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

[DAL59]

Interesting:

http://www.tdf.it/IC2/ACTA/BERNASCONI-IC2.pdf

[DDE]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Cube sats to outer planets would not work well. You want high-gain antennas, or the bandwidth sucks.

That didn’t stop Galileo. Also, the smaller the sat, the less data it’s going to send, quite likely.

10 hours ago, DAL59 said:

SpaceX manufactures its own parts, rather than shipping from a hundred contractors around the country.  

Yes, but this assumes they’ll be able to stick with that paradigm as they begin to work on a noticeably different and infinitely more complex product. The BFR SpaceX is unlikely to particularly resemble the SpaceX we love (to hate).

11 hours ago, magnemoe said:

It would be vise of them to keep the falcon 9 production lines open, yest perhaps move most over to BFR but keep the lines and the know-how even if you don't need it at the moment because of stockpiles and reuse. 

I heavily suspect that the logistically and economically optimal size of the reusable launcher is something like Falcon 9 or even Falcon 1 or Angara. Just imagine trying to coordinate the payload of a cargo BFR.

Edited November 9, 2017 by DDE

[Oiff]

I expect we will get a breakthrough in AI within the next few decades, the AI will reach a point where it will be able to outperform human scientists.

At this point you send the AI to explore space at much lower cost, the AI can make most decisions itself based on its mission instructions so can work quickly not having to wait for commands from Earth.  As an added benefit it can process the data reducing transmission overheads further.

 

 

As for human colonisation this could happen for political reasons rather than financial ones.  If terrorist threats continue to escalate I can see people may want to escape that.  Or if there is a nuclear war it may suddenly became very inhospitable on this planet making other options seem a lot better.

[DDE]

14 minutes ago, Oiff said:

I expect we will get a breakthrough in AI within the next few decades, the AI will reach a point where it will be able to outperform human scientists.

At this point you send the AI to explore space at much lower cost, the AI can make most decisions itself based on its mission instructions so can work quickly not having to wait for commands from Earth.  As an added benefit it can process the data reducing transmission overheads further.

No Buck Rogers, no bucks. Public funding for space exploration is driven solely by the dream of manned exploration. Remove that, and forget ever venturing outside L1 solar weather sats.

 

16 minutes ago, Oiff said:

As for human colonisation this could happen for political reasons rather than financial ones.  If terrorist threats continue to escalate I can see people may want to escape that.  Or if there is a nuclear war it may suddenly became very inhospitable on this planet making other options seem a lot better.

There is absolutely zero benefit in going into space to survive a nuclear war. In both cases you’re basically stuck cooped up in a bunker.

And a terrorist threat in space is downright greater than on Earth. You’ll start to encounter it as soon as regular Joes make it into orbit (and there’s a lot of things for a saboteur to break up there), and if a super-ISIS secures medium-range ballistic missiles they’ll be able to directly shoot down anything in near-Earth space.

[tater]

5 hours ago, DDE said:

That didn’t stop Galileo. Also, the smaller the sat, the less data it’s going to send, quite likely.

The high-gain failed to properly deploy. It was not improperly designed without a high-gain. The resulting bandwidth was far lower.

The spacecraft was designed in the late 1970s, and launched so late due to the Challenger disaster. A modern sat would have instruments that generate far more data than one from the 70s. Look at cameras now vs then. Even a cubesat would likely be generating far more data than Galileo ever did.

[DAL59]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

8 hours ago, tater said:

The high-gain failed to properly deploy. It was not improperly designed without a high-gain. The resulting bandwidth was far lower.

The spacecraft was designed in the late 1970s, and launched so late due to the Challenger disaster. A modern sat would have instruments that generate far more data than one from the 70s. Look at cameras now vs then. Even a cubesat would likely be generating far more data than Galileo ever did.

Makes you wonder... If you could sort long distance communications out, one could probably design a Jupiter probing cubesat and a few solid kick stages, totaling a mass of under a metric ton, which could actually launch as a secondary payload...

[tater]

If you have an orbiter that can relay, then this could be doable. 

[Ultimate Steve]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

If you have an orbiter that can relay, then this could be doable. 

One might be able to convince NASA to let them use Juno, but there's still the issue of not being able to talk to the probe for most of the interplanetary voyage (and more likely than not a course correction will probably be needed).

[tater]

The idea of a probe bus (with a high gain) dispensing cube sats that have propulsion is not a bad idea, assuming they could have enough dv to scatter around and make themselves useful. The problem is really power. At Mars solar is OK, but it becomes troublesome farther out. By Saturn you'd want RTGs on them.

[DDE]

7 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

there's still the issue of not being able to talk to the probe for most of the interplanetary voyage

Surviving this isn’t completely unprecedented. Soviet Moon sample return vehicles had no telemetry gear whatsoever.

[wumpus]

On 11/9/2017 at 3:08 AM, DDE said:

Yes, but this assumes they’ll be able to stick with that paradigm as they begin to work on a noticeably different and infinitely more complex product. The BFR SpaceX is unlikely to particularly resemble the SpaceX we love (to hate).

Tesla also produces as many parts as possible (and is building a factory to manufacture their own batteries).  Musk seems pretty committed to this strategy.  Of course, this makes funding the BFR that much harder.  Right now, the rationalization requires believing that the rocket will fly 1000 times and presumably be mostly full.  I'm guessing they will be advancing the rocket with the smallest engineering crew possible (which is typically the most efficient) and not worry about schedules until they can fill up Falcon Heavy (to be more efficient than a Falcon 9) on a regular basis (of course, nobody really accuses Musk of worrying about schedules at all).

[DAL59]

Bye the way, the original FH wasn't going to be reusable.  The 4 year delay made sense because they had to develop reusability for the F9 first.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

23 hours ago, wumpus said:

Tesla also produces as many parts as possible (and is building a factory to manufacture their own batteries).  Musk seems pretty committed to this strategy

http://www.autonews.com/article/20171101/OEM05/171109969/tesla-posts-record-671-million-loss-in-q3?CSAuthResp=1%3A873664435452250%3A423309%3A1%3A24%3Aapproved%3A6FB261E22669BD3A726798B6977BB956

I have a feeling, Jupiter is in order, not just Mars.

Edited November 11, 2017 by kerbiloid

[A Soviet Tank]

Someone other than America needs to make a huge step in spaceflight (like a moon base or something), so that 'Space Race 2: Interplanetary Boogaloo' can happen. I doubt we'll get any further than manned moon missions without another space race type thing. But this may just be my pessimistic attitude talking. 

[DDE]

1 hour ago, A Soviet Tank said:

so that 'Space Race 2: Interplanetary Boogaloo' can happen

I'm not sure that set-up is repeatable. Between the sociological and PR differences making obfuscation a fairly effective and cheap method of maintaining national prestige these days (the 24-hour news cycle, yadda yadda yadda), and the fact that massive rockets are no longer considered the cutting edge of technology, CRISPR is... I'm not sure a red flag on the Red Planet would particularly bother the other likely competitor.

Edited November 14, 2017 by DDE

[A Soviet Tank]

56 minutes ago, DDE said:

I'm not sure that set-up is repeatable. Between the sociological and PR differences making obfuscation a fairly effective and cheap method of maintaining national prestige these days (the 24-hour news cycle, yadda yadda yadda), and the fact that massive rockets are no longer considered the cutting edge of technology, CRISPR is... I'm not sure a red flag on the Red Planet would particularly bother the other likely competitor.

I suppose nowadays there would be much less interest in space from the government. But it could spark more interest in space travel from the public, and potentially mean more money for the non governmental space organisations. But I guess your right, the space race sequel is very unlikely. 

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, A Soviet Tank said:

Someone other than America needs to make a huge step in spaceflight (like a moon base or something), so that 'Space Race 2: Interplanetary Boogaloo' can happen. I doubt we'll get any further than manned moon missions without another space race type thing. But this may just be my pessimistic attitude talking. 

Yes. Let's rush to accomplish something great and then never do it again. 

The space race did more harm than good, arguably. Sure, it was great to land on the Moon, but as soon as they did so, Apollo was basically under attack.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Yes. Let's rush to accomplish something great and then never do it again. 

The space race did more harm than good, arguably. Sure, it was great to land on the Moon, but as soon as they did so, Apollo was basically under attack.

Apollo was funded at an unsustainable level, and was bound to end up with a massive retraction of funding. The Carter Admin's era would have finished it off, anyway given the economics of the period.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Apollo was funded at an unsustainable level, and was bound to end up with a massive retraction of funding. The Carter Admin's era would have finished it off, anyway given the economics of the period.

Yeah. But Apollo also wasn't intended to be sustainable. It was intended to put men on the Moon before the 1960s were over, to show the world who was top dog.

Apollo got us to the Moon, but didn't keep us there. 

[tater]

True, I was thinking of the later missions planned when the budget was there. They also had legit safety concerns. 

[DDE]

6 hours ago, A Soviet Tank said:

But it could spark more interest in space travel from the public, and potentially mean more money for the non governmental space organisations.

Crowdfunded spaceflight is a complete non-starter. A promise of instant gratification with video game starships was enough to raise $150+ million, but that’s probably the limit and it might just crash and burn and cause a backlash against crowdfunding in general.

Gotta use that state monopoly on violence to raise the requisite heaps of cash.

[A Soviet Tank]

8 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yes. Let's rush to accomplish something great and then never do it again. 

The space race did more harm than good, arguably. Sure, it was great to land on the Moon, but as soon as they did so, Apollo was basically under attack.

Yeah, but another space race would mean loads of cool new launch systems and space tech would be left over, allowing for cheaper spaceflight afterwards, and making it easier for space to continue advancing even after the space race. Although, we'd never really know unless it happened. It could just leave us with a flag on Mars and nothing else. 

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Crowdfunded spaceflight is a complete non-starter. A promise of instant gratification with video game starships was enough to raise $150+ million, but that’s probably the limit and it might just crash and burn and cause a backlash against crowdfunding in general.

Gotta use that state monopoly on violence to raise the requisite heaps of cash.

Yeah, crowdfunded rockets don't really seem likely, but I doubt I'd trust them even if they did exist. Imagine a kickstarter space program :P. I should've said corporations, rather than than the public, I meant interest from business who may invest or sponsor spaceflight companies. But, say if SpaceX made cheap and reliable moon transport, it may encourage companies like Virgin to invest in them for their space tourism or even household names like Kellogs to sponsor  them so they can put 'this stuff is moon-worthy' on their cereal boxes. I'm sure people would gobble up literal moon cheese if Asda made a cheese factory on the moon. And then if moon tours became a thing, Mcdonalds would rush to put loads of restaurants on the various moon resorts. And America would 'freedomize' the moon and we'd have moon marines and... 

I'm getting too exited over this. Sorry about that. 

[DDE]

8 hours ago, A Soviet Tank said:

allowing for cheaper spaceflight afterwards

Unlikely. A space race stimulates Apolloism -  systems optimized for short-term milestones, not protracted service. These “cool new launch systems” would be prohibitively expensive and/or unreliable and/or single-purpose.

Where’s the thriving Saturn V commercial payload program?

8 hours ago, A Soviet Tank said:

I should've said corporations, rather than than the public, I meant interest from business who may invest or sponsor spaceflight companies.

A non-starter. Go back to the beginning of the thread, we’ve methodically demolished any notion that there is economic utility in a greater level of space exploration and exploitation.

And that’s the only thing corporations are going to hear about.

Space tourism is a non-starter. Tourists want a package deal on comfort and entertainment, which mid-term space travel will be unable to provide. Novelty tourism burns out very, very quickly. And that’s before we get to awful travel times and spaceflight being currently more dangerous than trips to Raqqa - and that record requiring large-scale passenger flights to correct, creating yet another bicious circle in the oath of space cadets’ dreams.

And Moon Cheese, given how expensive it will be, will have a tiny target aidience, and sales will drop to zero in a week. You’ll never recoup the initial, fixed costs.

Edited November 15, 2017 by DDE

[DAL59]

12 hours ago, A Soviet Tank said:

Yeah, crowdfunded rockets don't really seem likely

Not for new companies no.  I can imagine trying to start an aerospace company on kickstarter.

10 hours ago, DDE said:

Tourists want a package deal on comfort and entertainment,

This might be true for some tourists, but there are definitely a significant amount who will like the adventure.