What after the shuttle?

[gablau]

But what I'm often asking myself is: what would happen in about 100 or maybe 500 years?

My view about the long term predictions are far less optimistic than most "space fans".
Let's face it, as glorious the shuttle program is (was?), even the Apollo was shut down before it's planned schedule. Why? Well, I think it had to be the combination of finances and the realization that there is really nothing on the Moon what the previous missions brought back (essentially bags of rocks). The sad reality is that we can't do much about the laws of physics. Even 100 years from now it will take the exact same amount of energy to lift up anything from the Earth gravity and get it anywhere. Unless somebody invents a de facto new law of physics what we have no idea about today, that is an unavoidable starting point. It took an over 100 meter tall Saturn V rocket to lift up everything what was needed to land on the Moon and finally bring back a tiny capsule with 3 astronauts. Mars mission with people with the existing technology. Very, very unlikely. Going beyond the Mars....well....where exactly? And how exactly? We have the gas giants and their moons. Anyone who is familiar with the involved distances and traveling times should know that again, with the current technology they are simply not available for us (with humans). Even more sad, that even if they would be, the probability of finding anything radically worthwhile or interesting is very small. Beyond the solar system? The first and nearest stop would be the Alpha Centauri, "only" 4.6 light years away. And we have no idea whether it even have planets around it.

Now what? I am afraid that mankind will have to settle for whatever it can to around Earth orbit, until radical new inventions.

[Spaceguy5]

I believe Mars is in reach. Beyond Mars, I'm very skeptic. I imagine people might be sent beyond Mars, but I don't see them coming back. Also as far as propulsion is concerned, try googling Dr. Chang-Diaz's VASIMR engine. There's many forms of propulsion (Most are theoretical or under development though) beyond chemical rockets.

[Admin]

I am a strong believer that man will return to the stars - eventually - if we don't manage to commit global suicide, or suffer a major cataclysmic event before we succeed seeding ourselves onto other systems.

Meanwhile, I enjoy sic-fi space travel. IMO, it is the harbinger of things to come - someday in the future.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

The sad reality is that we can't do much about the laws of physics. Even 100 years from now it will take the exact same amount of energy to lift up anything from the Earth gravity and get it anywhere. Unless somebody invents a de facto new law of physics what we have no idea about today, that is an unavoidable starting point. It took an over 100 meter tall Saturn V rocket to lift up everything what was needed to land on the Moon and finally bring back a tiny capsule with 3 astronauts.

Well, one doesn't have to change laws of physics. We just have to develope new propulsion technologies. I give you a perfect historic example: 100 years ago, in 1910, all airplanes were propelled by piston engines. Back then, beside only a very few aviation pioneers and visionaries, almost nobody would have ever expected that an airplane, consisting of metal with a mass of more than 200 tons empty and more than 500 tons at maximum, carrying 800 passengers, would be able to lift off the ground, heck, even fly with a speed slightly below the speed of sound with a range of more than 9,000 miles. Not to mention Concorde: 180 tons including 100 passengers @ Mach 2.0 (without reheat, which was just used for acceleration from Mach 0.9 to 1.7).

And now imagine that all started with the invention of the wheel, the steam engine and electricity. Think about the telegraph and a modern mulimedia cell phone. And so on...

Our scientific and engineering history shows how difficult it is to predict future innovations. And it especially shows human capabilities. Progress is not over at all. Quite the opposite. Progress is as fast as never before. We're just used to it, which creates the wrong "feeling" that we're approaching a hold. Just compare the one man Mercury capsule to the Space Shuttle and the ISS. And it's still just the beginning. There is more to come.

Mars mission with people with the existing technology. Very, very unlikely.

The unlikeliness is not really related to the current technology. Our technology would already allow us to perfectly fly to and land on Mars. The only issue, beside that such a program would cost several 100 billion dollars, is time, i.e. the long term effects of weightlessness to the human body.

Going beyond the Mars....well....where exactly? And how exactly? We have the gas giants and their moons. Anyone who is familiar with the involved distances and traveling times should know that again, with the current technology they are simply not available for us (with humans). Even more sad, that even if they would be, the probability of finding anything radically worthwhile or interesting is very small. Beyond the solar system? The first and nearest stop would be the Alpha Centauri, "only" 4.6 light years away. And we have no idea whether it even have planets around it.

I agree that, from a present-day perspective, manned missions beyond our solar system seem to be utopian. But remember that when Columbus was discovering the northern American continent, nobody would have ever thought that it could be possible to "fly" over the Atlantic Ocean, in things of metal called airplanes, with a speed slightly below the speed of sound. Less than ever to travel into space and live there for ~6 month while the whole world can watch it live via a thing called "internet"

It's all really about present-day perspectives only. The world in the year 2110 for sure will look significantly different in compariosn to the present day.

[Spaceguy5]

Really I don't think weightlessness is the biggest problem with Mars spaceflight. Radiation is the hardest to solve x.x

[Moonwalker]

Really I don't think weightlessness is the biggest problem with Mars spaceflight. Radiation is the hardest to solve x.x

Shielding the crew from radiation is well achivable in comarsion to the long term effects of weightlessness, for which we don't have an existing solution against it yet.

There are two fictive solutions: either a new and more powerful propulsion technology (the more realistical one) to shorten the travel times, or artifical gravity which will for sure always remain fiction. The smaller the ship, the more unsustainable the required speed of rotation will be. The bigger the station would be, the more robust it has to be and the more mass it would have. For example, a station with a radius of 1 Km still would have to rotate with a speed of 360 Km/h at the outer wall to create a gravity of 1g. That thing would have to be very robust. It would have a mass of thousands of tons. It has to be carried to earth orbit, assembled like the ISS, prepared, make it rotate and accelerate the whole thing out of earth orbit. It will remain nothing more than a 2001 movie pipe dream.

The only realistical way to fly to Mars and return safely is to shorten the travel times. This would actually rule out all issues, i.e. the effects of weightlessness and radiation, because the time of exposure would be significantly less. You also wouldn't have to build massive space ships for long journyes. You'd safe mass, safe food etc...

Propulsion is the keyword. That's why Obama and NASA engineers say that we need to develope new propulsion technologies first, before we take steps beyond LEO.

[Spaceguy5]

That's more or less what I would have typed out had I not been too lazy =p If for instance the VASIMR engine functions as well as the Ad Astra Rocket Company advertises, weightlessness won't be much of a problem because trips to Mars will be much shorter.

But as for shielding against radiation, there aren't many solutions. We could make the spacecraft have a thick shield made out of lead (Or another radiation-absorbing material like tanks of water) to absorb the radiation, although that would take up lots of weight and space. Or another option I've heard of is giving the spacecraft an artificial magnetic field.

Spaceflight to Mars is a topic that I debated for hours about a few weeks ago as part of a NASA educational project <_<

[Tiberion]

What about the short term?  Follow what john glenn Recently said.
Extend the shuttle life through 2015/2016, 3 missions per year, 1 per Shuttle.
Allow a reduction in workforce based upon this to save the cash for the Washington suits, and, use the two year turnaround on the ET/SRB manufacturing to re-invest "mission money" those two years into KSC facilities upgrades (it needs it, especially the upper layers of the VAB) and begin the developement cycle/testing of Heavy Lift Rockets.

[Forrest White]

I know that today the USA pays 90 million dollars to Russia to send people to ISS on Soyuz rockets. I hope with the help of SpaceX company there won't be a need for that cooperation.

[Forrest White]

The USA, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Italy, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates have signed an international agreement on the exploration of the Moon. All the countries make their contribution to the mission - the USA is responsible for spacecraft for manned flight, Great Britan takes care of Getaway station and the part of Orion rocket. Besides, the UK has also different satellites for Earth-observation, third stages for cargo delivery, and Skylark Micro rocket. The new agreement defines the principles according to which the study of space objects should proceed in the future. According to the agreement, space research has a peaceful purpose - there shouldn't be any space race or war.  Countries defined an obligation to provide mutual assistance in the event of an emergency, the registration of space objects, the opening of access to scientific data, the protection of historical heritage, the proper use of lunar resources, conflict avoidance, and space debris.