Topic: =/\= forget space travel? according to some, yes.

[stoneyface]

read this article today with the very pessimistic but reality based view that space travel with humans cannot happen due to laws of physics and chemistry. their summation for realistic space travel is one way trips with a "peaceful end administered after many months or years of exploration and discovery" for those that go. that means assisted suicide for those willing to sacrifice themselves for scientific discovery...
read  the article here: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/4214/the-future-space-travel

[TAnimaL]

IMHO, a skimpy read, especially since it calls itself "opinion" and not a real article. Yes, the realities of space travel means that it will be a loong time before it resembles something seen in scifi, but the writer states "physics and chemistry" says getting beyond LEO is "diminishing returns," then makes a weak comparison to Moore's "law" and concludes the only answer is one-way missions.

Huh?

We managed to escape LEO with 1960s technology, and fortunately, those rocket scientists haven't just been kicking back, 'cause, you know, they're rocket scientists. They're smart dudes and dude-ettes. Nuclear power rockets, ion propulsion, VASIMR, sails... many are perfectly suited for travel byond Earth. There's a lot of ways to crack that nut, and all it takes is some willpower.

I don't mind realistic skepticism, but a "meh" sort of "why bother" just irks me, sorry.

Ironically, the same website, about four months ago, published a very good article on these technologies I mentioned above! Do read this for a optimistic but realistic discussion of the future of space travel.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/4120/rocket-science

[Tus-XC]

Yea, guy is to focused on the very basics of space systems.  Chemical reactions are ineffecient for interplanatary travel, it is why we only use them to put stuff into space.  From there we have used far more interesting methods of propultion, ion drives being the first that comes to mind. Of course when someone picks at the weakest link it is easy to build anarguement, but when you take into consideration all the other methods of propulsion out there and stop looking two dimensionaly at the problem that arguement crumbles.

BTW, i wouldn't use a chemical reaction to go to mars, a hydrogen tank and a nuclear reactor (or even better, nudet propulsion) is where its at.

[FoaS_XC]

VASMR?

[Tus-XC]

yes, who needs a chemical reaction when you have a nuclear reactor that can super heat the hydrogen and strip it of its electrons

Of course i am a personal fan of project orion

[stoneyface]

i tend to agree with everyone here so far. i was particularly offended at the pessimistic viewpoint expressed. my opinion is that without space travel, humans are doomed. our planet is dying and we are doing nothing to stop it. we have to take to the stars to survive. i also believe that chemical reaction is NOT how space travel will be accomplished. i tend to think that the technology that will actually get us anywhere in space has not been invented yet.

[TAnimaL]

@FoaS_XC
there's a few places that describe Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR, but for a simple overview:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket

yeah, Orion... man, that'd be something. Don't think you'd want it your backyard, but for getting something big up in a hurry... whoosh!

There was a nice book about it a few years ago, "Project Orion" by Freeman Dyson's son, George, but it's out of print and going for $35+ used on amazon. I keep buggin my librarian about it