Manned exploration of our solar system

[Berengil]

Been thinking about this subject for awhile , as I've spent most of the last two days dealing with a family issue and not had much computer time.

Obligatory @Skroe

I think it's a given that over the next 50 years, there will be numerous permanent moonbases established, mostly scientific in nature with maybe beginning to exploit the moon's mineral resources by the last quarter of the century (2075 or thereabouts). I expect US, Chinese, and Indian space programs to be quite robust, with maybe Japan hitching a ride with the US. What happens to the ESA is kind of tied to the future of the EU in many ways, so I'll make no predictions there.

Mars will likely see numerous manned expeditions almost totally scientific/exploratory in nature. I'd say several US missions, a few Chinese, and maybe an Indian mission or two. I wouldn't expect the first permanent science bases on Mars until the beginning of the 22nd century, the same way I don't expect either manned exploration of the asteroid belt or the outer planets until the 22nd century.

Wild cards I think are Venus and Mercury. I could see a manned flyby of Venus that inserts a spacecraft into orbit for a few weeks, drops numerous satellites into orbit, and takes lots of cloud-penetrating radar pictures of the surface. Landing is out of the question for humans I think until we have Hulkbuster armor. Venus is a hellhole on the surface, but it does at times come closer to the Earth than Mars.

I have no idea about missions to Mercury. I imagine there are significant technological hurdles to shielding a spacecraft that close to the sun.

Thoughts?

[Tennis]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

[Sky High]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

I mean sure if you want to keep mining our own planet for natural resources. I see plenty reason to fund research to get us on other planets that we can fuck them up instead of our own.

[the game]

We need to put money into space exploration. Spreading out into the galaxy is a good thing.

[Tennis]

I mean sure if you want to keep mining our own planet for natural resources. I see plenty reason to fund research to get us on other planets that we can fuck them up instead of our own.

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

[Endus]

If it's scientific/exploratory, there's not going to be any significant change from the pace we've been at. You want actual investment, you need a return, meaning you need to be exploiting resources.

The big "win" is going to be when we first get orbital mining/refining going on. Doesn't have to be that far out, it's almost as easy to bring rocks to us as it is to send the equipment to the rocks, particularly when the metals we create would have to come back anyway. The distant stuff to get the rocks doesn't have to be manned.

The biggest barrier to space construction/expansion is the cost of lifting mass from ground to orbit. If we've got the metals refined in orbit, things suddenly get MUCH more feasible on large scales. I'm talking things like "orbital station with centrifugal pseudo-gravity and a staff in the thousands" large. The problem is that this is a long-term outlay; you're spending a pretty significant investment (high millions, possibly billions) to get this up and running, and you won't begin to see revenue a decade or three. Sure, if you take that leap, your family will be the Rothschilds of space, but it's a big risk without much potential for return in the short term.

But someone's gonna be crazy enough to do it.

[Sky High]

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

http://www.sciencealert.com/how-aste...uture-in-space

http://www.mining.com/space-mining-a...e-nasa-expert/
you were saying?

[Endus]

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

Resources for Earth-based use, sure. It's too expensive to lift materiel to orbit, no matter which planet we're talking.

But orbital mining is absolutely feasible with existing technology. Drives like the new EM drive that NASA's testing can provide the long-duration slow burns needed to nudge rocks into orbit, it'll just take (most likely) decades, and we can handle them remotely, without needing manned missions.

And it's not that the metal's "cheap" as a result. It's that it's way cheaper than lifting that tonnage from the ground. And the cost isn't really measured in tonnage, more in time.

[Tennis]

http://www.sciencealert.com/how-aste...uture-in-space

http://www.mining.com/space-mining-a...e-nasa-expert/
you were saying?

Doesn't sound like these writers are very qualified for this topic.

I mean..

University of Southern Mississippi
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Digital Media, Discourse Analysis

SUNY Brockport
Master of Arts (M.A.), English Language and Literature/Letters

Keuka College
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), English Language and Literature/Letters

Not to mention these aren't even renowned or well reputed universities.

[Nazrark]

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

While the initial cost is extremely high. The insane amount of resources you can tow in space in comparison to the Earthbound resources. It makes mining in space so much more cost effective. I had explained to someone that economics in the future will be so different. Considering that resources are in abundance in space. What we imagine as wealthy now will not be an indication of the future. Where people will be worth trillions of dollars based on the amount of raw materials they have.

The cheapest and most abundant route is asteroids. Not very mass heavy and we have an extreme abundance of them in our solar system.

[Masark]

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

Sure, but asteroids could be a more accessible source of useful siderophilic elements such as Osmium, which are extremely rare on Earth.

[Sky High]

Doesn't sound like these writers are very qualified for this topic.

I mean..

University of Southern Mississippi
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Digital Media, Discourse Analysis

SUNY Brockport
Master of Arts (M.A.), English Language and Literature/Letters

Keuka College
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), English Language and Literature/Letters

Not to mention these aren't even renowned or well reputed universities.

no, just ignore the source they use to make their arguments, doesn't make you sound the least bit disingenuous at all!

- - - Updated - - -

And you are qualified? Seems weird to dismiss someone's credentials when you have none of your own.

also this.

[minteK917]

I mean sure if you want to keep mining our own planet for natural resources. I see plenty reason to fund research to get us on other planets that we can fuck them up instead of our own.

Thats pointless pretty much all the element we could mine on earth are on the Asteroid belt. Water, Gold, Silver. Its all very close and in quantity multiple time that of earth. So going to other planets should really not be a priority.

[Theodarzna]

Been thinking about this subject for awhile , as I've spent most of the last two days dealing with a family issue and not had much computer time.

Obligatory @Skroe

I think it's a given that over the next 50 years, there will be numerous permanent moonbases established, mostly scientific in nature with maybe beginning to exploit the moon's mineral resources by the last quarter of the century (2075 or thereabouts). I expect US, Chinese, and Indian space programs to be quite robust, with maybe Japan hitching a ride with the US. What happens to the ESA is kind of tied to the future of the EU in many ways, so I'll make no predictions there.

Mars will likely see numerous manned expeditions almost totally scientific/exploratory in nature. I'd say several US missions, a few Chinese, and maybe an Indian mission or two. I wouldn't expect the first permanent science bases on Mars until the beginning of the 22nd century, the same way I don't expect either manned exploration of the asteroid belt or the outer planets until the 22nd century.

Wild cards I think are Venus and Mercury. I could see a manned flyby of Venus that inserts a spacecraft into orbit for a few weeks, drops numerous satellites into orbit, and takes lots of cloud-penetrating radar pictures of the surface. Landing is out of the question for humans I think until we have Hulkbuster armor. Venus is a hellhole on the surface, but it does at times come closer to the Earth than Mars.

I have no idea about missions to Mercury. I imagine there are significant technological hurdles to shielding a spacecraft that close to the sun.

Thoughts?

I put some thought into floating settlements on Venus. Actually building a canopy of floating settlements on Venus might overtime cool the surface so we can live there.

[Zeta333]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

our future is not with this planet. the sooner you realize this the faster we will expand as a species. We already waste billions on stupid shit on this planet.

[Sky High]

Thats pointless pretty much all the element we could mine on earth are on the Asteroid belt. Water, Gold, Silver. Its all very close and in quantity multiple time that of earth. So going to other planets should really not be a priority.

asteroids will be the first step, I admit I'm having flashes of Dead Space planet crackers being a thing someday.

[Zeta333]

I put some thought into floating settlements on Venus. Actually building a canopy of floating settlements on Venus might overtime cool the surface so we can live there.

I think the fact its techtonically locked will inhibit this problem more than most. Venus is a big example of greenhouse gas's run amok.

[Masark]

Thats pointless pretty much all the element we could mine on earth are on the Asteroid belt. Water, Gold, Silver. Its all very close and in quantity multiple time that of earth.

Iron asteroids should have more accessible concentrations of siderophilic elements that are extremely uncommon in the Earth's crust. Stuff like rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and osmium, along with less rare stuff like platinum and gold.

[Osmeric]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

It may be a waste of resources, but not because we need to "fix the issues". More to the point, the benefit just isn't there relative to the cost. That would be true even if everything on Earth were unicorns and rainbows.

Drive down the cost of getting into space and this might change. SpaceX has the right idea, the SLS proponents do not.

[Zeta333]

Thats pointless pretty much all the element we could mine on earth are on the Asteroid belt. Water, Gold, Silver. Its all very close and in quantity multiple time that of earth. So going to other planets should really not be a priority.

in order to get there they need a refueling station in orbit, the moons regoloth has heaps of fuel ready to be refined and put in tanks. You need somthing between the moon and the A belt for problems or shore leave, and that would be mars. Possibly smelterys there or a a lagrange point between there and the A belt so your not wasting fuel sending unrefined unpure ore to earth.

- - - Updated - - -

It may be a waste of resources, but not because we need to "fix the issues". More to the point, the benefit just isn't there relative to the cost. That would be true even if everything on Earth were unicorns and rainbows.

Drive down the cost of getting into space and this might change. SpaceX has the right idea, the SLS proponents do not.

so your saying we need to pour more money into space to make it cheaper, which is the first step of going to these places, we wont get there on current tech, but we wont get the tech to go there without develping it.