What do you think the medium term future of space exploration will be like?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It would also introduce conflict, war, death... You probably think that it would make a nice setting for Sci-fi movie, but there is absolutely no need for militarization as long as there is no threat.

It could, unfortunately. Conflict is unavoidable, it has plagued human history, but it's what has moved technology the most.

31 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You also don't need to claim territory to exploit it. Fishermen have been exploiting the oceans for centuries without claiming territory. The Outer Space Treaty doesn't prevent exploitation.

Yep, and we've explored less than 5% of the ocean. There's no reason to. The biggest applications for oceans are military ships and oil extraction. And the oil rigs are located in exclusive economic zones (territory).

31 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You need to make a distinction between a country, its economy, and its government. Those are different things with different actors.

They're different things, but tied together.

31 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Anything that you have retained from 16th century history no longer applies. The world is a different place, with different actors and different rules.

Exploration doesn't always go with exploitation. Exploration goes hand in hand with science, extending our understanding of the universe. Whether that science can be applied to economical gain or not is moot.

The world is a different place, but logic hasn't changed. In order to invest in something, you have to know that you're going to get profit back, or else it would be the same as throwing cash away. That logic applies to building stuff, creating infrastructure, managing the economy and, in this case, colonizing places. Explain to me why our way of thinking should be different from the 16th century when it comes to colonies and exploration.

Research isn't done "for knowledge", it's done for profit or military advantages. If someone is going to build a chemistry lab, for example, the people that work there are going to be paid to work on something that the owner thinks is going to be lucrative, or in case of the military, produces something that would give an advantage over other forces.

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Guest

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

It could, unfortunately. Conflict is unavoidable, it has plagued human history, but it's what has moved technology the most.

It's all good to want to avoid conflict. Grabbing territories is only going to cause conflict. As I said, you might think that that would make an inspiring setting for science fiction, but conflict is not fun. We should be working to avoid confrontation, not to use it as a way to push space exploration.

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

Yep, and we've explored less than 5% of the ocean. There's no reason to. The biggest applications for oceans are military ships and oil extraction. And the oil rigs are located in exclusive economic zones (territory).

The biggest application for oceans, by far, is transportation.

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

They're different things, but tied together.

No. What's good for a country, what's good for the population, what's good for the economy, and what's good for the government can all be antinomic. Corporations, governments, and individuals often have very different goals and motivations.

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

The world is a different place, but logic hasn't changed. In order to invest in something, you have to know that you're going to get profit back, or else it would be the same as throwing cash away.

Who is "you" ? In the 16th Century, the investment was typically done by governments, often on assumptions that no longer apply today. None of that is applicable to any current government.

Of course, for the investment to be worthwhile, there needs to be an economical model. The model was obvious for establishing trade routes between the colonies and the European ports. There is no such model for a Mars colony, and that has nothing to do with militarization of space.

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

That logic applies to building stuff, creating infrastructure, managing the economy and, in this case, colonizing places. Explain to me why our way of thinking should be different from the 16th century when it comes to colonies and exploration.

Because there are many differences between colonizing the Americas or Australia, and colonizing Mars. For one thing, those places were actually inhabited, fertile, and offered resources that were both trade opportunities and sustenance for the colonies.

In most cases, trade routes existed before the idea of establishing colonies. Colonization was mostly a way of reinforcing those trade routes and making them more efficient. In other cases, settlers were attracted to the New World because it was easy to live off the land and colonies offered a brighter future to their children.

None of those factors apply to space.

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

Research isn't done "for knowledge", it's done for profit or military advantages. If someone is going to build a chemistry lab, for example, the people that work there are going to be paid to work on something that the owner thinks is going to be lucrative, or in case of the military, produces something that would give an advantage over other forces.

That's only for applied science, which is only a small part of scientific research. The motivation behind most scientific work, including exploration (which is now more like field research) is done to advance our knowledge of the universe. It is perfectly valid to pursue science without seeking an immediate economic gain.

[DDE]

4 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

By allowing countries to claim territory and put weapons in space, it would boost efforts into exploring it (for claiming territory), new technologies, etc. 

No reason. Large-scale permanent orbital presence is too vulnerable to surface-to-space weapons. Ultimately, there isn't that much utility in space-to-ground weapons compared to ground-to-ground weapon - orbits are inflexible, and unless you put the huge manufacturing facilities in orbit too, you basically need the same ICBMs to throw your weapons in orbit.

4 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

Exploration and exploitation go hand in hand. Just like it did back in 1500.

THERE IS NO SPICE ON MARS! The Columbus analogies don't work!

[DAL59]

Spice = Science/Tourists 

Not science divided by tourists, science and tourists

[PakledHostage]

3 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Not science divided by tourists, science and tourists

Thanks for clearing that up.

23 hours ago, NSEP said:

I'd rather pay for a brave and experienced scientist to go to Mars than go myself if i was a Billionaire.

Or a poet. One of the best mountaineering books that I have ever read (Summit Fever by Andrew Grieg) was written by an author who was chosen to accompany a British expedition to Mustagh Tower in Pakistan solely for his writing abilities. The expedition's patron requested that a writer be invited along so that the writer could capture the experience in words, allowing the financier to experience the expedition vicariously. What made the book particularly enjoyable was that Grieg himself was only a very casual climber, so he told the story from the perspective of a mere mortal, rather than from that of your typical 70's/80's  British hard man. If I were a billionaire financing an expedition to Mars, I'd take inspiration from that 1984 British Mustagh Tower expedition and ask that a writer/poet and maybe also a photographer be on the crew manifest.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

[...]

 

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

[...]

Good point

[Green Baron]

9 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Science & Tourists for money to space ? There is a video game i know ...

9 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:

*snip* If I were a billionaire financing an expedition to Mars, I'd take inspiration from that 1984 British Mustagh Tower expedition and ask that a writer/poet and maybe also a photographer be on the crew manifest.

Sounds like the 5th element ... :-))

[Diche Bach]

Is there a treaty that prevents a national entity from sending a robot ship to snag a "spicy" (Columbus, eat your heart out!) asteroid, tug it back to an (reasonably) safe orbit near Earth (maybe around the moon??) and then start carving off chunks and dropping them down to Earth in order to establish fiscal control over the range of elements the asteroid has in abundance?

In that sense, I think the Age of Mercantilism, and inevitable conflict (letters of marque!?) are salient, but I don't see how any "Treaties" are going to make much difference one way or another.

Unless someone with the money power to do it is afraid of sparking a war they cannot win, any treaties in their way will be regarded as orange road cones to be run over with disdain or surreptitiously moved to the side . . .

I'd have far more respect for any of the would-be "Space Pioneers" of this day and age if they expressed a vision more along these lines: I'm going to take control of the osmium, ruthenium, rhenium, etceterenium market and then sell it to the U.S. / E.U. -- or if they are too boneheaded about it Russia . . . if even THEY won't give me a good price then China, DPRK or Iran . . .

Once that rock was actually up there, Elon would have little trouble generating enough funding/staffing/interest that his "Die on Mars" Vision in his lifetime might come true . . .

Edited November 5, 2017 by Diche Bach

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Science & Tourists for money to space ? There is a video game i know ...

[DDE]

@Diche Bach, I think you underestimate how much firepower that will summon on your аss. The last circa three years in international relations have shown that bone-headed politics trump economics every goddamned time, no pun intended. You can fully expect your attempt to dominate the markets be boycotted by every player that matters, and then you yourself getting droned as a threat to world peace.

Basically, if you're gonna pull a Garin by crashing the world’s precious metal markets, you better have a death ray.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by DDE

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

@Diche Bach, I think you underestimate how much firepower that will summon on your аss. The last circa three years in international relations have shown that bone-headed politics trump economics every goddamned time, no pun intended. You can fully expect your attempt to dominate the markets be boycotted by every player that matters, and then you yourself getting droned as a threat to world peace.

Basically, if you're gonna pull a Garin by crashing the world’s precious metal markets, you better have a death ray.

 

Don't see the issue, marked change are pretty common even on raw materials. New mines or ways to mine, new technology might also change demand for various materials. 
US changed the oil and gas marked a lot with fracking, this has the secondary effect on coal who looses out. 
Rare earths is another case even if different in that I'm not sure all rare earths would be used a lot more if cheap, gold an platinum would find more uses if cheaper on the other hand.
Some might find an way to make large artificial diamonds as another change. 

[DDE]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

US changed the oil and gas marked a lot with fracking, this has the secondary effect on coal who looses out. 

Saudi shenanigans may have had just as mich to do with that.

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Some might find an way to make large artificial diamonds as another change. 

The De Beers have had wars started over less.

Edited November 6, 2017 by DDE

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Saudi shenanigans may have had just as mich to do with that.

The De Beers have had wars started over less.

Oil production increased a lot, US is now the largest oil producer. This will obviously reduce the price.  

De Beers lost it monopoly 20 years ago.

Synthetic diamonds is old as in 1950, think most industrial ones are synthetic now, you can even get Synthetic gemstones of smaller size. 
 

 

[DAL59]

Isaic Arthur just made a great video about colonizing Titan.  Not inhabiting the planet itself, but using its cooling ability for computing and industry.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by DAL59

[tater]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Isaic Arthur just made a great video about colonizing Titan.  Not inhabiting the planet itself, but using its cooling ability for computing and industry.

If human beings are not having children there, it's not a colony. I think bases, and or automated resource extraction is a possibly great idea, but it's not colonization.

What is the definition of "medium term," BTW? Because there is no chance at all of this at Titan in the medium term.

Edited November 6, 2017 by tater

[Ultimate Steve]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

If human being are not having children there, it's not a colony. I think bases, and or automated resource extraction is a possibly great idea, but it's not colonization.

What is the definition of "medium term," BTW? Because there is no chance at all of this at Titan in the medium term.

Almost no chance. You can never know exactly which way the future will go.

Medium term as I said in the OP was until 2100.

 

Also this thread has turned more into a "why explore" argument than I intended for it to. Someone is welcome to make a separate thread for that debate if they would like to.

[tater]

Medium term seems more about exploration than colonization (Musk wishful thinking, aside).

Titan seems pretty unlikely, even at 2100. 

[DAL59]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Also this thread has turned more into a "why explore" argument than I intended for it to. Someone is welcome to make a separate thread for that debate if they would like to.

Well, the majority of the thread has been about that, and it is relevant to the economics and politics of it, so I think its a bit late.  

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Medium term seems more about exploration than colonization (Musk wishful thinking, aside).

Titan seems pretty unlikely, even at 2100

Even with chemical propulsion, a manned mission to Titan might be feasible in the mid century.  Easy ISRU, and aerobraking ability.  It would take a couple decades though, which is not good.  Topor would really help.   

With gas core nuclear or pulsed plasmoids, transit times could be reduced to 2 years or less.  

I actually cooperated with @GLaDOS42 on a design for a station that would go to Saturn for a NASA challenge.  It involved several hundred bigelow olympus modules in a ring connecting to a central shaft of 6 olympus modules, with the docking complex in front of the center and a fuel tank behind.  Quite expensive.  

https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Contest/

[tater]

We'll be lucky to see a manned Mars mission by mid century.

[DAL59]

Whats wrong with Musk's plan?  Or Zubrins?  

[tater]

Just now, DAL59 said:

Whats wrong with Musk's plan?  Or Zubrins?  

The Musk plan is fine if he self-finances it. It's a non-starter for NASA, however.

Mars Direct is currently the basis for the various NASA DRA/DRM studies, but NASAfied. Meaning less low-budget, far more risk averse, backups for everything. It's a very dead horse. They've said how much extra $$ it would take, and that's money they will not get. Doesn't matter if 100 different entities can design missions that work within the NASA budget, that's not how the sausage gets made. Thoughts otherwise are wishful thinking, and that plus $3-5 gets you a girly coffee at starbucks.

 

[DAL59]

Just now, tater said:

if he self-finances it.

He's suggested he will.  

[tater]

Just now, DAL59 said:

He's suggested he will.  

No. He said he wants to be the transportation company. That's different. I'll believe it when I see it. I think the plan is to send unmanned BFS to Mars, and that might well happen. A crew flight is another animal that I am very "wait and see" about. I think an uncrewed flight can get some NASA backing at some level, particularly any follow-up flights.

Don't get me wrong, it's something I would love to see, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Well, the majority of the thread has been about that, and it is relevant to the economics and politics of it, so I think its a bit late.  

Even with chemical propulsion, a manned mission to Titan might be feasible in the mid century.  Easy ISRU, and aerobraking ability.  It would take a couple decades though, which is not good.  Topor would really help.   

With gas core nuclear or pulsed plasmoids, transit times could be reduced to 2 years or less.  

I actually cooperated with @GLaDOS42 on a design for a station that would go to Saturn for a NASA challenge.  It involved several hundred bigelow olympus modules in a ring connecting to a central shaft of 6 olympus modules, with the docking complex in front of the center and a fuel tank behind.  Quite expensive.  

https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Contest/

True an manned mission is plausible. Mission not colony. 

[DDE]

9 hours ago, DAL59 said:

He's suggested he will.  

His purse isn’t bottomless, and he couldn’t finance Apollo. To assume the BFR would be cheaper than that is ludicrous.