Any one still give a crap about space?

[Aerozord]

Now I know my own government has kind of abandoned the idea of doing anything major in the cosmos, but I hope some nations are still interested. Wasn't someone working on a space-elevator?

[Flarecobra]

NASA just put two probes into lunar orbit today. And recently launched a new Mars explorer rover, the biggest one since the Viking landers. New Horizons will be approching Pluto in a couple years.

Russia will be adding a new componont to the International Space Station.

China has launched it's own space lab.

And a private group is going to be testing out a new solar sail.

[Doc ock rokc]

There is always people thinking about Space. Its the forefront of all our Science fiction thus always in the public mind in some way. Once I think we tackle our president out of office or debt we can start doing manned missions again.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Russia will be adding a new componont to the International Space Station.



They still haven't finished that yet? Jesus christ!

Wasn't there an mission to x-ray the moon being proposed somewhere, and a new ion propulsion engine to be tested too? Or did they get scrapped?

But yeah, there's probably people doing some shit somewhere. I know NASA built a new moon buggy a few years ago, it was on Top Gear. Who knows if it'll ever be used though.

[Flarecobra]

They still haven't finished that yet? Jesus christ!


It's actually replacing part of the station.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

What so by the time they build it they need to start replacing it? Jesus christ!

[Aerozord]

Mostly I'm wondering about space colonization/travel. I mean I'm all for probes and rovers, but care far more about developing infrastructure and logistics for retrieving what they find out there. And not having all of humanities eggs in one basket.

[Osterbaum]

Don't NASA and ESA (and JAXA too maybe?) have a long term goal of a manned mission to Mars in the 2030's. I know that a while back (several years now) ESA announced the Aurora -program with this particular goal, but I've since understood that the cost concerns have lead previously mentioned space agencies to pool their resources on this instead of attemping their own seperate programmes.

e: Now that I think about it, I seem to recall the RKA having their own plans for Mars as well. And I doubt it that the CNSA will want to be the only major space agency to not have any goals with Mars in mind.

[Aerozord]

Don't NASA and ESA (and JAXA too maybe?) have a long term goal of a manned mission to Mars in the 2030's.

I think NASA scrapped that plan due to budget cuts

[Mr.Bookworm]

Wasn't someone working on a space-elevator?

God, I hope not. That would be the biggest waste of money possible short of trying to build a Dyson sphere or something.

Also, while I'm not enthusiastic about budget cuts, I am slightly glad that it's forcing space agencies to reprioritize. I would far rather have them focusing on unmanned missions and things like the Hubble, rather than ludicriously expensive wastes of time like sending a couple of dudes to Mars (looks good, gets put in the history books, accomplishes jack and shit beyond the previous two objectives).

And besides all of this, the private sector is where the real future of space exploration is.

[Krylo]

God, I hope not. That would be the biggest waste of money possible short of trying to build a Dyson sphere or something.

Other than the fact that it would allow both manned and unmanned missions to anywhere to be done at a fraction of the cost. And satellites for that matter.

Or the fact that accomplishing it would require advances in all kinds of areas of physical sciences and engineering that would be useful across the board.

[POS Industries]

Once I think we tackle our president out of office
Canceling the shuttle program was Bush's idea (which was the wrong thing to do), and canceling Bush's retarded moon rocket idea that was set to replace it was Obama's (which was the right thing to do).

It's a shame we now have no manned space missions for the foreseeable future as a result, but this is what you get when "HAY GUYZ LET'S GO TO THE MOON ANd MAYBE MARS QUIT LOOKING OVER AT IRAQ GUYZ COME ON" was our national space policy.

[Kim]

Space frightens me.

We should only be going into space to kill it.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Other than the fact that it would allow both manned and unmanned missions to anywhere to be done at a fraction of the cost. And satellites for that matter.

Soooort of? Not really, though. The problem is not that space elevators wouldn't be a cool thing to have, and they would solve a lot of problems if we had them, the problem is building the fucking things. We flatly cannot build a space elevator with current technology.

Far, far cheaper, and actually feasible within a couple of decades while meeting the same goals, would be plopping a couple hundred miles of mass driver rails into the ocean and just chucking stuff into orbit.

Or the fact that accomplishing it would require advances in all kinds of areas of physical sciences and engineering that would be useful across the board.

Any engineering project that starts with the requirement of advances in every discipline involved is a bad engineering project.

Space elevators might be feasible in a century or two. Until then, yeah, glad we're not wasting money on them.

[Krylo]

Soooort of? Not really, though.

Far, far cheaper, and actually feasible within a couple of decades while meeting the same goals, would be plopping a couple hundred miles of mass driver rails into the ocean and just chucking stuff into orbit. Not actually that much cheaper as you'd still have to generate near the same amount of energy, as you're still accelerating something to escape velocity. And current rail systems destroy themselves on use because we don't have a good way to absorb that much kick.

Certainly not as efficient as having a space elevator. Initial investment would be extremely high but would pay off across the board, and once that hurdle is met you'd be able to transport things to space on the cheap.

Any engineering project that starts with the requirement of advances in every discipline involved is a bad engineering project.

Space elevators might be feasible in a century or two. Until then, yeah, glad we're not wasting money on them.Send me your computer and never use one again. It only exists (at least in its current form) because of engineering projects in the past which started with those very requirements.

Same goes for most of the modern commodities you use daily.

Without doing things that require us to push our boundaries and advance our sciences, our boundaries don't expand and our sciences don't advance as quickly. Mostly because saying "We want to do this ridiculous but highly visible and cool thing" gets a lot more funding than "We want to work on nanomaterials to do... things."

[Mr.Bookworm]

Not actually that much cheaper as you'd still have to generate the same amount of energy.

The problem is not energy, the problem is the construction involved.

Energy is energy, you have to expend shitloads of it to get out of the atmosphere any way you slice the cake.

Mass driver technology is something we can build and are currently improving on, as opposed to the various ludicrous things we would have to do to build a functioning space elevator.

Send me your computer and never use one again. It only exists (at least in its current form) because of engineering projects in the past which started with those very requirements.

Same goes for most of the modern commodities you use daily.

Without doing things that require us to push our boundaries and advance our sciences, our boundaries don't expand and our sciences don't advance as quickly. Mostly because saying "We want to do this ridiculous but highly visible and cool thing" gets a lot more funding than "We want to work on nanomaterials to do... things."

I... really don't think you understand the difference between science and engineering very well, nor how either of them function or advance.

You do not get shit done by declaring wildly improbable, fantastical goals and trying to advance to meet them. That's movie bullshit, not what happens in real life.

What happens is small, slow incremental steps, with the occasional genius making huge strides. New technology is built by applying said incremental steps. The modern computer was built as the sum of a bunch of small steps, not by some guy declaring "I want to build a computer!" and pulling entire fields of science and engineering out of his ass. This is terribly boring, but this yields advances.

[Krylo]

The problem is not energy, the problem is the construction involved.

Energy is energy, you have to expend shitloads of it to get out of the atmosphere any way you slice the cake. I don't think you understand how acceleration works or the fact that you wouldn't have to be moving escape velocity to travel up a space elevator with a load. One or the other.

To put it simply, it takes less energy to get from point A to point B going 5 miles per hour, than sixty miles per hour, and less to do that than it takes to get there doing 200 miles per hour, etc.

A mass driver system still accelerates things to escape velocity and beyond. That requires a huge initial energy investment. A space elevator would not need to accelerate things to escape velocity. Because it is an elevator.

Mass driver technology is something we can build and are currently improving onAnd which breaks down every time we fire it because Newton's laws don't stop existing just because you're using magnetic rails, and it's very difficult to absorb that much force.
as opposed to the various ludicrous things we would have to do to build a functioning space elevator. Which we are currently working on and improving on as well.



I... really don't think you understand the difference between science and engineering very well, nor how either of them function or advance.

You do not get shit done by declaring wildly improbable, fantastical goals and trying to advance to meet them. That's movie bullshit, not what happens in real life.

The modern computer was built as the sum of a bunch of small steps, not by some guy declaring "I want to build a computer!" and pulling entire fields of science and engineering out of his ass. This is terribly boring, but this yields advances.Modern circuit boards only exist because we wanted to blow people up easier. Technically they were made by someone trying to make a better radio but weren't released for commercial design until the US used it in bomb making. Around 1943. Which should ring some bells with World War 2 history.

In other words your computer exists in its modern state because we had a bunch of engineers and scientists working on something entirely different that wasn't done anywhere before.

Further microchips exist EXACTLY because someone, namely Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce said that they needed to increase the number of components involved to increase computing power and advanced from ENIAC to about the head of a pin in a few short years.


More pointedly:

Photovoltaic Cells, I.E. Solar Power were only advanced to anywhere near their current state because of dealing with the engineering problems of how to deal with powering objects in space. If not for the space program we wouldn't have solar powered cars or solar panels on houses today.

Cordless power tools were first designed as part of dealing with the same issues vis a vis tools in space.

Technology developed to deal with the engineering problems of insulating space craft have advanced and made more efficient home heating and insulation.

Wear glasses? If you have scratch resistant ones you can blame engineering hurdles that had to be overcome in manned space flight for those as well.

What you're saying isn't necessarily wrong. Technology moves and advances slowly, but technology needs FUNDING to advance, and you tend to get a lot more funding when you're looking to do something fantastical. Like put a man in space in the 1970s.

[Aerozord]

The main disadvantage of a mass driver over a space elevator is the drivers complete inability to get crap back down in one piece which is arguably harder.

[Krylo]

The main disadvantage of a mass driver over a space elevator is the drivers complete inability to get crap back down in one piece which is arguably harder.

Speaking of there's also the fact that the Space Elevator would be counterbalanced. Like any other elevator. Meaning an even smaller amount of energy is used to get things up as you're using gravity pulling the other side down to assist in powering bringing the one up.

[Arhra]

You do not get shit done by declaring wildly improbable, fantastical goals and trying to advance to meet them. That's movie bullshit, not what happens in real life.

What happens is small, slow incremental steps, with the occasional genius making huge strides. New technology is built by applying said incremental steps. The modern computer was built as the sum of a bunch of small steps, not by some guy declaring "I want to build a computer!" and pulling entire fields of science and engineering out of his ass. This is terribly boring, but this yields advances.

"By the end of this decade, we will put a man on the Moon."

[Mr.Bookworm]

I don't think you understand how acceleration works or the fact that you wouldn't have to be moving escape velocity to travel up a space elevator with a load. One or the other.

To put it simply, it takes less energy to get from point A to point B going 5 miles per hour, than sixty miles per hour, and less to do that than it takes to get there doing 200 miles per hour, etc.

A mass driver system still accelerates things to escape velocity and beyond. That requires a huge initial energy investment. A space elevator would not need to accelerate things to escape velocity. Because it is an elevator.

And which breaks down every time we fire it because Newton's laws don't stop existing just because you're using magnetic rails, and it's very difficult to absorb that much force.

Yes, I understand how velocity works. You will note the "couple hundred miles" thing I said up there. You build mass drivers freakishly long so you can spread out the acceleration over a great distance.

Which we are currently working on and improving on as well.

Look, I don't give a shit if space elevators provide a magic fairy solution to the problem of getting stuff into space. They're unobtanium. We cannot build them with our current tech, we will not be able to build them with tomorrow's tech, and as always, we should be (primarily) focusing on solutions within our grasp, not looking for the silver bullet.

It doesn't matter if mass drivers (or any number of other solutions) are less efficient than space elevators, because we can't build them, whereas there are other solutions that are far more feasible, even if a hypothetical space elevator would work better.

If I still care about this discussion in the morning, I'll dig up some links on feasability, but you should be able to find stuff with Google (no, seriously, actually look up what we would need to build a space elevator).

What you're saying isn't necessarily wrong. Technology moves and advances slowly, but technology needs FUNDING to advance, and you tend to get a lot more funding when you're looking to do something fantastical. Like put a man in space in the 1970s.

No, you don't get funding when you're looking to do something fantastical, you get funding when what you're working on lines up with the interests of someone who has money. So, you get funding when what you're working on is profitable, either politically or financially.

The main disadvantage of a mass driver over a space elevator is the drivers complete inability to get crap back down in one piece which is arguably harder.

Build a mass driver on the Moon. We've done studies on this. Again, I'll dig up the links in the morning.

"By the end of this decade, we will put a man on the Moon."

Oh god, don't quote pointless dick waving at me. The Apollo mission was a monument to America's pointless dick measuring contest with the Soviets, and very little more.

Man I'm repeating my dick lines, I am tired, good night.

EDIT: I will also say that I could be completely and totally wrong on this count! I dunno, I'll relook this over when I'm less tired.

[Arhra]

Oh god, don't quote pointless dick waving at me. The Apollo mission was a monument to America's pointless dick measuring contest with the Soviets.

If they'd kept it up we'd have a man on Mars by now!

[Aerozord]

Build a mass driver on the Moon. We've done studies on this. Again, I'll dig up the links in the morning.

err I said down safely. This gets it heading back but doesn't get around problems like landing accuracy, frictional heat, and not smashing itself onto the ground. It also makes transporting anything fragile or volatile very stupid.

And just while I'm here, the technology to build a space elevator does exist. We can make materials stronger then diamond, and we do have the base technology for functioning nanomachines. The question is more about the practicality of using it. We have atleast the basis for the technology, but actually implementing them is another issue. But solving those problems is why we have engineers in the first place. Figuring out stuff like this is exactly what they were trained to do. It is the entire point of the profession.

[McTahr]

Ideally a space elevator requires perfection of carbon nanotube (or some other substance with equal/stronger mass-to-strength ratio) technology to the point that we can avoid significant defects throughout the structure. (http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/33/S14)

Another thing we'd be facing are other, obvious problems of such a large structure, namely, impacts, lightning, etc. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576500001119)

As it is, theoretically, sans defects it is possible. On a purely theoretical, ideal level. Which is (somewhat) analogous to the claim that if they could perfect the transistor in the 1950s, Moore's Law would have been moot because we would have slammed into the quantum wall way sooner, and reached our "ideal".

Without an overreaching goal, science has no path to follow. Speaking from a research perspective, everything I do is funded through some completely unrealistic goal that we will never (reasonably) in our lifetimes achieve, but can certainly make some progress towards.

E- I've not looked much into a mass driver because purely on it's face it sounds like a horrendous idea if a space elevator were to become even remotely feasible.

EE- It goes without saying that both are horribly impractical now, and without funding or some kind of inherent goal, always will be.