space travel in your lifetime?

[jwenting]

maybe someone will build a working space elevator in my lifetime. Without one, there won't be affordable space travel for anyone, unless something revolutionary happens in the design of fuels and/or engines (and no, Skylon isn't it, nor is Dragon, or anything else on the drawing board, in testing, or in use, NASP would have done it, VentureStar might have done it, HyperX maybe, but all were cancelled for political reasons and we'll never see their like again).

[SargeRho]

NGTOne, don't forget about the Reusable Falcon 9, which will most probably see flight before SLS, Angara and Skylon, and will probably bring a significant reduction in cost, not having to build a new rocket for every launch.

jwenting: I don't agree. A space elevator is currently beyond our engineering capabilities, and might not be possible at all. An increased flight rate of rockets, just as it happened with airlines, will bring cost down.

Either way, there is no way to predict what will happen in the coming decades. Perhaps projects like the FDR, Quantum Thrusters, Laser Beamed Thermal Rocket engines, etc will work out and make access to the Moon, and the inner possibly even out solar system affordable for upper middle-class people? Perhaps WW3 starts and we'll bomb Earth back to the Hadean. I'd like to see the former rather than the later.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SargeRho

[Sochin]

To be honest the way space tourism is at the moment and with Virgin Galactic starting operations in 2014 its very similar to what the aviation industry was in the late 30's right the way through to the 50's (Jet Set). Its a very expensive comodity that I cannot see been made to be mass profitable for atleast 20 years. As for what I think I will see in my lifetime is this.

1. Manned Mars mission, probably around 2030.

2. Orbital commercial facilities.

What I am not sure about is wether we will return to the moon anytime soon.

[Nibb31]

Not as much as you'd think, actually - there are no technologies for Skylon that haven't been developed. The SABRE precooler was the last piece of the puzzle. The next step for REL and Skylon is full-scale engine construction and testing (hence the 60 million pounds from the Brits), and finalizing the on-paper design for the vehicle itself. Now, of course, that's still a lofty goal, but Skylon is showing far more promise than a lot of other space projects, DESPITE not having all their funding secured. At this point, with so little of their overall project funding, most space projects (especially something as ambitious as a launch vehicle) would be dying a quiet death - Skylon hasn't, and is instead continuing to advance. And all the analyses I've read seem to think it's going to CONTINUE to advance, simply BECAUSE it doesn't rely on any really "new" technologies (that haven't already been developed for the project). That's FAR more than virtually any other low-cost-to-orbit project can claim.

The reason this discussion has effectively become a discussion of Skylon is because there's only three major launch systems under development today: The American SLS, the Russian Angara (both conventional expendable rockets), and the privately-developed Skylon.

I disagree. There is Ariane 6, Falcon (which can still be considered in development), Long March 5, GSLV-III, and probably others.

Skylon is the only system that relies on new ideas, and might produce some gains for the space industry and space exploration as a whole (especially due to the projected lower launch costs).

Having new ideas is great, but aerospace is an area where you need reliability and safety. Space agencies are reluctant to invest in ideas that are totally new, because the investments are huge, and risk is much greater that implementing proven solutions. Some ideas look great on paper, but once you move into industrialization, with reliability, industrialization, operational, legal, and serviceability constraints, they can be a major source of schedule and budget overruns. This happens with just about every civilian or military aerospace project, even the most conservative ones. This is true for Orion and SLS, but look also at the industrial problems that Boeing had with their 787, Airbus with the A380, or the whole F-35 project. I can't think of a single aerospace project that hasn't had either cost overruns or performance problems.

Skylon, like any SSTO, is on the theoretical edge of just about every envelope. The design assumes optimistic values for just about every component and has virtually no margin for error. A little extra weight or a little less thrust than planned can reduce payload capacity or zero and ruin the whole program. Nobody has ever built an airframe like Skylon's, so nobody has any experience about how it will cope with the extreme flight regimes, temperature variations, air pressures. Nobody has ever flown anything that uses the same aerodynamic principles... Nothing ever goes as smoothly as planned, and with all its new ways of designing just about every element, Skylon is bound to hit technical problems which will add cost and constraints, and might make it simply useless as a payload launcher. It's a huge risk.

This doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that there is so much new R&D that needs to be done that the scope of the project is more complex than the F-35, SLS and Orion combined, which are all based on quite conventional technology. And I can't see anyone coming up with the sort of money needed for Skylon. And then there is the whole reusability issue again. Reusability and high turn-around requires a frequent launch rate. Currently, there is simply no demand for the sort of launch rate that would justify the investment in a reusable launcher.

And yes, I know that REL estimates the development cost at $12 billion. That is less than the development cost Airbus A380 and less than half the development cost of the Boeing 787, both of which were based on mature technology and well-understood principles. This is another example of their unrealistically optimistic numbers.

If Skylon development costs a more realistic $40 billion (which is the cost of the F-35 development program for example), and you could justify a fleet of 5 vehicles, that puts the unit price of each vehicle at over $8 billion per unit (ignoring the manufacturing cost). The combined fleet would have to perform 800 launches before saving costs compared to a $50 million expendable Falcon 9. There simply isn't a market in the foreseeable future for that many launches.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

maybe someone will build a working space elevator in my lifetime. Without one, there won't be affordable space travel for anyone, unless something revolutionary happens in the design of fuels and/or engines (and no, Skylon isn't it, nor is Dragon, or anything else on the drawing board, in testing, or in use, NASP would have done it, VentureStar might have done it, HyperX maybe, but all were cancelled for political reasons and we'll never see their like again).

You do realize that a space elevator wouldn't be practical for manned travel anyway, don't you? The hypothetical climber vehicle has to travel 36000km to get to GEO, which means that even if it climbs at 200km/h (which would put a lot of stress on the cable and require a lot of power) it still takes over a week to reach orbit. That means that the climber will only to be large enough to accomodate a few passengers with shielding, life support and supplies for 8 days. Plus, it won't be too healthy to spend that much time travelling through the Van Allen belt.

A space elevator is only theoretically practical for cargo and raw materials.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[tiger336]

Short answer NO long answer it ain't happening with out more money from the governments.

[Holo]

Advances in medical science mean it's likely that I will live into my second century, so I'm going to go with yes, and tickets to space in the Moon will be no more costly than a first-class airline ticket today in terms of hours' income.

Tickets to Mars and the outer solar system would also be available, but I'd expect those to cost $100k+ even with major advances in technology.

[Mr Shifty]

Economies of scale? The STS used about 1.1 million kg of solid+liquid fuel to lift 7 people into orbit. A 747 uses about 110,000 kg of fuel to transport 570 people from LA to London. It's an order of magnitude less fuel to move two orders of magnitude more people. It's hard to see how, even with technology, you'll be able to scale space flight technology by 3 orders of magnitude. If it's cheap, everyone will want to do it. Something like 7.5 million people climb onto an airliner every day. Can you imagine a space transport industry with that kind of scale? Not in our lifetimes for sure.

[goldenpeach]

I hope we would be able to make suborbitals flight for a affordable price(from rocket point of view,50 000$ is affordable;I wish the best luck for Copenhagen Suborbitals).

Anyway,I save money to have a 0g experience,thank to a private company it will cost a little more than 5000$.

If anyone is interested,here's the link for that company!

https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=NASA_Research.welcome

[SargeRho]

It might happen within my lifetime anway. I'm 20, and considering medical advances, and the fact that I try to live as healthy as possible, with any luck I'd see the turn of the century.

A lot can happen in 90 years. Look at how much changed in the last 90 years. From, by comparison, primitives to people that have sent a probe into interstellar space.

[NASAFanboy]

Since the most reasonable date for my death is around 2125 (That is, if I don't upload my mind to a AI unit first), it's likely I will live to see the first manned expeditions to the Jovian system....and possbily the first probe dedicated to exploring another planetary system.

However, while sub-orbital intercontiental travel will likely be an reality around 2040, I believe that, by 2090, it would be possible to "emigrate" to a growing lunar colony, for fees of around 7,000-15,000 USD.

By 2120, I hope to see the first civilian flights to Mars.

By 2126, I hope for my remains to be onboard an probe going to another system.

[SargeRho]

I hope to see the first civillian flights to mars in the 2040s-50s tbh.

[Helix935]

even though you can buy tickets to the ISS for about from what i can remember roughly $40 million each but virgin galactic is already launching tests for the spaceship two in suborbit but i expect the first civilian flights to orbit will be 2020s to 2030s with flights to the moon about 2040s to 2050s and to mars maybe 2070s to 2080s if the new space race kicks up

[dharak1]

I expect to squeeze in another 110-120 years so I think I'll see space travel. My one dream is to go to the Moon. All I want. I might even go if I knew I wasn't coming back. Although not now with 100 years of life ahead of me.