Darth_Yuthura Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I don't know if this has already been done, but I would like to hear from others on their perspective of manned space flight. Obviously, there are benefits to having humans carry out missions from orbit or the surface of the moon, but there are extreme downfalls to having to provide for a crew as well. The first downfall of manned missions is the expense. Humans may only weigh 100 or so, but on top of them is the food, life support, lithium hydroxide canisters to absorb CO2, space suits, cabin space, and more. The sheer mass of the necessities for a crew is significant. That also makes it more expensive to lift off because you have so much dead weight for the spacecraft you would use. Although reusable, the Space Shuttle was much more expensive to operate than NASA originally predicted. It was a colossal waste of money that should have been ended long ago. You don't need a crew to launch a satellite, yet the shuttle has been used all too many times for this. There IS a use for the shuttle, that can't be denied. When the Hubble telescope was damaged, that was an example of when the shuttle served its purpose well. The Apollo program was used in the late 60's for landing on the Moon. Although expensive, there were benefits to having humans to collect numerous samples from specific locations. An unmanned vehicle would have been extremely limited in what it could do. There is also the politics behind spaceflight. Whenever a new state enters space, it is well-publicized. It was mainly politics that President Kennedy set a goal to land on the Moon before the Soviet Union. Once that was accomplished, there had not been another Moon mission for about 35 years. ------ What do you think... good/bad/depends/need more info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I don't know if this has already been done, but I would like to hear from others on their perspective of manned space flight. Obviously, there are benefits to having humans carry out missions from orbit or the surface of the moon, but there are extreme downfalls to having to provide for a crew as well. The first downfall of manned missions is the expense. Humans may only weigh 100 or so, but on top of them is the food, life support, lithium hydroxide canisters to absorb CO2, space suits, cabin space, and more. The sheer mass of the necessities for a crew is significant. That also makes it more expensive to lift off because you have so much dead weight for the spacecraft you would use. [/Quote] I agree this is a major problem. Unfortunately I don't have an answer for you as to how this could be readily solved...except taking plants along as well to absorb CO2 and provide food... Unfortunately this is a hairy proposition in and of itself as it too may end up being more trouble than it is worth, though I think it might be a step in the right direction. Truth be told, until we are better at not being so much of a parasite to this planet (which at this point has about as much chance of happening as a snowball's chance of surviving intact on a hot stove), we are going to have troble on the side of even trying to figure out how to make space travel more effective--not just efficient. Believe it or not there IS a difference between the two. Although reusable, the Space Shuttle was much more expensive to operate than NASA originally predicted. It was a colossal waste of money that should have been ended long ago. You don't need a crew to launch a satellite, yet the shuttle has been used all too many times for this. [/Quote] Not necessarily, it's such a huge thing to do and requires so many to inspect and watch over it prior to, and during, launch. Otherwise you have mishaps more often that cost both lives and astronomical amounts of money. There IS a use for the shuttle, that can't be denied. When the Hubble telescope was damaged, that was an example of when the shuttle served its purpose well. The Apollo program was used in the late 60's for landing on the Moon. Although expensive, there were benefits to having humans to collect numerous samples from specific locations. An unmanned vehicle would have been extremely limited in what it could do. There is also the politics behind spaceflight. Whenever a new state enters space, it is well-publicized. It was mainly politics that President Kennedy set a goal to land on the Moon before the Soviet Union. Once that was accomplished, there had not been another Moon mission for about 35 years. ------ What do you think... good/bad/depends/need more info? It depends. Needs MUCH more research and development on top of improving how we live, needless to say info. Do you have anything else you could bring into the light for us, dear yuthura? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Though expensive, I think that there should be a good future for manned-space flights and missions. As long as we have the funds. I would love to say, yeah, I definately thinkt that we should continue with more missions ect, but these things cost so much money. Exploration is great, but we also need to get things taken care of on the ground. And this is coming from a guy that loves aviation/space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 International space station... pointless. Anything you can do with this can be done with fewer manned missions than assembling the whole thing with the Shuttle. It serves no practical purpose if a shuttle is damaged if it's not in the same orbit. The latest repair of the Hubble required another shuttle stand by because the one in orbit could not reach the station from the Hubble's orbit and trajectory. As for the plant idea... it would simply be impractical and inefficient for anything short-term. It makes sense to recycle water on the station, but only because it can be done. Keeping plants or algae is just not practical for anything that is not long-term. I was mainly aiming for week-long missions. Any mission to Mars would be even more astronomical and really a waste of money. The Moon is one thing, but a trip to Mars...years long at minimum. No humans have ever even been in space that long. It's bad for human health to be in zero-G, even with proper exercise, for that long. ----- I was mainly hoping to get info from others, not so much to state everything I know on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 And this is coming from a guy that loves aviation/space. Likewise. Most people are so fascinated by the technology that they neglect the price. How much did it cost to get a man on the Moon? That funding would have been more practical to use for an entire nation... not just an elite few. There IS a purpose for the shuttle, but it should not be used to carry satellites in orbit if an unmanned vehicle would suffice. And the International Space Station is just money being burned for almost nothing in return. We should invest a limited amount of funding for space exploration, but it should consist of more Voyager, Spirit, and practical vehicles that do the most for the least expenditure of treasury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Let's go to the Moon, so that we can prospect for oil. Then we'll find out that there is no oil, and we'll go to Mars, for more cosmic oil. Sounds fun to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Actually, there IS a resource on the Moon that would be worth it... tritium. It is the heavy isotope of hydrogen that could be used for a fusion reactor. That, however, is a long way off and not really feasible at present. If you will spend so much for a mining colony on the Moon... in a practical sense... might as well just spend it on solar cells for the same results. Yea! More solar panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Likewise. Most people are so fascinated by the technology that they neglect the price. How much did it cost to get a man on the Moon? That funding would have been more practical to use for an entire nation... not just an elite few. There IS a purpose for the shuttle, but it should not be used to carry satellites in orbit if an unmanned vehicle would suffice. And the International Space Station is just money being burned for almost nothing in return. We should invest a limited amount of funding for space exploration, but it should consist of more Voyager, Spirit, and practical vehicles that do the most for the least expenditure of treasury. I think that we should really be practical with what we do, that is all. Money, really doesn't grow on trees, and we are already in vast amounts of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Basically, we need a not-too-expensive, fast, efficient spacecraft... Well fuel costs a whole lot. We've got plenty of ways to make electricity. But we're running out fossil fuels. So, it would be reasonable to create a spacecraft powered by alternative means, such as purely nuclear power, purely solar power, or a hybrid. My idea is that we need to build a massive spacecraft loaded with tons of supplies, and then sent it to the moon using old-fashioned thermonuclear thrust engines, where we can use the supplies it carried to build a sizable moon base. Properly equipped, new spacecraft could be built on the moon, and launching those spacecraft to send them to other planets, like mars, would be far easier, what with not having to waste half of all the fuel simply getting out of the Earth's atmosphere. The new spacecraft could launch from the moon and slingshot around earth for a boost to get to other planets. Then, perhaps we could load supplies on that same massive ship we used to make the moonbase to make a base on Mars. eventually, we could devise ways to gather resources from other planets, like Jupiter. Only problem is that the Gas Giants have quite a bit of radiation and gravity, and mining those gases could be quite a hassle. Perhaps another base on one of Jupiter's moons, like Titan or Europa, where we could attempt a terrforming project for future human colonization. However, to do all this, we'd need to construct quite a large fleet of sizable ships with extremely efficient methods of travel built in. Of course I bet the astrophysicists and inventors/engineers have already thought about all of this quite thoroughly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Let's go to the Moon, so that we can prospect for oil. Then we'll find out that there is no oil, and we'll go to Mars, for more cosmic oil. Sounds fun to me.it worked out ok in the mass effect universe so uhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Of course I bet the astrophysicists and inventors/engineers have already thought about all of this quite thoroughly... Definately. The hard part is getting the money to experiment and look into it further--otherwise a lot of it is just ideas that people have. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Well. If what is going on is true, then, and there is political debate about colonizing... our wars are about to take to space. Frankly, I'm already not liking the idea that a humongous "space needle bombardment array" is already sitting up in space in orbit. Needle is hardly the word I would use: they drop an enormous solid metal missile with no propellant just computer brains inside conrolling fins and wings to steer it...the gravitational pull, draws it in and it re-enters the atmosphere. Explosions too? I don't know. I was under the impression it was designed for deep crust penetration. If enough of those things were to hit a fault line between tectonic plates I can only imagine what horror would happen if the crust broke. I hope these things become just a heavy fireball that crashes. --------------------------------- If we mine from asteroids and stuff maybe just a bit closer than other planets or the moon, I think we'd be able to make at least some material profit that might end up being 'worth it'. I can't really decide whether this is a good idea right now or a waste. Simply in that our future survival and general benefit might depend upon it is the only practical reasoning I can think of for it. We've had this around for nearly 50 years--regardless of initial reasoning. Most of this has been exploration with little other apparent reasoning except to bring things back for the little 3rd grade science classes. Expensive, yes. Made the most of it...I think not...but I have no real basis other than mistrust to say that. Sorry if this sounds pessimistic. I want to believe in it, that it's going to the future of humankind. ---------------------------- I know ionization science has now advanced enough that crude antigravity projects, toys, and 'experiments' are available. Nothing too great, but I know that electrical repulsion can propel things like wheels without actually any moving parts to spin it. Also that Tesla's science about "wireless energy" to power devices has been largely supressed. It lies in electrical inductance. Lately I have heard of cell phone products that have "proximity charging" in development. There is so much in the RF field that has been put on the back shelf. Half of it due to semiconductors, half of it due to health. (I mean, do you REALLY want to be bathed in MORE stray electromagnetic radiation than you already are now? I'm not talking about a little--I'm talking on several orders of magnitude). I suspect though there is an underhanded element for $$$ and holding people back--but I won't go there unless someone wants me to. Also sonics have been discovered not only to shatter objects at a resonance, but, can cause things to move now. This is still up in the air as acceptible science despite results that are obtained. Due to lack of differences in experts' rational professional opinions. I'm not sure how relevant this all is to the discussion, but I wouldn't have brought it up if I believed it entirely irrelevant. I know a lot of general stuff. However it will take someone who is more SPECIFICALLY knowledgeable to explain some of these things. Not sure if I know anything that can help yuthura. But feel free to bounce topics off the thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 the future of mankind's efforts in space travel revolve around endless hordes of nerds arguing whether large starships are built on the ground or in space... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I think it makes sense to have a few people ready in case something big goes wrong with important satellites, but otherwise it doesnt really seem like there's a huge need to be spending billions on projects that have no real importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I think it makes sense to have a few people ready in case something big goes wrong with important satellites, but otherwise it doesnt really seem like there's a huge need to be spending billions on projects that have no real importance. True, but how to reconcile their differences...? It isn't like we have a clear view what is going on anyway. I guess we can start by listing what we believe to be frivilous or dead-weight about it. I don't understand why we need such a LARGE crew for everything, so I guess I see what you were getting at yuthura. While administration makes some things easier, it seems like "there are more chiefs than indians" as it were. I have a few vague things in mind as far as goals to be met--but I want to hear what others think... What about you, jawathehutt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 What is in the Future of Manned Space Flight? I don't think there is one for the near future. Emotions people felt from pushing for the moon are no longer present. My guess - Majority of the people who want to go into space don't want to go back to the moon; however, they want full blown space exploration. We are not motivated enough to seek out alternative companies that could rival or overthrow NASA. Profit is what drives any industry; thus, there is no real push in that sector. Space exploration has to be a massive human effort. Almost everyone on Earth needs to want it so badly to the point where it erases the stigmatism of dropping borders. Cultures would have to promote heavy tolerance, and the value behind economic systems have to be diminished. In a weird way socialism and conservatism need to be joined hip to hip. People will have to open up to one solid true - the push for wealth is a lie. Men and women currently seek extensive means to find wealth; thus, it is only realized upon death beds that years of efforts are meaningless. You can't take material items and wealth with you; thus, people will have to start seeking alternative ways to bring meaning to themselves. Pushing to futher all of mankind -sociology - throw bettering yourself -psychology - must be the driving force for space exploration. Space exploration will not be fully actualized without the above mentioned elements. World War III and World War IV will play a major role in the beginnings of space exploration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedHawke Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 the future of mankind's efforts in space travel revolve around endless hordes of nerds arguing whether large starships are built on the ground or in space... In Space! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 The international space station is a colossal waste of money that provides little return. The Space Shuttle usually carries six to eight astronauts on every mission. That is not only dead weight from the crew, but the enlarged size of the craft they require. The Shuttle's replacement seems more logical for providing only for four and no glider characteristics. However, that is not my greatest complaint. Instead of billions upon billions for a space station, why not a transpacific tunnel across the Bering Strait? It would not be so much more expensive and provide another means of travel for goods to and from the US and Eurasia. Instead of the particle accelerator that also consumed a huge investment of capital, why not something more practical? Although it would be nice to know, the price would always be high and of little use for something that would improve the economy. I think the wisest use of money for space travel included the Voyagers, the latest Mars lander, and the Hubble telescope. Those were expensive, but provided a wealth of data in return. I would be for using unmanned vehicles for retrieving samples from Mars because the demands for a crew are just not feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quanon Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 the future of mankind's efforts in space travel revolve around endless hordes of nerds arguing whether large starships are built on the ground or in space... mtfbwya I thought it would be about to mate or not to mate with an smexy blue/green alien babe with tentacles and other extra features that drive men insane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 We actually need something like Warp Drive and supporting technology as seen in Star Trek, which would completely revolutionize space travel, we'd be looking at trips in hours within the Solar System and could explore outside the solar system. Robotic spacecraft have problems in the form of communication lag time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Robotic spacecraft have problems in the form of communication lag time. Robotic spacecraft often don't need to be controlled by remote. The AI that they put in the Mars rovers could function autonimously and were 'smart' enough to avoid obstacles and steep terrain. Either way, it would take a long time to send and receive radio signals from a human as a robot. I also want to add another project that would be a wiser investment in space than the ISS... an orbital radio telescope. Like the Arecebo observatory in Puerto Rico, but it could be set up outside the range of artificial radio waves and get better images than the Hubble. It would be a massive project, requiring at least a dozen missions to piece together the massive dish. Being in zero-G, you could assemble a massive receiver dish with fewer launches than for the ISS. What do you think of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 I've got another issue with the use of manned space flight that also relates to costs... safety. Recently, there have been debates over whether to use the Atlas rocket again for manned flights. Even boosters would have to be modified and safety measures taken to ensure a crew could escape the blast radius, such as the escape tower of the Apollo program. That tower was just more dead weight, almost rivaling the command module in terms of mass. It also meant that any manned spacecraft would have to return after accomplishing its mission. It is always better when you don't have to worry about ensuring there were enough resources to not only to accomplish the mission, but keep the crew alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 We have to get passed another issue for future plantary missions. How irresponsible would it be for us to visit a planet, and to accidently introduce a foreign biological containiment? Or, to bring one home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 14, 2008 Author Share Posted December 14, 2008 We have to get passed another issue for future plantary missions. How irresponsible would it be for us to visit a planet, and to accidently introduce a foreign biological containiment? Or, to bring one home? The probability of this is highly unlikely. During the last Mars mission, the Phoenix found agents in the soil that made life highly unlikely to exist in such conditions. Even if there were life on the planet, it is highly unlikely that any bacteria or organisms could make use of our cell structure. Although this may be so, we sterilize our probes so we don't bring our contaminants there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 The probability of this is highly unlikely. During the last Mars mission, the Phoenix found agents in the soil that made life highly unlikely to exist in such conditions. Even if there were life on the planet, it is highly unlikely that any bacteria or organisms could make use of our cell structure. Although this may be so, we sterilize our probes so we don't bring our contaminants there. I hope your right. It would be a mess to go to a life filled planet and leave behind something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.