Perhaps this seems like a juvenile thing to ask.....

[NickGMusic]

Or amatuer, naive, un-scientifical,...you get the idea. But here it is anyway:

How come we aren't doing man missions yet to other planets,...other solar systems,...or galaxies, etc.?

And why does it take SO long for missions to even see the light of day?


Money, I'm sure plays a key role in to the actual productivity of these missions, but somehow I don't think that money is the main issue, nor do I really believe the whole "we don't have the technology" excuse, because I'm almost certain, if NASA or whoever were given the challenge, they could make it work, I'm convinced anything is possible. The reason for my queries is that I read so much about all these planned missions that are potentials, maybes, could-bes, etc., and the time frames are ridiculous. One mission I saw was proposed in 2009, going to be talked about in 2010, and have a final decision made in 2011, probably not seeing a launch date until closer to 2018. Really? It takes that long to do this stuff? Like I said, perhaps I'm just completely naive and unknowledgeable in any of these fields, but to me it just seems like there's a lot of waiting around for nothing, a lot of time wasted that could be spent on doing much more productive things. And I'm sure there is a lot of factors that play into the answers of these questions. But I don't know, I just feel like we need something to unite us in the exploration of space, some type of common goal to make everyone excited about space, our existence in it and the universe, and I've got to say, these unmanned missions that take YEARS to plan to only go to places like moon are totally NOT doing the trick. Take it or leave it.

Nick

 

[origin]

Or amatuer, naive, un-scientifical,...you get the idea. But here it is anyway:

How come we aren't doing man missions yet to other planets,...other solar systems,...or galaxies, etc.?

And why does it take SO long for missions to even see the light of day?


Money, I'm sure plays a key role in to the actual productivity of these missions, but somehow I don't think that money is the main issue, nor do I really believe the whole "we don't have the technology" excuse, because I'm almost certain, if NASA or whoever were given the challenge, they could make it work, I'm convinced anything is possible. The reason for my queries is that I read so much about all these planned missions that are potentials, maybes, could-bes, etc., and the time frames are ridiculous. One mission I saw was proposed in 2009, going to be talked about in 2010, and have a final decision made in 2011, probably not seeing a launch date until closer to 2018. Really? It takes that long to do this stuff? Like I said, perhaps I'm just completely naive and unknowledgeable in any of these fields, but to me it just seems like there's a lot of waiting around for nothing, a lot of time wasted that could be spent on doing much more productive things. And I'm sure there is a lot of factors that play into the answers of these questions. But I don't know, I just feel like we need something to unite us in the exploration of space, some type of common goal to make everyone excited about space, our existence in it and the universe, and I've got to say, these unmanned missions that take YEARS to plan to only go to places like moon are totally NOT doing the trick. Take it or leave it.

Nick

Well, I am not sure why you don't believe that we don't have the technology but it is true.
Travel to another galaxy - impossible
Travel to another star system - currently impossible

Travel to another planet like mars is so daunting that it is clearly impossible for decades unless you don't mind sending people to mars with almost no chance of success while spending 100s of billions of dollars.

We don't even have a way to send a person to the moon right now - there is no vehicle to do it.

This is not like a trip to the south pole or something this is an extremely complex and dangerous undertaking. It took 10 years of concentrated effort to send people to the moon and they could only stay there for a very short period of time.

With the technology we have we can send a group to the moon and have them spend a resonable amount of time there and maybe be able to build a base there but we will need a decade of testing and design to make that happen to put that technology to use.

Heck it takes a car company about 3 years to come out with a new car model fer gods sake!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hi NickGMusic, welcome to Space.com!

You may not want to believe it, but you've hit the right answers. We do not have the technology to travel beyond the solar system, and we do not (or won't spend) the money to do manned missions to anywhere other than Low Earth Orbit right now.

It's not naive, but it is the truth.

 

[weeman]

Hi Nick, welcome to SDC!

It's good that you have an open mind about the matter of space exploration, the world needs more people who still believe that space exploration can bring good things.

The problems right now are both economic and technological. With the country's financial troubles, space exploration pretty much finds itself at the bottom of the to-do list (in the government's eyes anyways).

As far as technology goes, we have the technology to reach Mars right now. And who knows, within the next 50-60 years we may have the technology to reach the much farther, more intriguing celestial objects like the moons Europa and Titan.

The problem comes with the universe's shear size (no-brainer there). If you really think about it, our closest stellar neighbor is Alpha Centauri, and even that is about 4 lightyears away. This means that even a beam of light, which travels at 300,000 kilometers per second, takes 4 years to reach that star. A lightyear is roughly 5.8 trillion miles, meaning our nearest starry neighbor is about 23.2 trillion miles away.

So, even if we achieve technology that allows us to travel say 1 million miles per hour, at that rate, it would still take 5.8 million hours to reach Alpha Centauri, or simply put, 662 years.

 

[kelvinzero]

(edit: btw this is probably really a Space Business and Technology question)

We could no doubt do missions to mars within a couple of decades. The money would not bankrupt us or anything. It is just that the majority of politicians want to spent the money on other things.

It might also be true that the majority of the public feel the same way but it isnt as easy as quoting a few polls.

If you ask them "Should we spend hundreds of billions sending people to mars, rather than on healthcare and education" you will get a resounding "No!".

On the other hand I have also heard of polls suggesting that the general public thinks that NASA costs a significant proportion their tax money, instead of around the 1% level. If the question had been phrased "Should we shave a couple of percent of the money spent on defense to begin colonizing mars", the answer might be yes.


***


As for travel to other stars.. Really tough. Just don't worry about it yet. There is plenty of adventure to be had in just this solar system.

Look at this wiki list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_So ... ts_by_size

It shows there are about 400 or more worlds in this solar system above 100km in diameter. They are mainly just balls of rock and ice with very low gravity but these can provide everything we need for sustainable colonies. Imagine a solar system two hundred years for now with hundreds of discrete worlds each with their own cultures.

After we have colonized the solar system I don't think travel to other stars will seem nearly as daunting.

 

[NickGMusic]

All interesting answers, I just feel as though we need something to jump start the space program again, and I think if there was some proposal or mission for people to get excited about, the public would be much more open to help fund the quest. History shows that we are a curious race, with much proof of explorations, and if it wasn't for these explorations of all types, we wouldn't be where we are today. Imagine where we could end up once we've tested the "waters" of space! We will never achieve what we think is impossible.

Nick

 

[kg]

Most exploration has been done to aquire recources of some kind, land, game, treasure or shorter routes to someplace. I think if someone came up with a way to make a decent return on the investment then you would have all sorts of people flocking to the moon, mars or where ever.

 

[NickGMusic]

Any Trekkies here to back me up? lol haha. I don't know, maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, lol but I feel like people are missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your right, there isn't much in our solar system of any resource, a bunch of ice and rock, some gaseous worlds, etc. But when I look at pictures of like the new Hubble telescope's picture of the thousands of galaxies and what not, doesn't anyone want to know what's out there? And yes perhaps the technology is impossible RIGHT NOW to get to these other places, but can't we start working on that instead of spending billions of dollars on trying to dig up dirt from the moon? lol Just a dumb person's perspective I guess.

 

[Fallingstar1971]

All the tech is relevant though. The same tech used to sample the moon could sample Mars, or Titan. In any event, valuable tech to have on board.

The tech used in the newer lighter spacesuits also would be useful for such a trip.

Of course, the vehicle. Speed is only half the problem. What happens if you hit a baseball size asteroid hauling at even half the speed of light? So now, some kind of incredibly strong shielding is needed. Development of such a material would need to be both conceived and created before going anywhere.

All the probes whizzing around the solar system are really testbeds of their particular tech. There are a few, but not many, multi-role probes out there. But for the most part, each one is/has been testing new tech, all tech that would be useful in future manned and unmanned missions. Each one is a piece. One tested ion engines. Several are new telescopes each with their own techs (IR, X-ray, Hubble, ect)

And of course, necessity. There is no critical need to go. So the money needed to develop future techs is in danger. All too many time funds are diverted for this, or for that. Promises and visions made by one president are dismissed by the next. National economies crashing and people to panicky to try new investments. All important factors.

Star

 

[SpaceTas]

I'll have a go at NickGMusics question Why does the planning, and building of space missions take so long?

This question was posed by Dan Golden a previous head of NASA. The result was his vision of faster better cheaper. Under this vision NASA funded more but smaller cost missions and encouraged smaller teams. The results were mixed with more missions, but more failures. The Mars program was hit by a Mars orbiter missing the planet, and the original polar lander (now Phoenix) crashing. Investigations found that the orbiter missed Mars because of a unit conversion problem and the crash was probably due to radio interference between the landing gear.The systemic cause was found to be a conflict between faster, cheaper and better. Faster meant less test so the landing gear problem was never found, cheaper also meant that there was no direct telemetry during descent so we actually can only guess what went wrong. Cheaper meant fewer people spending less time checking their numbers and following established procedures so the wrong values were sent to the Mars orbiter there it crashed.

NASA has reverted back to the old model.
There are several aspects that mean long lead times.

First to the politics of getting a mission funded (a limit there). I can outline this in the USA space science system, the ESA system is not quite the same. First the original proposers must convince others in the similar field that their idea is good; This phase is not directly funded so it falls to a few people (often part time) doing/organizing the science case and getting preliminary designs together. Sometimes you can get an aerospace company or such to do the fancy CAD work. NASA issues calls for ideas on a semi regular basis, and there is a competition amongst these for Phase A studies. Winning this means your group gets money to work out the detailed specs of the spacecraft, instruments operations and an estimate of the cost. Then there is another competition round: winner going to Phase B; detailed desgin and costing. Then final approval, and some more design letting out contracts and construction.

So you can see that the competition stages can take a few years. I's say a minimum of 3 years. Delays occur in construction partly because each mission is different and a whole new craft is designed an built each time. Often the design require unique and cutting edge technology to be developed (James Webb has cyrogenically cooled beryllium mirrors rather than standard glass mirrors: due to an early design choice) Often the original designers underestimate the difficult of the new tech. This is endemic in the system. In the competition one factor is the cost. The lower cost missions have an advantage. Also the costing is done by people with no direct experience in management or technology development (this is especially true before phase A; its a bunch of scientist with a good idea). Poor cost estimation continues through most projects (MSLor James Webb telescope are particularly notorious). To control costs the design is often changed many times and often during construction adding to cost. Because each mission is unique all parts/systems have to be fully tested.... Oh and the gear can't be off the shelf (e.g. chips have to radiation hardened and so 5-10 years behind whats in your PC)

Now all this adds up to years .and years. :roll:

Solutions: lots of arguments on this.....

 

[yevaud]

Any Trekkies here to back me up?

Maybe it's a generational thing (joke not intended), but I have come to believe that the later arcs of that series haven't been a good thing for space exploration. Everything in the series is seamless, efficient, capable of things we can barely dream of; strict Sci-Fi.

And here we are trying to send 100 pound packages to nearby targets in cumbersome vehicles, on trips that may take years. I think people look at the comparison, and think "yeah, wake me when I can travel to Mars in an hour. Until then, don't bother me."

Seriously.

 

[jgrtmp]

Nick is on to a very good question. I like many of the answers. KG is right on when it comes to resources involved. Right now we just don't have the tech to utilize antimater, which seems to be where Nick was going with this. Current nanobot construction means will someday be similarly used in the matter/antimater creation/annihilation to fabricate. Until then current industry is the way things are done. The resources KG speaks of may just drive us out there as tech abilities grow. Mining the Moon. A possible colony on mars. Open space mining of the asteroid belt will be one of the cheapest ways by way of eliminating the cost of planetary transport of those resources. Space docks, refineries etc... will be done in orbit and yield better product than could be processed on a planets surface.
As to mission programming, that is a resource too. We have only so much capabilities when it come to putting things in to space. Thus we have a priority based system of projects and schedules. Each has its own time constraint and must mesh in to the schedule of others. There is the real time killer. To much to do with so little availability.

 

[csmyth3025]

As a practical matter, humans make advances incrementally - with an occasional leap forward. The Industrial Revolution was one such leap. So was the development of transistor technology, which led to the Age of Electronics. In the case of space travel, we're still making incremental advances.

We first need reliable, routine, and relatively cheap access to Low Earth Orbit. We're still working on that. We then need a practical Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) to go from LEO to other nearby useful places like the Moon, L1, L4, and L5. The VASIMIR thruster under development may be a key component of an OTV. We then need industrial faclilities at these locations that can process material (presumably from the moon) that can be used to construct and fuel vehicles and equipment that will permit us to send lots of people to more distant useful places (perhaps Mars?) so we can be more than just visiting weekend tourists. Trying to send all that stuff directly from the deep gravity well of Earth just isn't feasible in the foreseeable future.

Developing reliable, routine access to LEO is going to cost 10's, if not 100's, of billions of dollars. This is just the first step. Everyone knows that there are a lot of people who think that money would be better spent on other things "closer to home".

I hope this helps to explain why things seem to take so long. I think we'll get there eventually, but it's going to take time.

Chris

 

[andrew_t1000]

It's sad, but those who hold the purse strings would rather spend money trying to fix mistakes made by greedy a-holes or killing our fellow humans for a few barrels of oil.
That and taking a risk on exploring a new frontier seems to be just plain out too hard.
Whilst you or I are jumping up and down, yelling "me, send me!", no matter what the risk or how dangerous, just doesn't count.
I don't know about you, but I would jump at a chance of even a few hours on the moon, Mars or any another celestial body, no matter what the risk.
OK, maybe I'm getting a bit old now, but I would and could take a few hours/days/months of hardship to explore pretty much anywhere in the solar system.
The powers that be just don't see it that way, we live in a way to cautious society, one where our governments can't see past getting re-elected to spend some cash for something they see as having no immediate gain.
We need pioneers to go forth and just plain out take the risk, go "do it".

 

[csmyth3025]

It's sad, but those who hold the purse strings would rather spend money trying to fix mistakes made by greedy a-holes or killing our fellow humans for a few barrels of oil.

I'm somewhat more optimistic about the future of our efforts in space. Sure, there has been a lot of money spent going down blind alleys and funding projects we think aren't worthy. Space enthusiasts are just a part of the whole picture, though. There are plenty of people who are as dismayed as we are over the lack of funding for solving what they believe to be the Global Warming problem, or the Poverty problem, or the Health Care problem. The list is almost endless.

As far as spending money trying to fix mistakes, there are plenty of people who think (rightfully so) that our government has a responsibility to clean up the massive soil and aquifer contamination created by the nuclear processing facilities that gave us the atomic bomb (such as Oak Ridge, Tenn. and Hanford, Wash.). As far as killing our fellow humans for a few barrels of oil is concerned - remember that both Germany and Japan did that 70 years ago, and we killed a lot of people trying to deny them those "few barrels of oil". Sadly, our dependence on oil will continue to be the cause of fighting between those who have it and those who want it. People who jump in their cars to go to the shopping center don't ask themselves how many people have died for their ride, though.

I think that we are starting to see the very beginnings of a broadening of our activities in space from strictly governmental interest to commercial interest. There is already a healthy market for communications, mapping and GPS satellites. A lot of this was initiated by governments for military purposes. Now there is a viable business model for these activities. You might remember that the technology and first links of what was to become the Internet were funded by DARPA as insurance against the (then) Soviet Union from taking out our communications systems in a first strike.

There's a lot of criticism about the ISS having no purpose. I disagree. The ISS has demonstrated that we can construct something in space in partnership with other countries. It orbits within the protection of the Van Allen Belts, thus reducing the amount of shielding needed. This reduced mass made the ISS, as expensive as it is, a do-able project. It lies far enough outside the bulk of our atmsophere that it could, conceivably, serve as a hub for Orbital Transfer Vehicles. At the very least it provides us with a prototype upon which we can refine the technology for such a hub.

A lot of posts here talk about going to the Moon or Mars. There's a big difference between getting ~240 miles above the Earth to the ISS and getting 240,000 miles to the Moon. We were able to get to the Moon in the 60's for a few short visits in one big "throw" from Earth. We didn't (and don't) have the ability to stay there long enough to do anything but just look around and bring back a few samples. Exploration is good - it gives us a better idea of where we're going and what we can expect once we get there. Before the first Apollo mission to the Moon there was serious concern that the lander would just sink into the powdery surface - lost forever.

Now we're talking about a real space presence. That takes infrastructure - and money. Lots of money. Some propose building orbiting Solar Power Satellites (SPS) to beam power down to the Earth and reduce (or eliminate) the need for nuclear and coal-fired power plants. This idea may have merit. To build such a thing, though, you need infrastructure and people who can stay in space. I think we're slowly moving in this direction.

Some people think we should by-pass the Moon. They feel it's a lifeless rock of no particular use. I disagree. There are a lot of resources on the Moon - including water - that are easier to access than trying to haul them up from Earth. Using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars or other destinations makes sense to me if we want to go there and stay there. Remember - the "atmosphere" on the surface of Mars is as immediately lethal to unprotected human beings as is the vacuum of the lunar surface.

I have faith that we'll eventually develop a permanent presence in space, on the Moon, on Mars, and elsewhere in our solar system. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. But, like Robert Goddard, I can dream what the future might hold.

Chris

 

[thor06]

I understand your frustration Nick,
It is what it is, the other posters have done a good job pointing out the reality of our situation. I'd like to go down a different path. You just never know what might happen.....
The resources, tech, and money needed to accomplish all of the trips you have planned for us exist right now. We could build a ship capable of going to another star system, and even another galaxy. But, and it's a big but, it would take many, many, many generations to get there, and if your talking about another galaxy multiply the "many" by a few million. These "star" ships would be absolutely massive, imagine something the size of a large city being constructed in space.
The investment required would be equally massive, the defense budget for every country on the planet times 2, let's say 2 trillion/year for 20 yrs. Heh, thinking about it makes a Mars mission seem like a walk in the back yard.
How/Why?
Well It is "possible" that the human race could realize itself in your lifetime. I.E. Small blue oasis, only place live, lets get along. With that comes almost unimaginable amounts of money saved. Just think what NASA could do with the Trillion spent on Iraq, or the small sum of 600 billion/yr we spend on "defense". Fun to think about? I would love to hear from some of the more senior posters on what would be possible with NASA's budget multiplied by 30.
There is yet another way. The world comes together because of a pending disaster.... ELE, an extinction level event. An asteroid could be diverted or destroyed, so let's go with a gamma ray burst. There is absolutely nothing we can do but leave, and we have a 50 yr lead time. It's do or die, and in that case I think we could manage to build a celestial ark.
In both cases the tech required is available or pending. Fusion/fission engines and or Ion/plasma drives could get us eventually to 1/2 ls, though in a generational ship speed is not critical. Hydroponics and recycling techs are coming along nicely. We have proven with ISS, orbital construction works. Boom, just add money.(and yes I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but you get the idea)
In the end, my point is don't let reality get in the way of your dreams. We are more than the sum of our parts, and often things happen that no one could have predicted. Right now as I am typing, there are physicists working on "warp drives" in the face of impossibility, because it might lead to breakthroughs in possibility.
cheers, welcome to SDC!

 

[csmyth3025]

As an example of what thor06 is talking about - it's entirely possible that we wouldn't have nuclear power (or nuclear bombs) to this day if it wasn't for WWII and the Manhatten Project. The "official" or acknowledged cost from 1940 to 1945 was $21.57 Billion (in 1996 adjusted dollars) per the Brookings Institution. This may not sound like a lot the way our government spends money today, but researching the GDP for the US shows that in 1940 our Gross Domestic Product was about 12.4% (~1/8) of what it was in 1996. Without a real war going on (or an impending gamma ray burst) I think spending that kind of money on the musings of a bunch of scientists would be a hard sell for any President.

Chris