No way to enter space?

[Standuble]

I'm wondering what the hell happens to "extra-planetary" ambitions when we run out of an easy supply of the good stuff? Would we be able to reach escape velocity through other sources of power (and manufacture objects suited for space travel) and if no then what becomes of mankind without a new frontier?

I have concerns we won't be able to leave Earth and we're stuck here on our little planet for the remainder of human existence. I'm open to the possibility that we would never have survived out in the irradiated hole we call the cosmos but it still seems like a heck of a wasted opportunity. What happens to humanity when it has no new horizon to sail to except the already resource-depleted lands of the past?

I find it creepy and a little sad. Can anyone give me some additional views or insights?

[madibe]

agree with your feelings about this....worth a think.

[Snail]

I'm a massive science fiction fan and as kid always dreamed about space travel and aliens and so on.

Until I found out how immense the solar system is, never mind our galaxy or universe. School-diagrams don't do the solar system justice. The sizes are just mind-boggling.

Maybe one day colonising a nearby planet or moon. But no way proper star-trek stuff.

Virtual reality could fulfil something like the above. Dealing with earth is challenge enough anyway. I think too we've had more humans on the moon than people reaching the ocean bottom.

[UndercoverElephant]

Space rockets don't usually run on hydrocarbons anyway. They burn liquid hydrogen and oxygen, like the shuttle did. So provided you have enough electricity, you can make as much rocket fuel as you want.

The long-term space programme is doomed anyway. Too expensive, and not a lot of purpose in doing it.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm wondering what the hell happens to "extra-planetary" ambitions when we run out of an easy supply of the good stuff? Would we be able to reach escape velocity through other sources of power (and manufacture objects suited for space travel) and if no then what becomes of mankind without a new frontier?

I have concerns we won't be able to leave Earth and we're stuck here on our little planet for the remainder of human existence. I'm open to the possibility that we would never have survived out in the irradiated hole we call the cosmos but it still seems like a heck of a wasted opportunity. What happens to humanity when it has no new horizon to sail to except the already resource-depleted lands of the past?

I find it creepy and a little sad. Can anyone give me some additional views or insights?

First thoughts:
Our extra planetary ambitions have always been snuffed by the distances involved and our inability to exceed the speed of light.
Fossil fuels are adequate to reach the moon but not much further so a lack of them does not change the equation much at all.
We better work on saving the planet we live on as that's the only one we are ever going to get.

[the_lyniezian]

I guess essentially the energy costs could end up being too great, as are the technical challenges of getting stuff up there and allowig it to survive (or be maintained).

Perhaps the rewards could be great- for example many metal-rich asteroids. I wondr if there is anything worth mining on the Moon, perhaps an easier possibility. But the initial hurdles could prove too great.

Perhaps too late have private interests been enocuraged to go to space. If the commercial possibilities had been exploited years ago, maybe we might have got somewhere. Now, I don't know. As said spacecraft are mostly fuelled by hydrogen, which need not be extracted from oil- electrical power sources could last longer. Maybe the time is right for a big push- perhaps theycould try for the likes of orbital solar generation as well.

[Ludwig]

I grew up, probably like most people here, in an age where the future was presented as a field of infinite possibility. It didn't take me long as an adult to realise that space colonisation was a pipe-dream. Even if it were possible to settle on, say, Mars, the idea of everyone living in domes in a hostile environment (as in Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles") sounded pretty depressing.

I think we have to accept that we have achieved as much as we can and, sadly, it is probably time for the human race, at least in its current form, to call it a day. Perhaps we will be reborn as post-apocalyptic hyperdimensional spirit entities... but I'm not counting on it.

[kenneal - lagger]

If we mine stuff on the moon and bring it to earth we would disturb the gravitational balance between the earth and the moon which could destabilize the orbit of the moon. Bringing heavy stuff from the moon to the earth might be practical at the moment but returning stuff to the moon in any quantity wouldn't be practical because of the greater gravity of the earth.

Rather than looking for more old technology metals on the moon and elsewhere we would be better off trying to master bio-engineering and bio-materials to replicate the cold production of structural materials that occurs in nature. Why make cars from metals if we could replicate the shell of an insect for the bodywork? Why make steel hawsers if we could make a rope like spiders' silk?

[DominicJ]

Space exploration is actualy really important, the problem is, 99% of the money gets spent on flashy stuff, like sending a dog into space, followed by monkeys, and then man, or faking moon landings, or building manned space stations.
The important scientific stuff doesnt need to be manned, but isnt "sexy" enough to get funding.

As for colonisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)
The Advanced Inter Planetary could put 5,700 tons on the moon, plus the ship itself (unclear is thats an additional 10,000 or 4,300)
Thats doable now
Pack it with a network of machines, capable of finding, mining and refining the materials needed to form replacement/supplementary machines and you can build a colony.

I doubt a " the moon is a harsh mistress" type colony will ever exist, but the moon is hardly that much deadlier an environment than a deep sea oil rig, an antarctic research posting, or a deep sea submarine.
How long would you last in Northern Norway if your house burnt down?
And once your are off earth and on the moonm, well, things like harvesting asteroids makes a lot more sense.

Personaly, not sure living in a Mars dome network would bother me, I spend 99% of my life in much smaller structures.

Ken
Not sure we would disturb the gravitational balance.
Gravity is a function of both masses, not just one, but the moons reaction to everything else would change.

Even though the moon is "small" in space term, in human terms its absolutely massive, I didnt know the names for the numbers required if we mined 1% of it.

[mobbsey]

I nearly spat my breakfast over the kitchen the other morning after hearing this -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 669997.stm (cry from upstairs, "Mum, Dad's ranting again").

On Earth we extract minerals which have been sorted by geological processes -- enriching their content relative to the average level in the crust. That's what makes mineral extraction viable. On the moon there are no geological processes -- no volcanism to drive the sorting of minerals. So how are we efficiently to extract minerals from the moon without sifting far more rock than we'd have to do on the Earth?; and adding that to the energy debt of getting to the moon, who is that any more viable than extraction of low grade ores on the Earth?

I like sci-fi; I especially got into the whole cyberpunk genre during the 80s, as it appealed to both my love of science and computers. However, if you apply those same scientific principles you have to understand that much of what is proposed by "serious" scientists these days is bullshit which -- if not technically impossible -- is in most cases implausible because it requires scales or types of engineering which are beyond any viable human endeavour to carry out.

[DominicJ]

I was actualy thinking the exact same thing, werent most mineral deposits created by activity not present on the moon
I know the green "paint" used in the pyramids is a copper based substance.
The copper was harvested from springs. The water collected the copper en route, and then hit a barrier water could pass through, but copper couldnt, as time passes, copper builds up, and you have a copper mine.

I had just assumed some process had taken place at some point, or pure randomness had created viable pockets.


***
edited for stupidity

[featherstick]

JMG has a meditation on the end of space travel on his blog:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ ... space.html

[SleeperService]

Space launches don't use hydrocarbons at launch (mostly) but they do require huge amounts of energy to make the thing.

The big problem in celestial mechanics is getting out of Earth's gravity well, imagine climbing out of a very steep sided hole in the ground. Rockets aren't the best way of doing this, alternatives include rail guns which are like magnetic levitating trains where the load is accelerated along a track which kicks up at the end. This could be solar powered and, as the 'engines' and 'fuel' don't need to be accelerated is quite useful for small payloads.

For larger objects one could have a largeish satelite in geosynchronos orbit with a cable running down to the surface, through the satelite and out into space. Loads could then be winched up the cable and regenerate most of the energy when the platform returns by using regenerative breaking.

Once up in orbit the fuel requirements are a tiny fraction of that on the ground.

We could build a railgun starting this afternoon, the space elevator needs materials developed for the cables etc. so would take longer.

Why doesn't this happen already? Well these systems won't launch missles

We may be able to establish colonies on other solar system objects, think America's base at the South Pole, but they will be very unlikely to be self supporting for a very long time. That time is the problem as we'd need to support these colonies for decades at least and, with wealth falling it would become too 'costly'.

IMHO yes we're stuck on the Earth unless something amazing happens. A method of faster than light travel becomes possible or benevolent aliens bring us a Stargate.

Edit: to remove contentious sentence

[emordnilap]

We evolved here, on this planet; we're no different to trees or ferrets or any other organism in that regard, we're a product of the conditions prevailing. Imagining we could find somewhere else as benign is sheer cock-eyed optimism.

There again, some believe it's "man's (ahem) destiny" to colonise (rape) other worlds. Bollix.

[Ludwig]

We evolved here, on this planet; we're no different to trees or ferrets or any other organism in that regard, we're a product of the conditions prevailing. Imagining we could find somewhere else as benign is sheer cock-eyed optimism.

There again, some believe it's "man's (ahem) destiny" to colonise (rape) other worlds. Bollix.

+1

The idea of zapping off into space may sound like fun, but I doubt if many people would cope well with being ejected into the cold dark void, once the realisation hit them that they were never coming back.