The Dark (seriously, very dark) future of human space flight

[stellarator]

Humanity is going towards home instead of expanding itself to the space. The budgets of the Space Agencies all over the world dedicated to mantain or expand the human presence on space are lowering slowly. In 60's we sent a man to the moon. In 2020's we're going to send an human with a technology years-light of distance to Apollo to Moon Orbit to retrieve a little asteroid. How embarrasing!

The ARM is only an excuse to keep SLS alive, because it's a rocket that hasn't sense. It was desgined, and now, they have to search a mission for him. It isn't the way to make a giant rocket like SLS (i think that a launch of this monster costs many millions dollars, not 6 or 17, im talking about 600 milliosn at least (i dont rememeber the exact cost)). The ARM Mission is a mission that scientist don't want, it will be more cheaper send the asteroide to the moon, refuel the probe and put it near ISS, where a normal ship like Dragon v2, CST 100, Soyuz or PTK-NP can reach it.

But Russia isn't better. The giant rocket of Russia has been cancelled (another like SLS). I think that this is a godd idea. Instead, they will do a 35 tonnes-to-orbit rocket. With two of them, they will sent a new PTK-NP to Moon orbit. The Number of Russian cargo ships delivered to ISS is going to be reduced due to the arrive of new commercial ships like dragon or CST-100.

ESA is another history. They haven't a manned program with their own space ship. They pay seats on other ships.

And China... I put my hopes on China. Because they can reach moon on 7-10 years with their actual technology, if they use their resources properly.

Unmanned exploration is another story, but it isnt enough. I don't feel comfortable knowing that today, only 6-8 humans are outside Earth's atmosphere.

What do you think? post your comments.

Also, if you understand a bit of spanish, i highly recommend you this web: www.danielmarin.naukas.com

[billbobjebkirk]

ARM is intended to be a technology demonstration for SEP, Orion, and SLS, while still being able to achieve a scientific benefit. These technologies are intended for building up to a mars mission in the 2030s. Heavy luft rockets are still a neccesity for long distance manned exploration, the failure of the Space Shuttle showed it. Wuth current technology, it's just not economical to launch big things in small parts.

EDIT: also, unmanned exploration is still alive and well, and there are plenty of exciting prospects for it in the 2020s, some of which can be carried on by SLS.

[stellarator]

ARM is intended to be a technology demonstration for SEP, Orion, and SLS, while still being able to achieve a scientific benefit. These technologies are intended for building up to a mars mission in the 2030s.

But the reality is that NASA hasnt got enough budget to put a man on Mars's surface. As much, they have money to a Phobos-Deimos mission.

[billbobjebkirk]

But the reality is that NASA hasnt got enough budget to put a man on Mars's surface. As much, they have money to a Phobos-Deimos mission.

You're assuming that nothing will change between now and 2030, even though we have a decade and a half for things to progress. I do think that the most they will have done by 2033 will be a Phobos-Diemos mission, but that's still quite an achievment.

[ChrisSpace]

Your opening comment is similar to my one blog post. I agree, NASA, Russia and the ESA are never going to send humans past low earth orbit again, with the possible exception of the ARM asteroid mission.

China, India and SpaceX are our best hopes right now.

[CptRichardson]

You're assuming that nothing will change between now and 2030, even though we have a decade and a half for things to progress. I do think that the most they will have done by 2033 will be a Phobos-Diemos mission, but that's still quite an achievment.

You're right. Things will change between now and then. The SLS will get canceled due to short-sighted politicians, and we'll be left with no manned spaceflight outside of Musk at all. In SpaceX we unfortunately HAVE to trust....

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree, NASA's budget is notoriously shaky, and SLS is by no means a sure thing yet. However, it seems to me that there appears to be a greater approval of spaceflight among the general populace more recently, and NASA's budget for this year has increased significantly. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I believe that we may see a resurgence of spaceflight in the near future. Of course, that could just be misplaced optimism.

As for SpaceX, Elon's going to Mars. He's proven he has what it takes to do crazy wonderful things, and I think he's going to succeed in making humanity a two-planet species.

[Reddragon]

Your opening comment is similar to my one blog post. I agree, NASA, Russia and the ESA are never going to send humans past low earth orbit again, with the possible exception of the ARM asteroid mission.

China, India and SpaceX are our best hopes right now.

India and China need to boost their space budget by a large margin then and even though they could, they don't plan to. SpaceX doesn't have a budget like a national space agency has. They entirely depend on NASA and other commercial contracts...

[Firwen]

As for SpaceX, Elon's going to Mars. He's proven he has what it takes to do crazy wonderful things, and I think he's going to succeed in making humanity a two-planet species.

I like SpaceX and I would not like to break your dreams... but SpaceX is a company and like any other company, they are here to be profitable and make money. Making sciences progress and helping humankind are side effects for them, not primary goals.

They will really invest money and time to do a Manned Mission on Mars only if it is financially interesting to do, and currently, it's not.

Pionners manned Mars mission need to come from public funded organizations like NASA, ESA or NGO. Nobody else would accept to invest the amount of money necessary to such programs without any guarantee return on investment.

The main problem we have now, is that such organizations got funding from public, and general public do not understand nor approve such program.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Firwen

[Karriz]

Your opening comment is similar to my one blog post. I agree, NASA, Russia and the ESA are never going to send humans past low earth orbit again, with the possible exception of the ARM asteroid mission.

China, India and SpaceX are our best hopes right now.

China and India aren't more likely to send humans beyond LEO than NASA, unless they get a big budget boost.

Really, I think we won't go anywhere with expendable rockets, but SpaceX is certainly bringing some hope in the form of reusability, and now other companies are taking them seriously too.

If the prices drop, nations will start doing all sorts of cool things in space. NASA won't stick to SLS if there's a much cheaper option.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Karriz

[cptdavep]

I like SpaceX and I would not like to break your dreams... but SpaceX is a company and like any other company, they are here to be profitable and make money. Making sciences progress and helping humankind are side effects for them, not primary goals.

They will really invest money and time to do a Manned Mission on Mars only if it is financially interesting to do, and currently, it's not.

Pionners manned Mars mission need to come from public funded organizations like NASA, ESA or NGO. Nobody else would accept to invest the amount of money necessary to such programs without any guarantee return on investment.

The main problem we have now, is that such organizations got funding from public, and general public do not understand nor approve such program.

Hmmm, I think you're being a bit cynical here, maybe I'm just a fanboy falling for his good PR, but I actually believe Musk when he says the primary goal of Space X is to colonise mars. Every time you hear the man speak about the founding of SpaceX and his companies primary goal, mars is all he ever talks about. Also, they're already actively researching the massive rocket to do it (I believe engine testing should begin soon, and he said he'd unveil the design for the Mars Colonial Transport this year). I think Musk is just disappointed at mankind's progress since the end of the 60's, and is trying to use his companies to achieve the vision of the future he dreams of.

[ZetaX]

I am going to repeat what I said last time this came up: there is simply no reason to send humans beyond NEO (probably even not beyond LEO). Everything farther away is best done by robots (e.g. researching planets/asteroids) or directly on earth (e.g. psychological effects of isolation or building geodomes).

And this time: please don't respond with "arguments" that are just a very convoluted version of "space is cool". Yes, it is. Doesn't justify spending craploads of money on something of little scientific value that could have been done at 1/10th the price by robots or on earth.

[Skyler4856]

And that is why private corporations will achieve advanced spaceflight/exploration before governmental organizations. Their budgets are higher, and people shall search for ways to market space...

[Firwen]

I am going to repeat what I said last time this came up: there is simply no reason to send humans beyond NEO (probably even not beyond LEO). Everything farther away is best done by robots (e.g. researching planets/asteroids) or directly on earth (e.g. psychological effects of isolation or building geodomes).

And this time: please don't respond with "arguments" that are just a very convoluted version of "space is cool". Yes, it is. Doesn't justify spending craploads of money on something of little scientific value that could have been done at 1/10th the price by robots or on earth.

Again, It is your point of views and your "arguments", not the one of everyone here.

A lot of experiments today can be done only by humans due to their complexity, and only this justify human spaceflight outside of earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm, I think you're being a bit cynical here, maybe I'm just a fanboy falling for his good PR, but I actually believe Musk when he says the primary goal of Space X is to colonise mars. Every time you hear the man speak about the founding of SpaceX and his companies primary goal, mars is all he ever talks about

I may be

Or I simply get old.

I trust only facts, not promises, and specially not the ones from politicians and businessmen.

When SpaceX will fund on its own a probe or anything concrete to go there, I will start to believe in this. For now, this is just nice communication and free publicity for them.

[ZetaX]

Again, It is your point of views and your "arguments", not the one of everyone here.

A lot of experiments today can be done only by humans due to their complexity, and only this justify human spaceflight outside of earth.

I see that it is not the argument of everyone here, as many here have a very naive, KSPesk, understanding on the ramifications. They are mostly thinking about "space is cool" and thereby simplifying everything to a point where it has no footing in reality. Reality is not a game.

And you still have not mentioned any experiment that could not be done by a robot at least equally well. The only ones that were given last time where ones on effects on humans, and all those were perfectly testable in LEO (microgravity effects and such) or on earth (isolation etc.). Robots can do a lot already, saying that there are complex things that only humans can do is mostly an argument from ignorance. Dismissing someone by an equivalent of "that's just your oppinion" is a pretty bad behaviour in a discussion.

The reason our mars rovers cannot do more is already mainly due to size/mass limits, not because we couldn't do better. With the money and mass restrictions of human mars expeditions we could send hundreds, if not thousands of Spirits and another bunch of Curiosities. And all of them significantly larger and more advanced (both by complexity and being newer) than their earlier counterparts.

Edited April 28, 2015 by ZetaX

[Sigma88]

Humanity is going towards home instead of expanding itself to the space. The budgets of the Space Agencies all over the world dedicated to mantain or expand the human presence on space are lowering slowly.

What do you think? post your comments.

I think Darwin is the key here.

Evolution by Natural Selection: A species that do not look to colonize space will be "selected out" when the planet dies.

Making it a "bad" trait in a species.

[Karriz]

I see that it is not the argument of everyone here, as many here have a very naive, KSPesk, understanding on the ramifications. They are mostly thinking about "space is cool" and thereby simplifying everything to a point where it has no footing in reality. Reality is not a game.

And you still have not mentioned any experiment that could not be done by a robot at least equally well. The only ones that were given last time where ones on effects on humans, and all those were perfectly testable in LEO (microgravity effects and such) or on earth (isolation etc.). Robots can do a lot already, saying that there are complex things that only humans can do is mostly an argument from ignorance. Dismissing someone by an equivalent of "that's just your oppinion" is a pretty bad behaviour in a discussion.

The reason our mars rovers cannot do more is already mainly due to size/mass limits, not because we couldn't do better. With the money and mass restrictions of human mars expeditions we could send hundreds, if not thousands of Spirits and another bunch of Curiosities. And all of them significantly larger and more advanced (both by complexity and being newer) than their earlier counterparts.

While there may not be much of a scientific reason to do human spaceflight beyond LEO, there's clearly a lot of interest in it. Price is what makes it difficult to justify right now.

But once it's affordable, why not? Even if it's just for the coolness factor. Then of course there's colonization, which is a more long-term goal and won't have immediate benefits, but it'll happen.

[WinkAllKerb'']

I m not sure human is a specie ; ) may be more a sum of many species like thoose with all it implies in term of micro ecosystem ... i ll think i ll bet on the smaller one more than human

An entitiy forgiving what's it's made off and to what point it's environnement diversity impact on it's own genetic evolution over time won't last long in space imho. +1 dare what ? dare who a yeah ? dare win agree somehow ; ).

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[ZetaX]

While there may not be much of a scientific reason to do human spaceflight beyond LEO, there's clearly a lot of interest in it. Price is what makes it difficult to justify right now.

But once it's affordable, why not? Even if it's just for the coolness factor. Then of course there's colonization, which is a more long-term goal and won't have immediate benefits, but it'll happen.

I have no objections to that and even agree fully. I assumed this thread is concerned about the nearer future (say: up to 2050) and the current types of space flight. If space travel actually becomes as cheap as a flight to the other end of the world, then sure, we can and probably should do human space flights. Even pure tourism is fine, but it's a long way untill we will be there.

Colonization is also a good goal and not only will probably happen, but also _should_ happen (how to build geodomes, space habitats, do terraforming are all useful skills; trying to make humanity more resistant to the largest ELEs [supernovae, the sund dying, ...] is also a possible goal). But as you said, that's pretty long-term (it is really hard to make accurate predictions, but beginning before 2100 sounds very sketchy).

- - - Updated - - -

I m not sure human is a specie ; ) may be more a sum of many species like thoose with all it implies in term of micro ecosystem ... i ll think i ll bet on the smaller one more than human

I don't really get what you are talking about here. Humans are a single species to the fullest of the definitions. If there is one I am missing please point me to it.

An entitiy forgiving what's is made off and to what point it's environnement diversity impact on it's own genetic evolution over time won't last long in space imho. +1 dare what ? dare who a yeah ? dare win agree somhow ; ).

Umm, what¿

[Sigma88]

I m not sure human is a specie ; ) may be more a sum of many species like thoose with all it implies in term of micro ecosystem ... i ll think i ll bet on the smaller one more than human

An entitiy forgiving what's it's made off and to what point it's environnement diversity impact on it's own genetic evolution over time won't last long in space imho. +1 dare what ? dare who a yeah ? dare win agree somehow ; ).

homo sapiens is a species.

and yes' date=' going to space without considering all the variables will be an error.

The OP was concerned about people losing interest in space exploration, and this is my take on it.

If we lose the curiosity of going outside the earth we will last [u']AT MOST untill earth is not livable anymore, ask the dinosaurs if you don't believe me.

[Karriz]

I have no objections to that and even agree fully. I assumed this thread is concerned about the nearer future (say: up to 2050) and the current types of space flight. If space travel actually becomes as cheap as a flight to the other end of the world, then sure, we can and probably should do human space flights. Even pure tourism is fine, but it's a long way untill we will be there.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I expect the prices to drop quite a lot in the next 20 years. Not to airplane levels, but to the level where a manned launch to LEO would cost just a few million dollars. That's of course assuming that SpaceX, Skylon or something else gets the prices to that level.

[WinkAllKerb'']

amongst a few other things, speaking of the time required for an entity to adapte in a said new/changing environnement (and eventually gravitationnal, light intensity, duration, time stamp lap while travelling).

More complex is the entity in term of other smaller sum with there own evolutions amongst time more complex are all the links to take into account for long distance/time travel. Minimizing some aspect and oversight some of the link "could" be deadly in term of medium/long term genetic degenerensce by lack of variety from the travel environnement.

Some do minimize thing due to there lifespan selfhish interest. I N A C E P T A B L E regarding medium/longterm Risk management

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[FishInferno]

SpaceX will do it. The Musk is strong in them, I can sense it...

- - - Updated - - -

on a more serious note, NASA's problem is that they are using 1970s technology to build the SLS, while SpaceX is being innovative with modern technology.

[AngelLestat]

The current Nasa budget it will be enoght for a manned mission to Venus if its very focus and cost efficient organized, but to do that they will need to cut a big part of their thoudsand of different research and operations they do at the same time.

Of course that is not the way.. something that a manned mission can achieve is people and goverment suport. But you need to present a solid and complete plan of how to do it.. not just.. "this may work", you need to show them confidence.

The falcon heavy 1st stage reusability will need to be mature for that time.

A coperative mission between countries may help for the mars case because you need at least 4 or 5 astronauts there.. In the venus case where you can sent just 2 astronauts it will not help much.. because each country would want to sent their own astronauts.

Right now countries needs to stop making new weapons or keep putting money in army research, because is completely pointless today.

I know that war is a business and they get some profits with that, but that is ending due globalization, media and public opinion, it generates big country loses against few profits that only receive some people in power.

So they will need to cut with all that sooner or later, and the only way to show superiority after that is with big achievements.

And how countries can not get gain new lands or resources out of their limits.. the only way is to get those in space.

Nobody can "conquer" other planets.. but anyone who arrives will be able to exploit them.

Exploit a planet is not just extract resources... There is development and new science.. you put some infrastructure that can be used for other countries later, etc. Also being in the edge of exploration and knowledge, that country becomes a magnet for the people more capable and intelligent from earth, which they will generate more profits.

Edited April 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Firwen]

Robots can do a lot already, saying that there are complex things that only humans can do is mostly an argument from ignorance. Dismissing someone by an equivalent of "that's just your oppinion" is a pretty bad behaviour in a discussion.

I apologize if I offended you. Far from being what I looked for.

I simply do not see the point to discuss manned vs unmanned space exploration again, this has been reviewed and documented countless number of times in the literature. And a simple scholar.google.com query would give you as many information as you want.

Most of the reasons are obvious. The reason we do today unmanned mission is mainly because of cost and simplicity.... NASA does not have unlimited budget and the Apollo missions and the ISS are a brilliant example of how costly human flight is.

However, a bunch of humans on Mars in a ISS-sized landed laboratory would open experiments possibilities that you would not even dream of ( bio/botanical experiments, life development under Mars gravity, Terraformation experiments, long range explorations, advanced chemical analysis.... ).

I think I'm pretty well informed on what Robots can do and can not. Simply because it's part of my job.

As cool as Robots are and as performant as they tend to be, they are not magic and they are still far from human flexibility. They are good to do simple, repetitive task, in well defined environments, in space like every-where else.

Or you should ask yourself, why we have the ISS today and why we do not have replaced everything by Robots on Earth

What we name today robots, are not robots, but mainly remote controlled un-brained "bot" trying to do pre-programmed defined job.

This has a lot of limitations. Speed of light being what it is, you will and will always have ultra-high latency in remote space operations which limit a lot what you can do and what you cannot. This is not KSP, in real world latency matter.

A Mars round-trip-time is around 20min, this is awfully long. If Curiosity has between 2012 and 2014 done only 8.4km (which is already amazing), it is mainly due to the complexity to operate with precision any unmanned probe over such high latency. Each little movement need to be verified carefully after a 20 min delay....

Without even mentioning that if space radioactivity impacts living creature already badly, it is even worst with Electronic. Any Electronic designed for space need to be specially designed, tend to be unreliable, and is millions time less powerful than common available Earth-Chinese-electronic nowadays.

Advanced AI could theoretically solve this, but they come with their own set of problems, are not adapted to today embedded systems, even less to space ones.