speeds, distances, and reaction times" <-- I doubt it, computers are too predictable, humans can make it up as they go, doing things that seem stupid but work anyway. You put too little thought into tactical movement.  But you did just describe a modern jet fighter. Air combat went from shooting at another plane with your pistol to missile locks from a mile or two away.

[Soliton]

What will it take to go back into space? How about a federal government that isn't bankrupt for starters.

There are economic reasons to have satellites, that's why there are so many being launched by private interests. There are almost zero economic reasons for manned spaceflight (space tourism is about the only one), especially spaceflight that leaves Earth orbit. If you want to see trips to Mars or other such projects, then you'll have to get the government to do it as no private company will.

As for military reasons, that also is really not smart at all if our government is broke. I am against arming space, but even if you disagree with that, if you want military outposts in space, that won't happen if our federal government collapses. We will be like Russia, we will have all this cool stuff yet no money to pay for it to work. Never forget that one of the biggest and most effective weapons that nations can wield against each other is economic.

[Vipre]

What will it take to go back into space? How about a federal government that isn't bankrupt for starters.

There are economic reasons to have satellites, that's why there are so many being launched by private interests. There are almost zero economic reasons for manned spaceflight (space tourism is about the only one), especially spaceflight that leaves Earth orbit. If you want to see trips to Mars or other such projects, then you'll have to get the government to do it as no private company will.

As for military reasons, that also is really not smart at all if our government is broke. I am against arming space, but even if you disagree with that, if you want military outposts in space, that won't happen if our federal government collapses. We will be like Russia, we will have all this cool stuff yet no money to pay for it to work. Never forget that one of the biggest and most effective weapons that nations can wield against each other is economic.

Great point Soliton.  But the real reason the government is "broke" is bad management. If you subscribe to the belief that there is a set amount of quote unquote wealth in the world  then spreading tax dollars around the planet to "help" struggling peoples becomes a grossly stupid management decision. How many billions has the U.S. funneled into Iraq so far? Granted it's really just a money laundering scam to put tax dollars into private American's hands, but still we allocated what 1.2 billion, or was it million I forget, for the Iraqis to buy military equipment and they didn't even buy from us. What they did buy they bought from another country and they stole the rest of the money. Am I wrong or would it have made more sense to just give them some of our old stuff? Train them up and then just rotate the troops home and leave the equipment behind. Granted as well I do not claim to be an expert, but come on, the people in charge go out of their way to overcomplicate everything they put their hands on.

The only thing that allowed America to rise to the global power that it has become is its massive amount of natural strategic materials. The main export of America, besides jobs, is still natural resources. Many of the finished goods sold throughout the world are made with materials exported from th U.S.

On a final note, I reserve the right to be completely wrong about everything I've ever said in life. 

[Nemesis]

Magnetic catapult seems the most likely launch system for cargo and probes in the future.  Practical now (segments have been built and tested successfully).  Given high temperature super conductors it would become cheap.

Alternately a new fuel.   Solid hydrogen for example could fuel a rocket with the specific impulse of an Ion drive but with muti g accelerations required for launch.

For orbital or interplanetary maneuvering of probes light sails or magnetic sails (super conductors again) would make slow but reliable systems.  A large enough sail could trail a tether into the lower atmosphere to pickup capsules and lift them the rest of the way to space.

Teleoperated equipment on the moon could be used to build a base and process materials without the life support costs of humans.  Given the core equipment anything could ultimately be built there from native materials.  Even a full habitat and magnetic catapult to send cargo and people back to Earth or probes further into space.

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

 
One word:


Anti-Gravity.


OK, grammer police... Sue me! I /REALLY/  honestly see this as THE major breakthrough that limits human beings from branching out into space in any significant numbers.

Withough it we will remain planetbound.  With it, and the free energy it brings (think about it...) our horizons are limitless.

[Nemesis]

Anti-Gravity.

Proof (or at least evidence) that it exists in nature or could exist?

If magical anti-gravity were possible it would be a viable answer.  So would interplanetary teleportation but there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) for either.

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

 

Well, considering the fact that we know less about gravity itself, manipulation of it and it's properties than we do about string theory that hasn't done squat for us in 30 years I think we've got a lot of upside....

...And even if we determine that it's patently impossible, I still think that (or it's equivalent) is what's required.

 

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Well first of all its just money holding it back..
The government right now sorta does want to proceed with space travel, but the funds are very limited compared to some of the things we spend money one..
Also, if we want to skip the 0g problem, were going to have to start with a bigger space station capable of rotating to the point of simulating gravity... actually we might be able to learn lots more about gravity if we are able to spend much more time in space, obvioulsly by starting with a station with gravity so we can be up their for a while.
Really what should be done is for Earth to supply the station for the station to build everything else.. It would make it so much easier. Then supplies can be unmaned ships that auto dock with the station to deliver the supplies.
We really also are going to need a better fuel then chemical rockets also.. I understand the "worry" about nuclear explosions, but just have them on long range ships that go to Mars and stuff.
A top priority for the space station would also be to establish a supply line to the asteroid belt.. then we can really take off with building ships in space.
Overall though, if we really want to become space race were just going to need more confidence in space travel, and ready to take more risks then we are now. Artifical gravity also will be the best way to acclerate this by starting with a bigger space station, and a better fuel supply.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Ahh... but we live in a risk-adverse society.  The outcry following any little mishap, especially ones that can't be forseen, is just outrageous.  People expect people to be perfect, especially when we're talking about Multi-Billion Dollar projects, that's just not feasible.  But quite honestly, especially considering what happened in the Sea of China earlier in the week, the Blue Water Navy is becoming obsolete.  Soon the only useful Blue Water ship is going to be the Submarine and Coast Guard Cutters.

The Chinese just showed the USS Kitty Hawk Battle Group that a Diesel Submarine CAN be stealthy.  If a Diesel Submarine can be immune to SONAR Sweeps, you might as well just start packing up the Blue Water Navy, because it wont be long until rogue states like the PRK or Iran gets a hold of this technology and just starts sinking US-allied vessels.  Maybe had we been in space already we would have had a functional replacement for SONAR already...

Risk Aversion...it's going to get us ALL killed...

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

NASA is appraising a human mission to a near-Earth asteroid—gauging the scientific merit of the endeavor while testing out spacecraft gear, as well as mastering techniques that could prove useful if a space rock ever took aim for our planet.

Space agency teams are looking into use of Constellation hardware for a human Near-Earth Object (NEO) mission—an effort underway at NASA’s Ames Research. Another study is delving into use of Constellation components to support an automated Mars sample return mission. That study is led by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

Perhaps such a mission could evaluate one of the candidate asteroids for shielding to Mars.