Where will we go in the next century?

[SargeRho]

how much technological progress has really happened since the Apollo program almost 50 years ago?

In the past 100 years we went from the first flight to a permanently inhabited space station, and progress always accelerates.

It also seems like the beam emitter for the MagBeam system has been tested.

[PakledHostage]

In the past 100 years we went from the first flight to a permanently inhabited space station, and progress always accelerates.

You seem to have missed my point. In the 66 years from 1903 - 1969 we went from first flight to landing on the moon, but what has been accomplished in the past 45 years since 1969? There's been a plateau. Clearly progress doesn't always accelerate... The majority of the progress in space over the past 45 years has been in the robotics that control unmanned missions and guidance systems, not in propulsion. Indeed, the majority of the progress in aerospace period during those same years has been in electronics rather than propulsion. Sure there's been some progress in propulsion technology but nothing that's going to get us to the stars. I don't see that changing any time soon. There's simply no motivation to spend the money.

Edited July 9, 2014 by PakledHostage

[SargeRho]

I should have added "Given the neccesary ressources are available" - in this case being funding. If NASA got as little as just 1% of the federal budget, we might be maintaining permanent outposts of the Moon and Mars by now.

[Tommygun]

I could see something like Project Longshot being seriously planned in 100 years.

Going to the Centauri system, will be the closest to interstellar travel we will see for a long time.

There are about six stars within six light years of us. "If" they can make engines work for 100 to 150 years then they may have a chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot

[Hal]

What I hope? Like most of the people here (as far as I can tell), we go to space, at least the moon or Mars if not further.

What I expect? Something unexpected. A hundred years is a long time. At the end of the US Civil War, who could have predicted that in a hundred years the entire world would be threatened with destruction by unbelievably powerful weapons? At the turn of the 20th century, who could have predicted that in a hundred years millions of people would communicate across the globe using unbelievably powerful machines?

It would be nice if that unpredictable advance was in the direction of space, though. Maybe an Alcubierre drive working at sub-light speeds or something (I feel like I saw someone saying that wouldn't require exotic matter). I'm not going to pretend I'm educated enough on the subject to make a real guess, though.

[DunaRocketeer]

My feeling is that as far as America and Russia is concerned, manned spaceflight has a legacy of being tied with national pride and the current attitudes of their space programs (particularly America's) is a hangover from that cold war rivalry. You can point to similar behaviour in China, with their manned spacecraft plans, but they don't seem to be in any rush about it. They're just launching people to say 'hey, we can play your game too', but that's not the same as the cold war legacy attitudes seen in USA/Russia. As we run out of money and fall behind the developing economies, they'll cease to identify spaceflight as a way of showing off to other countries, since it's cheaper to do it with shiny skyscrapers and new aircraft carriers.

SpaceX, with a little luck will provide some evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) improvements to launch costs, but even if the satellite launch market improves they'll never earn enough to do a Mars mission, and no governement will pony up the cash for such an endeavour - that has been shown to be true for decades now.

There is still a justification and need to have launch vehicles that can loft up to 25 tons into orbit, for both comercial and government applications. A nation could piggyback a leaner, unmanned space program on these assets without breaking the bank, but manned spaceflight? It's in its death throes. Even if we get smacked on the head with a big asteroid, Earth is still more habitable than Mars. There really is no justification for us to go.

[Kinglet]

I think we will not progress much. Most people do not care about technological progress or space flight. Most people are completely satisfied with sitting with their smartphones and using "social" networks their whole lives while contributing nothing to humanity. And I really don't think most countries will even build fusion power plants in the nearest 15 years as they cost money and people will freak out and probably protest because fusion is a nuclear process.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Kinglet

[tutrakan4e]

I feel like we'll have effed our planet up by then and we'll have chunks of human population, around 100 people scarsely living underground because the surface is too harsh. Yeah, I'm a pesimist but I do that because I like being surprised.

[Kinglet]

I feel like we'll have effed our planet up by then and we'll have chunks of human population, around 100 people scarsely living underground because the surface is too harsh. Yeah, I'm a pesimist but I do that because I like being surprised.

Or our planet will be destroyed by aliens because some paranoid idiots started shooting them on first contact.

[NASAFanboy]

I expect humanity in the geopolitical scene to still have the major nations such as the United States, Russia, and China. As per forum rules, nothing more will be said regarding the political manner. In the 22nd Century, humanity should have become more virtualized and dependent on technology. I think mind uploading would be available late this century along with anti-aging technologies that massively increase the lifespan of a average human or even (As in the case of mind uploading and "avatars"), grant them de facto immortality. With the mass production and advancement of VR to a huge degree, poorer classes would also be able to experience space tourism, while hide who can afford it may or may not want to go for the "real deal". With the Moon heavily colonized and more sparse colonies on Mars, space tourism may soon become less of a adventure and more of a mundane business trip.

By the mid-22nd century, humanity will likely begin to reach outward toward our closest stars such as Barnards and Alpha Centauri. Advancements in fusion power, increased lifespan, antimatter/plasma/solar sail/nuclear pulse propulsion, and cryogenics should make the trip possible to be undertaken by humans (Albeit likely more of "cyborg" humans) . Manned exploration of the outer planets I think will begin in the later half of the 21st century, with international expeditions to Jupiter and it's moons.

Humans are not logical creatures, or otherwise we would have never landed on the Moon or built the ISS. Pure reason doesn't dictate our behavior, impulses/needs/wants/lust do. Which is why, despite having no justification to colonize Mars, we will do so by the 22nd Century.

Edited July 10, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[kmMango]

Yay, optimism! Finally!

[EdFred]

Wall-E - without the leaving of the Earth

That's where we will be in 100 years. Slovenly, lazy, blobs that do nothing. Oh sure, we'll have the Olympics and other sports to keep the lardos entertained, but we aren't going anywhere, because there won't be any ambition for anyone to do anything. We've already witnessed it over the past 40 years. The increase of technology has replaced ambition. Why physically do something when you go do it on your HD TV or computer monitor?

Necessity is the mother of invention and progress, and we are needing less and less. We'll still be here on Earth, out of shape, apathetic, and doing a whole lot of nothing.

[Nuke]

the next 100 years will see the collapse of current superpowers and the atomic aftermath and dark age that follows.

[Napaeozapus]

the next 100 years will see the collapse of current superpowers and the atomic aftermath and dark age that follows.

Well if we have to rebuild lets focus on what we should do differently next time. I also think we will run into some type of setback in the not too distant future. If we do it is best just to learn from it and pass those lessons on as best we can.

[KerikBalm]

At depends if we get working fusion reactors or not.

If not, we're not going anywhere, we'll be too busy fighting amongst ourselves (we might still do that with fusion, but we'll go places to fight )

[Nuke]

an impromptu dark age would be good for the environment. of course it comes with the loss of hundreds of years of progress.

[ZodiaK]

in circles due to poloticians

[magnemoe]

an impromptu dark age would be good for the environment. of course it comes with the loss of hundreds of years of progress.

No it would be the an absolutely ecological nightmare.

Look at the countries with the larges environment problems, they are either very poor or in a rapid growth phase out of poverty.

If you are starving you don't care if you solve that with solutions who create more problems down the road.

Or simpler people in poor countries use coal or firewood for heating, they don't invest in solar farms.

Then you get money you start to care about the environment.

See how fast the mega-projects to stop global warming in EU went into the drawer as soon as we got a bank crisis, now imagine real problems.

[magnemoe]

I expect humanity in the geopolitical scene to still have the major nations such as the United States, Russia, and China. As per forum rules, nothing more will be said regarding the political manner. In the 22nd Century, humanity should have become more virtualized and dependent on technology. I think mind uploading would be available late this century along with anti-aging technologies that massively increase the lifespan of a average human or even (As in the case of mind uploading and "avatars"), grant them de facto immortality. With the mass production and advancement of VR to a huge degree, poorer classes would also be able to experience space tourism, while hide who can afford it may or may not want to go for the "real deal". With the Moon heavily colonized and more sparse colonies on Mars, space tourism may soon become less of a adventure and more of a mundane business trip.

By the mid-22nd century, humanity will likely begin to reach outward toward our closest stars such as Barnards and Alpha Centauri. Advancements in fusion power, increased lifespan, antimatter/plasma/solar sail/nuclear pulse propulsion, and cryogenics should make the trip possible to be undertaken by humans (Albeit likely more of "cyborg" humans) . Manned exploration of the outer planets I think will begin in the later half of the 21st century, with international expeditions to Jupiter and it's moons.

Humans are not logical creatures, or otherwise we would have never landed on the Moon or built the ISS. Pure reason doesn't dictate our behavior, impulses/needs/wants/lust do. Which is why, despite having no justification to colonize Mars, we will do so by the 22nd Century.

Yes, we still have major powers, USA, China if they manages to work thing out, India and EU will be major economical powers but to fragmented to be great powers.

As other says fusion is a major game changer here, not so much for space travel pulsed fusion should work well enough but we need something to generate lots of power cheaply.

I mostly agree with you except interstellar probes and mind uploading is still far ahead.

[NASAFanboy]

an impromptu dark age would be good for the environment. of course it comes with the loss of hundreds of years of progress.

In that case, the progress is much more important. We cannot simply let two dozen generations of humanity all die in vain, and we could fix the enviroment by either using less exhaustive industries or moving our destructive industries such as mining to a offworld location while using science to fix up the damaged surroundings.

[EdFred]

In that case, the progress is much more important. We cannot simply let two dozen generations of humanity all die in vain, and we could fix the enviroment by either using less exhaustive industries or moving our destructive industries such as mining to a offworld location while using science to fix up the damaged surroundings.

You're operating under the (possibly false) premise that technology or "progress" = better life.

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, what you call progress, I call the r-a-p-e of the natural world.

[NASAFanboy]

You're operating under the (possibly false) premise that technology = better life.

Better life for humanity, and that's all that matters. Usually, the long term welfare of humans is connected with the enviroment too.

[kmMango]

With power comes responsibility.

*reads history book*

Yep, we're all gonna die.

[EdFred]

Better life for humanity, and that's all that matters. Usually, the long term welfare of humans is connected with the enviroment too.

Better is a subjective term. When I look around "humanity" has not gotten better.

[Nothing But Rubus]

when ya gotta go, ya gotta go and most people trust there gut on that matter. I personally think people will explore the ocean floor in the next 100 years or so than any other frontier.