Where will we be in terms of Space exploration in 10 years? (Very Optimistically)

[sevenperforce]

17 hours ago, Gaarst said:

I don't think SpaceX plans on doing 30 launches this year, and I also don't think that they are going to reuse recovered stages that soon. They can't even recover them successfully yet.

While SpaceX certainly won't be doing thirty launches this year, I don't see why they won't continue to recover stages. Not to fanboy, but landing a rocket on its tail is an engineering/guidance challenge, not a physics challenge, and SpaceX has hit all the high points there. The Orbcomm landing couldn't have been more perfect, and they've gotten the kinks out of water landings as well; the only reason Jason-3 failed was because it was using the v1.1 booster with the older, weaker landing legs. There's no reason to think that the next Falcon 9 booster to launch will also be the first orbital-class booster to be reused. All SpaceX has to do is offer reused boosters at a vastly discounted price (say, $40 million) and there will be numerous companies eager to jump on it; I'll predict we see a booster relaunch before July.

Either SES-9 (if they can stick the water landing) or CRS-8 would be refurbished and ready for reuse by the time JCSAT-14 or Amos-6 launch, and both JSAT and Spacecom would probably be willing to volunteer.

As far as the rest of the list, the political climate is really going to have to cool off before we get any kind of meaningful cooperation between the superpowers.

[kunok]

1 hour ago, Pipcard said:

Actually, with statements like this^, this section is both "overly optimistic SpaceX hype" and "overly pessimistic doom and gloom." And I disagree with both.

I like the "overly pessimistic doom and gloom" way more than the "optimistic Space x hype", I don't like none of them really but the first often has goods points and can be debated. The second sometimes look like the next thing they will says is "do you know our lord and savior Elon Musk?"

I think that the hype it's more for the lounge.

Regarding the topic, I'm bad doing predictions, but I will like to see an increased interest for venus, some floating probes, and the discover of the planet X, it will make astronomy more interesting for the public and maybe the space agencies have more funds and make a new international cooperation like the ISS

Edited February 3, 2016 by kunok

[KAL 9000]

My optimistic timeline:

2016-2017: SpaceX and Mars One decide to team up with thier Mars colonization plans

2018: SLS test flight (All Aboard the Hype Train!)

2023: First manned Orion/SLS flight to cislunar space

2025: China's first manned Moon landing/ USA returns to moon

2028: Small Moon base built

2030: Mars Sample Return

2035: First manned Mars mission (HYPE! HYPE! HYPE! HYPE! HYPE!)

Indefinite future: Alien life discovered on Mars/Europa/exoplanet; Kerbals arrive at Earth and broadcast this message: "Take us to your snacks" <- Yes, that last one was a joke

 

[tater]

Regarding changing laws... it's substantially more difficult that people who don't deeply understand American politics realize. NASA wants an entirely different system than what Congress makes them buy. Honestly, the reason for fanboism about companies like SpaceX and BO is largely driven by the reality that as a government entity, NASA is by definition political. It has always been so, and always will be so. That's what happens when you spend other people's money. The idea of private entities with motivations past the next election cycle is what drives a lot of the desire to see them succeed. It certainly does for me.

With NASA it's going to be kicking the can most of the time, honestly. 

8 minutes ago, KAL 9000 said:

My optimistic timeline:

2016-2017: SpaceX and Mars One decide to team up with thier Mars colonization plans

This would be SpaceX jumping the shark.

Mars One is utter nonsense on multiple levels. Why would SpaceX, a company that actually does something team up with penniless loons? The only result would be to make SpaceX look unserious.

[sevenperforce]

12 minutes ago, kunok said:

I will like to see an increased interest for venus, some floating probes, and the discover of the planet X, it will make astronomy more interesting for the public and maybe the space agencies have more funds and make a new international cooperation like the ISS

Slightly off-topic, but what are some of the science opportunities of having a floating probe in the Venusian atmosphere? Anything that could be done there that couldn't be done elsewhere?

[Spaceception]

17 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Slightly off-topic, but what are some of the science opportunities of having a floating probe in the Venusian atmosphere? Anything that could be done there that couldn't be done elsewhere?

The upper atmosphere of Venus might be a good place for a floating colony, 1 atm pressure, 60 c temperature, 2x the sunlight compared to Earth, low radiation, and .9 gees, but due to the Moon/Mars focus (Even if NASA/ESA/RSC/CSA don't team up, Russia and China both want manned Moon missions, same with ESA, but their plans are pretty much dead), I don't think we'll be "on" Venus until 2035-50.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Spaceception

[Findthepin1]

Bigelow sells their company in the early 2020s, likely to SpaceX. A bunch of asteroid mining companies start actually doing something. USA, India, China, Russia, Europe go to moon. Asteroid mining is restricted to space to prevent destroying the Terran economy by dumping ridiculous amounts of valuables into it. Now we have a space economy and a ground economy, and they stay basically separate until a space elevator is built. Earth ends up with lots of space elevators quickly. A Mars colony is planned and developed by a consortium of companies and something important fails and the project is abandoned. Life is discovered on Venus before 2030 and Europa before 2070. Humans go extinct before finding another civilization. The fact that the universe seems unaffected by advanced societies after 14 billion years means, IMO, something happens to them all when they reach a certain point. 

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, Findthepin1 said:

and they stay basically separate until a space elevator is built. Earth ends up with lots of space elevators quickly.

Space elevators before 2030? I know I'm optimistic, but I don't think we'll have space elevators until at least 2060 (And even then, we'll probably still be in construction phase), reusable rockets are far better (for now).

[sevenperforce]

3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

The upper atmosphere of Venus might be a good place for a floating colony, 1 atm pressure, 60 c temperature, 2x the sunlight compared to Earth, low radiation, and .9 gees.

Yeah, a floating colony on Venus would be really easy to build, but it would be hard to sustain. There's no source of water or raw materials since you're nowhere near the surface.

Hence the question of whether there would be scientific advantages to putting an unmanned floating probe on Venus. Maybe a gigantic inflatable radiotelescope?

5 minutes ago, Findthepin1 said:

A bunch of asteroid mining companies start actually doing something. USA, India, China, Russia, Europe go to moon. Asteroid mining is restricted to space to prevent destroying the Terran economy by dumping ridiculous amounts of valuables into it.

I doubt that.

Permanent, ongoing access to space beyond LEO will become inevitable just as soon as asteroid mining becomes profitable.

[Findthepin1]

Just now, Spaceception said:

Space elevators before 2030? I know I'm optimistic, but I don't think we'll have space elevators until at least 2060 (And even then, we'll probably still be in construction phase), reusable rockets are far better (for now).

No I meant later on like 2050 - 2060. 

[Spaceception]

Just now, Findthepin1 said:

No I meant later on like 2050 - 2060. 

Oh, you need to make a timeline for yourself, It looked like you were talking about 2030.

[kunok]

30 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Slightly off-topic, but what are some of the science opportunities of having a floating probe in the Venusian atmosphere? Anything that could be done there that couldn't be done elsewhere?

There are a lot of topics about that but some examples: at 50 km of altitude it has earth like conditions, maybe there is life (there is a little chemical disequilibrium in the atmosphere unexplained), the understanding of the atmosphere can improve our climate models and well it's the only planet with a gravity similar to earth's maybe it's the only really habitable in the long term.

Edited February 3, 2016 by kunok
typos

[KAL 9000]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Regarding changing laws... it's substantially more difficult that people who don't deeply understand American politics realize. NASA wants an entirely different system than what Congress makes them buy. Honestly, the reason for fanboism about companies like SpaceX and BO is largely driven by the reality that as a government entity, NASA is by definition political. It has always been so, and always will be so. That's what happens when you spend other people's money. The idea of private entities with motivations past the next election cycle is what drives a lot of the desire to see them succeed. It certainly does for me.

With NASA it's going to be kicking the can most of the time, honestly. 

This would be SpaceX jumping the shark.

Mars One is utter nonsense on multiple levels. Why would SpaceX, a company that actually does something team up with penniless loons? The only result would be to make SpaceX look unserious.

SpaceX teams up with Mars One... I forgot to add: Which happened to be Elon's worst business decision ever, causing everyone to laugh at them, only stopping when SpaceX threatens to crash Falcon 9s into the house of everybody that laughs at them.

[wumpus]

Space-x hype/fanboy reality check.

2002 Space-X founded.

2003 Falcon 1 launch planned (according to wiki)

2006 Falcon 1 actually launched (failed)

2008 fourth Falcon 1 launched, succeeded in placing a satellite in orbit (this was likely do or die for space-x)

2010 Falcon 9 launched (succeeded)

2013 Falcon 9 finally attempted landing test (succeed in orbit, decent engine cut out in flight.  Hit hard).

2013 Next attempted landing landed soft on water (and then sank as expected).  A further test soft landed in 2014

2015 Attempted 6 landings (not including total loss of booster and playload 6/28), landed one 12/22.

2015-2020 - don't expect even this speed (getting Falcon Heavy to [once] achieving full performance in 5 years).  Things will have to meet the speed of funding.  PS. Falcon 9 is a straight Falcon 1 derivative (much like Falcon Heavy is a straight Falcon 9 derivative (all use Merlin engines).  MCT is a completely different beast and will take a much longer schedule than 2002-2010 (from paper to launch the 10-merlin engine Falcon 9) to go from paper to a 10 (newly designed engines) MCT.

While Elon Musk may wave a public schedule with optimistic dates written on it (see 2003), the actual schedules used by Space-x are slow and methodical.  Compare this to the politics-driven NASA schedules and you will see death and destruction in forced schedules (while the shuttles are obvious, don't forget that Kennedy's 10 year deadline lead to Apollo 1).  While I'd expect regular landings of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy (at least the two "easy" boosters), I don't expect anything like the MCT being launched in 10 years.

Another thing to remember is that Space-x has to pay for itself.  Elon Musk's fortune may have been enough to push space-x through the early years, but the costs for the MCT isn't in the range of the Falcon 1.  They can only build with what they make on commercial flights, and that doesn't appear to be expanding anywhere near the rate some of these "optimistic" schedules require (see other space-x threads for launcher economics).  As long as Mr. Musk intends to keep Space-X private (until Mars), they will be constrained by launcher economics (if they EPO earlier, it is doubtful shareholders will let them go to Mars).

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, KAL 9000 said:

SpaceX teams up with Mars One... I forgot to add: Which happened to be Elon's worst business decision ever, causing everyone to laugh at them, only stopping when SpaceX threatens to crash Falcon 9s into the house of everybody that laughs at them.

Mars One is a scam, so Elon would just have been scammed.

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, Pipcard said:

 

Actually, with statements like this^, this section is both "overly optimistic SpaceX hype" and "overly pessimistic doom and gloom." And I disagree with both.

I just think it's gonna happen. I try to be a realist when I can. And to me it seems like space flight will be screwed.

[tater]

Why would you put a radio telescope on Venus? To intentionally make it difficult? NASA doesn't get "contracts" for stuff, or maybe it would make sense: 

"Place a radio telescope floating above Venus. Include 20,000 units of monopropellant, and 2000 units of ore from Mercury."

[magnemoe]

22 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Ten years?

That's where we'll be.

LOL where did you get that gif and that movie is it from?

[Motokid600]

55 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

LOL where did you get that gif and that movie is it from?

Its a movie called Idiocracy. I just googled it. Or as I like to call it. A documentary on the future of humanity. That is if the US education system has anything to say about it.

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Why would you put a radio telescope on Venus? To intentionally make it difficult? NASA doesn't get "contracts" for stuff, or maybe it would make sense: 

"Place a radio telescope floating above Venus. Include 20,000 units of monopropellant, and 2000 units of ore from Mercury."

I would understand a small one, to so radar observations of venus, but otherwise....

[tater]

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I would understand a small one, to so radar observations of venus, but otherwise....

Radio telescopes don't look down. Perhaps you're thinking of a radar mapper? 

[jwenting]

where will we be in 10 years?

Optimistically, where we are now.

Realistically, where we are now minus the ISS.

Pessimistically, just a few commercial satellite launches, no more exploration or scientific missions at all.

[Pipcard]

7 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Its a movie called Idiocracy. I just googled it. Or as I like to call it. A documentary on the future of humanity. That is if the US education system has anything to say about it.

But just don't take its premise too seriously.

[Motokid600]

7 minutes ago, Pipcard said:

But just don't take its premise too seriously.

Guess we'll find out in ten years.

[Nibb31]

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

All SpaceX has to do is offer reused boosters at a vastly discounted price (say, $40 million) and there will be numerous companies eager to jump on it; I'll predict we see a booster relaunch before July.

SpaceX doesn't sell boosters, it sells a launch service.The customer price is based on the weight of the payload and the orbit where they want it, and each mission is taylored around that requirement with a specific flight profiles. The price will probably vary based on whether they use a FH, a F9, a land recovery, a barge recovery, or no recovery, but ultimately, I don't think the customer will need to know how many times the booster has flown. That's SpaceX's business.

They are already the cheapest launch service around, and they need cash (lots of it) for their Mars projects. So why would they slash prices even more? Why kill the cash cow? It won't get them more customers and they will lose revenue. Reusability is a way to maximise revenue