50 Years in space.

[DQuaN]

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the first satellite Sputnik. (Were any members here alive then? Can they remember it?)

50 Years later there are around 800 objects floating above our heads and during the years we have put men on the moon and had our first space tourist.

What does the next 50 years hold for space travel?

 

[Loon]

I think Fangio was alive when that first happened, he'd be somewhere between 10-20 years old I believe.

There's no real way of knowing what we'll be doing in 50 years concerning space, especially if we keep progressing at the same rate we have been.

 

[Famine]

What does the next 50 years hold for space travel?

Hopefully considerably more than the last 35 years.

 

[Alfaholic]

Wow. I'd love to be around to see it, though I don't think we'll see any significant events in space travel in the next 50 years unless there's a revolution in propulsion. Humans will go to Mars in that time, and the moons around Saturn and Jupiter will be explored extensively either by humans or probes, but that'll be it. Another probe might visit the outer planets.

Oh, and someone will make a fortune sending tourists into earth orbit or perhaps moon flypasts. They might use some of that to fund some kind of short stay resort on the moon so the tourists can enjoy a moonwalk or something like that.

To my layman's mind all the big advances in space travel, with the exception of the communication revolution, seem to have happened in the first 25 to 30 years. Then the emphasis seemed to shift from exploration to exploitation (meant in a good sense).

 

[Joey D]

Hopefully considerably more than the last 35 years.

Agreed we really don't do as much in space as we probably should.

 

[DQuaN]

You're all invited to my Orbital Playboy Mansion in 2050!

 

[Blake]

This space juice is making me feel funny.

 

[Turbo Lag]

Isnt there already enough space junk left up there?

 

[Touring Mars]

You're all invited to my Orbital Playboy Mansion in 2050!

Excellent - I'll bring the champagne, if I can get it up there... that's the problem with putting things in space - getting it up. Getting it back down again is a doddle, but getting it up in the first place is what takes up all the energy.

 

[Omnis]

Space travel will only be financially feasible if we can find Slurm.

 

[Famine]

Excellent - I'll bring the champagne, if I can get it up there... that's the problem with putting things in space - getting it up. Getting it back down again is a doddle, but getting it up in the first place is what takes up all the energy.

I don't know... NASA have a 118:1 record on putting things up and a 117:1 record on getting them back...

 

[Danoff]

Excellent - I'll bring the champagne, if I can get it up there... that's the problem with putting things in space - getting it up.

I think there's a pill for that.

 

[Azuremen]

Excellent - I'll bring the champagne, if I can get it up there... that's the problem with putting things in space - getting it up. Getting it back down again is a doddle, but getting it up in the first place is what takes up all the energy.

Well, get to work on an orbital elevator, geez you slacker.

 

[Michael88]

Agreed we really don't do as much in space as we probably should.

Thats because the USA uses all of its money for weapons and war. In the last 35 years USA fought Vietnam, gulf war, Iraq, spent money for cold war, nuclear missile testing and stupid things like that. I am sure I missed 10 or so minor wars, but I am not good in such things.

Who needs space exploration if you fight wars?

 

[Joey D]

Thats because the USA uses all of its money for weapons and war. In the last 35 years USA fought Vietnam, gulf war, Iraq, spent money for cold war, nuclear missile testing and stupid things like that. I am sure I missed 10 or so minor wars, but I am not good in such things.

Who needs space exploration if you fight wars?

The Cold War was the main reason why we went into space in the first place. I would think the government would see space as a strategic area of defense.

 

[Danoff]

Thats because the USA uses all of its money for weapons and war. In the last 35 years USA fought Vietnam, gulf war, Iraq, spent money for cold war, nuclear missile testing and stupid things like that. I am sure I missed 10 or so minor wars, but I am not good in such things.

Who needs space exploration if you fight wars?

As has been said, space exploration (moon landings etc.) came directly from the cold war. ICBMs also require serious rocketry - the kind of rocketry necessary to go into space. And let's not forget that GPS was designed as an important military tool.

As far as space exploration goes. The US spends more money on LOTS of other things. NASA's budget is puny compared to just about everything else our government does. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

 

[Barracuda]

Why should the U.S have to spend all that money on space travel instead of protecting itself and others. What's the point of going into space really? They spend billions upon billions to make a rocket that is worthy of getting into space, but where has it gotten us. All those tax dollars just to get some guy on the moon, and for what?

I very highly doubt that anybody on this site will ever get to get to go into space, unless there an astronaut of course.

 

[Danoff]

Why should the U.S have to spend all that money on space travel instead of protecting itself and others. What's the point of going into space really? They spend billions upon billions to make a rocket that is worthy of getting into space, but where has it gotten us. All those tax dollars just to get some guy on the moon, and for what?

Seriously? I mean, I hinted at the tip of the iceberg just above.

 

[kikie]

You're all invited to my Orbital Playboy Mansion in 2050!

I hope GTP members are getting a discount...

 

[Grand Prix]

Why should the U.S have to spend all that money on space travel instead of protecting itself and others. What's the point of going into space really? They spend billions upon billions to make a rocket that is worthy of getting into space, but where has it gotten us. All those tax dollars just to get some guy on the moon, and for what?

"To boldly go where no one has gone before."

 

[niky]

Danoff's right.

Pure science is never a waste. There are tons of military and civilian applications that have directly benefited from space exploration.

IMHO, we're really not spending close to enough on it. We have the technology, we actually have the resources... we should be mining asteroids by now, sending payloads of precious metal down to Earth... we should at least have put a dozen or so solar-collectors in orbit, already, to beam power to other space installations and down to the ground (it wouldn't be much, but you can build new solar-plants in space by using the power that current solar-plants generate)... we should have cities in space, already!

Instead, what do we get? A puny space agency that takes forever to launch (check, double check, triple check, red tape red tape red tape, and the shuttles still blow up), tiny robots on other planets, and we haven't gone back to the moon in decades. Pathetic.

 

[kikie]

I'm wondering what happened to Laika. The dog that died in space on the second Sovjet U's missile launch.

 

[Omnis]

I hope the moon's magma is actually slurm.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm wondering what happened to Laika. The dog that died in space in the second Sovjet U's missile launch.

She died shortly after launch due to overheating, apparently... however she did make it to space alive and hence became the first living creature from Earth (that we know about anyway!) to be put into orbit.... and then...

Sputnik 2 was finally destroyed (along with Laika's remains) during re-entry on April 14, 1958, just over 5 months later, after 2,570 orbits

 

[Joey D]

She died shortly after launch due to overheating, apparently... however she did make it to space alive and hence became the first living creature from Earth (that we know about anyway!) to be put into orbit.... and then...

The Egyptians went into space constantly...haven't you ever seen Stargate?

 

[Azuremen]

Danoff's right.

Pure science is never a waste. There are tons of military and civilian applications that have directly benefited from space exploration.

IMHO, we're really not spending close to enough on it. We have the technology, we actually have the resources... we should be mining asteroids by now, sending payloads of precious metal down to Earth... we should at least have put a dozen or so solar-collectors in orbit, already, to beam power to other space installations and down to the ground (it wouldn't be much, but you can build new solar-plants in space by using the power that current solar-plants generate)... we should have cities in space, already!

Instead, what do we get? A puny space agency that takes forever to launch (check, double check, triple check, red tape red tape red tape, and the shuttles still blow up), tiny robots on other planets, and we haven't gone back to the moon in decades. Pathetic.

Have you done any studying into Astrophysics? Snagging a probe onto a planet properly is the equivalent of hitting a moving target the size of a small coin, from 10 miles away, with a rifle, while shooting over a hill. Oh, and you are standing in a moving car and the target is moving as well... at different very fast speeds. And your bullets cost 2 billion dollars and take 5 years to make.

Honestly, that triple checking is there for a reason. There is ALOT of thought that goes into this stuff. Far more than most people tend to think at first. And beaming power down... yeah, thats still science fiction, unless you want microwaves being shot at Earth.

And the only reason we went to the moon was so we could beat the Soviets to it. There has been no need to risk the lives or money it would take to go back again. And Mars is problematic due to solar winds and radiation while in transit.

Don't gripe so much about stuff you apparently know so little about.

 

[Danoff]

Have you done any studying into Astrophysics? Snagging a probe onto a planet properly is the equivalent of hitting a moving target the size of a small coin, from 10 miles away, with a rifle, while shooting over a hill. Oh, and you are standing in a moving car and the target is moving as well... at different very fast speeds. And your bullets cost 2 billion dollars and take 5 years to make.

I do that sort of thing every day. Yes, what you described is the physical equivalent, but it isn't equivalent in terms of difficulty. For that you'd have to have the bullet monitored by a team of 100 people constantly uploading corrections that the bullet should make with it's thrusters.

And the only reason we went to the moon was so we could beat the Soviets to it. There has been no need to risk the lives or money it would take to go back again. And Mars is problematic due to solar winds and radiation while in transit.

Solar radiation and cosmic rays are a problem for the human transit to mars (and all spacecraft actually). Make no mistake, Mars is a very difficult problem. A great deal of engineering would come from solving such a difficult problem though. Just like it did from the Apollo missions. So much of our current comforts and utilities spawned from the space program. From satellite television, to internet, to cell phones, to GPS. Much of our knowledge about the formation of the solar system and even the universe, and a LOT of physics understanding comes from the space program (orbiting telescopes, planetary orbiters etc.).

 

[Grand Prix]

Danoff's right.

Pure science is never a waste. There are tons of military and civilian applications that have directly benefited from space exploration.

IMHO, we're really not spending close to enough on it. We have the technology, we actually have the resources... we should be mining asteroids by now, sending payloads of precious metal down to Earth... we should at least have put a dozen or so solar-collectors in orbit, already, to beam power to other space installations and down to the ground (it wouldn't be much, but you can build new solar-plants in space by using the power that current solar-plants generate)... we should have cities in space, already!

Instead, what do we get? A puny space agency that takes forever to launch (check, double check, triple check, red tape red tape red tape, and the shuttles still blow up), tiny robots on other planets, and we haven't gone back to the moon in decades. Pathetic.

Yep, we have the ability to explore new planetoids, yet we aren't fully utilizing it. There are more important things than wars and national pride. Like ensuring our species survival for as long as we can, and maybe a few others as well. Even though the heat death of the universe is unpreventable, we must go on...

We have climbed the highest mountains, gone to the bottom of the sea, went to the poles, harnessed the power of the atom and successfully fired projectiles into space with great accuracy. Why stop now? We have done all of these things in just the past 200 years. Imagine what we can do... Tomorrow.

 

[niky]

Yes, terribly difficult to do that with robot probes... but so what? It's even more difficult to do it with an actual manned expedition. What we learn from the technology used to shield those people from cosmic radiation, or any medical technology coming from drugs or therapies designed to nullify those effects (plus the effects of what would be maybe two years of weightlessness) would be tremendously valuable.

Not to mention the amount of work needed in terms of behavioral science needed to keep those people sane. I know we've had submarine missions and Russian cosmonauts go almost as long in isolation, but the extreme distance is a psychological factor.

We've already known how to hit those moving rocks for decades. Let's do something more.

Double-checking, triple-checking... yes, of course, you check the maths, you check the safety... but with the miles of red tape and bureacracy built around that, NASA has reached a point where it's not as competitive as it should be in terms of commercial space applications.