Y
Yuri_Armstrong
Guest
Hitler's Germany comes to mind when discussing manned space flight? Artificial gravity may not be necessary for trips throughout the solar system but it would help to keep the astronauts in shape.
Congress holding UFO hearing Tuesday morning at 9 AM EDT: Watch it live here!
Yes. It does. Surely I'm not the only one who considers Werner von Braun one of the fathers of manned space flight.Yuri_Armstrong":2lohxvyx said:Hitler's Germany comes to mind when discussing manned space flight?
Not just in shape, but alive. Trips throughout the solar system would take decades, unless your plan was to abandon the astronauts once they arrived at their destination. Consequently, your craft will need to be equipped with married men and women, hospitals, nursery schools, elementary, middle, and high schools to prepare the successive generation to take over when the original astronauts eventually die off. Where it possible to even contemplate this ridiculous scenario, the astronauts returning from a trip "throughout the solar system" would be people we've never met.Yuri_Armstrong":2lohxvyx said:Artificial gravity may not be necessary for trips throughout the solar system but it would help to keep the astronauts in shape.
Not just in shape, but alive. Trips throughout the solar system would take decades, unless your plan was to abandon the astronauts once they arrived at their destination. Consequently, your craft will need to be equipped with married men and women, hospitals, nursery schools, elementary, middle, and high schools to prepare the successive generation to take over when the original astronauts eventually die off. Where it possible to even contemplate this ridiculous scenario, the astronauts returning from a trip "throughout the solar system" would be people we've never met.[/quote]Yuri_Armstrong":1kj1e0qe said:Artificial gravity may not be necessary for trips throughout the solar system but it would help to keep the astronauts in shape.
.[/quote]Yuri_Armstrong":ul4g74ox said:.Yuri_Armstrong":ul4g74ox said:
Dude...trips within the solar system would not take decades. Voyager 2 took only 12 years to get to Neptune, so I guess if your definition of "decades" is 24 years, you would be right, but most people think of 40 or 50 years. Presumably, if we sent humans to Neptune, we would either use a faster propulsion system (nuclear thermal, etc.) or put people in suspended animation somehow, as in 2001: A Space Odyssey.uberhund":5ecvqjf5 said:]Not just in shape, but alive. Trips throughout the solar system would take decades, unless your plan was to abandon the astronauts once they arrived at their destination. Consequently, your craft will need to be equipped with married men and women, hospitals, nursery schools, elementary, middle, and high schools to prepare the successive generation to take over when the original astronauts eventually die off. Where it possible to even contemplate this ridiculous scenario, the astronauts returning from a trip "throughout the solar system" would be people we've never met.
According to uberhound, that is scientifically impossible. :roll:Valcan":1bh46oui said:Plus what if you built large toroid station or a large station tubular in structure? spin them up and you have artifical gravity.
A large rotating toroidal space station is scientifically impossible? I didn't know that. Can you explain?neutrino78x":1qapg64m said:According to uberhound, that is scientifically impossible. :roll:Valcan":1qapg64m said:Plus what if you built large toroid station or a large station tubular in structure? spin them up and you have artifical gravity.
--Brian
I believe the reference above is to the combination of physics, economics, engineering, and ethics that renders any type of long-term space travel impossible (whether toroids or any other configuration).csmyth3025":310w3ocl said:A large rotating toroidal space station is scientifically impossible? I didn't know that. Can you explain?
Don't forget to add the years the Neptune travelers would remain on station once they arrive. After a 12 year journey (using your number), they will not want to turn around immediately and come back home, even if it were possible. But space travel doesn't work that way. Given orbital alignment and fuel budgets involved, the on-station time will have to be years. But let's be aggressive. Let's say the round trip could be done in 30 years. What percentage of Space.com fans, living in the comfort of our natural gravity and radiation shielding, will be alive and fully functional in 30 years? Why would the ratio be any different for your hypothetical Neptune travelers? The attrition rate over the mission life requires births in space.neutrino78x":310w3ocl said:Dude...trips within the solar system would not take decades. Voyager 2 took only 12 years to get to Neptune, so I guess if your definition of "decades" is 24 years, you would be right, but most people think of 40 or 50 years.
The same combination of physics, economics, engineering, and ethics rule out any of this. I loved the movie, but Kubrick and Clarke did more for film making than prognostication. A heroic try, but they got almost nothing right, and they were attempting to predict a mere 20 or so years into the future.neutrino78x":310w3ocl said:Presumably, if we sent humans to Neptune, we would either use a faster propulsion system (nuclear thermal, etc.) or put people in suspended animation somehow, as in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Rotating a module scientifically impossible?uberhund":1hhm355d said:I believe the reference above is to the combination of physics, economics, engineering, and ethics that renders any type of long-term space travel impossible (whether toroids or any other configuration).csmyth3025":1hhm355d said:A large rotating toroidal space station is scientifically impossible? I didn't know that. Can you explain?
But, if one is just dreaming up plots for movies, without having to actually implement any working models to the contrary, then don't let the facts spoil the fun. I like space movies too.
What a relief then that I can be counted as one of the informed. As we both know, rotation of anything in space, on Earth orbit or otherwise, happens almost on its own with no need for artificial help. Nevertheless, "Physics still renders long term space travel impossible."James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:Physically possible = Yes, anyone who says otherwise is competely uninformed.
It's always cheap when you're not the one paying for it. The fact is, even failed LEO projects like STS require nation-crippling budgets. Recall von Braun's and Gus Grissom's famous quotes on the subject that go approximately like "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." This just in: space travel is not getting cheaper. It's getting incredibly more expensive. Don't confuse the dropping cost of Guitar Hero with technologies that actually enable space travel.James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:Economics = Very possible, spinning a module shouldn't cost that much at all.
Ouch. I wouldn't walk into a room of aerospace engineers and physicists and tell them you think what they're doing is rather easy. As you evidently read from my earlier posts, they only make it look easy, and that's why I love engineering and physics.James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:Engineering = Yep, rather easily actually in a 'module, string, counterweight' config like in Mars Direct.
Almost anything scientifically worthwhile incurs some ethics issues. For example, it may be scientifically possible to clone humans, but is it ethical? Similarly, in postulating long-term space flight, very, very, serious ethics issue quickly arise. Is it ethical to send humans into space to eventually die from radiation or lack of proper medical attention, even if they volunteer to do so? Is it ethical to bring a child into the universe on a space craft, when that child has no vote in the matter? Is it ethical to impose the crushing resource burdens on a nation to chase long-term human spaceflight when there is absolutely zero return for the investment? I don't know the answers either, but I know they must be part of the public debate.James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:Ethics = What has this got to do with it being scientifically possible?! And for that matter, what ethics?
It's funny you mention resentment. I was thinking of that exact word as I read your post. But not to worry. I remember the time I found out about Santa Clause. I wanted everyone to leave the room too. And for what it's worth, my actual wording was closer to "humans will never colonize again, this side of Armegeddon." But thanks for trying - it gives me a chance to repeat it and I was rather proud of that one.James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:you make bold and rash statements ... and feel utter resentment toward all manned spaceflight; "nothing will happen in space his side of Armegeddon."
Yes, but the point is, you've been reading them. Who wants to read a post that doesn't posit something new and provoke a response? For my money, the ideas in Umberto Eco's library I haven't read or thought about are the most interesting. Who needs the others?James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:I don't mean to be rude but after reading a few of your incredible posts
Well, judging from the number of posts I made just last week, I'm not a very competent apathetic. As for negativity - yes, when it comes to missed opportunities and pointless waste, I am negative. As should we all.James_Bull":30y1lkzu said:but please take your apathy and negativity elsewhere!
Absolutely right Steve! Structural integrity for connecting trusses shouldn't be an issue with today's materials either. Carbon fiber comes to mind.SteveCNC":1dib2301 said:Don't worry about it James , I've asked the same question a few times in this thread as have others but when no answer can be given that isn't sarcasm or off the subject entirely and actually makes sense you have to reach the point of not caring anymore about certain peoples thoughts . We all know the only difference between a ship with , and a ship without artificial gravity , is the attitute control software and possibly the basic configuration however it takes no more physical hardware to accomplish it , it's all in the software , since you have multiple attitude control jets/wheels all you really need do is change the software a bit to allow for spin . As to the basic configuration I refer to earlier in this post , it only requires a floor plan that works and a diameter about the center of rotation that is large enough to not cause problems . The same ship could be spun or not spun is my point and at that point is just the attitude control doing the work .
So, how do you explain the Pioneer and Voyager long term space missions? A manned spacecraft for long term missions would simply be a larger version.uberhund":2nzj9jqu said:As we both know, rotation of anything in space, on Earth orbit or otherwise, happens almost on its own with no need for artificial help. Nevertheless, "Physics still renders long term space travel impossible."
SpaceX seems to get by just fine. Federal dollars will accelerate the commercial exploitation of space, however, and I endorse using them to do so.It's always cheap when you're not the one paying for it. The fact is, even failed LEO projects like STS require nation-crippling budgets.
The X Prize Foundation would beg to differ with you, I imagine. As would the Commercial Space Flight Federation.This just in: space travel is not getting cheaper. It's getting incredibly more expensive.
The scientific value of cloning a human is not clear. The medical value of cloning specific organs, yes. But it is not clear what scientific value would be gained from cloning an entire human.Almost anything scientifically worthwhile incurs some ethics issues. For example, it may be scientifically possible to clone humans, but is it ethical?
Why would we do that? Perhaps for a military manned mission, but there are no such missions yet.Similarly, in postulating long-term space flight, very, very, serious ethics issue quickly arise. Is it ethical to send humans into space to eventually die from radiation or lack of proper medical attention, even if they volunteer to do so?
That would be the decision of the parents. Unless you're advocating generation ships, the need for which is in question. Most argue that we would never send a generation ship as a government mission; we would design spacecraft which are fast enough to reach the destination in a reasonable time, or we would put the crew in suspended animation.Is it ethical to bring a child into the universe on a space craft, when that child has no vote in the matter?
Well, in my opinion, the government should not send humans on a dangerous space mission for no apparent reason. That is the role of private enterprise and private individuals.Is it ethical to impose the crushing resource burdens on a nation to chase long-term human spaceflight when there is absolutely zero return for the investment?
It is complete nonsense. Had you said "the government will never colonize again, this side of armageddon", I would agree, as government never colonizes. Private individuals do.And for what it's worth, my actual wording was closer to "humans will never colonize again, this side of Armegeddon." But thanks for trying - it gives me a chance to repeat it and I was rather proud of that one.
Using the word simply and manned spacecraft in the same sentence is known to cause Werner von Braun to spin in his grave, like an object adrift in space.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:So, how do you explain the Pioneer and Voyager long term space missions? A manned spacecraft for long term missions would simply be a larger version.
Yes, they are insurmountable. Remember that all money is merely congealed energy. The accumulation and sublimation of money follows the same physical laws of thermodynamics as described by Newton. Achieving even a small fraction of the speed of light for a round trip journey, sadly, is beyond the money congealing capability of an entire planet.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:Nothing in the laws of Newton, Einstein, Kepler, et al., prevent us from building a ship that travels long distances in space. There may be economic issues, but they are not insurmountable.
Would they? Have you tried to buy any helium lately? How about man-rating a booster? Are US governing agencies easing requirements for certification? Is Burt Rutan finding space tourism easier and Richard Branson cheaper than either of them originally thought?neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:The X Prize Foundation would beg to differ with [the statement that spaceflight is getting increasingly more expensive].
Thank you for your service to the country. Seriously. You have my respect and gratitude.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:As a US Navy submariner, I volunteered ... [to be] on a submarine crew, you have to volunteer. People volunteer to do dangerous things for their country all the time.
Er. No. A civilized culture does not sit by and let parents make those decisions. Parents who voluntarily put a child at risk get put in jail, and lose their children. Gandhi said a society can be judged by the way it treats its children.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:[Putting a child in a risky situation] would be the decision of the parents.
Only on a green screen stage in Hollywoodneutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:we would design spacecraft which are fast enough to reach the destination in a reasonable time, or we would put the crew in suspended animation.
Yep. We agree.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:Generation ships are more of a science fiction construct.
Hm. Private individuals like the Rev. Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana? Sorry, that may be a bad example. How about Biosphere? No, that one tanked too. Heaven's Gate? I believe I read somewhere that they colonized Comet Hale-Bopp. Please provide a better one if these don't work.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:It is complete nonsense. Had you said "the government will never colonize again, this side of armageddon", I would agree, as government never colonizes. Private individuals do.
But that was then. This is now. Earth is out of the colonization business, this side of World War III, because, it turns out, people don't like having their geopolitical boundaries defined at will by foreigners. Go figure.neutrino78x":2e87xkpt said:Jamestown Settlement, the first British colony in North America, was not a mission of His Majesty's Royal Navy. It was private individuals who paid for the trip.