Theoretically, how much further along could we be in regards to space travel, colonization, and resource exploitation?
Wank space exploration without it being ASB
- Thread starter sahaldelta
- Start date
On possibility would be to have the Cold War continue, deemphasize a civilian NASA, and have space exploration remain primarily a military/national prestige activity. If the actual (or perceived) competition between the USSR and USA - as well as late comers like China - for the military "high ground" dominated national space programs, together with sufficient propaganda to support the expenses, I think it is not unlikely you could see the following by the turn of the century, in addition to the whole range of unmanned earth orbit satellites we currently have:
- Regular use of more reliable space planes such as the US DynaSoar and space shuttles.
- A permanent human presence on the Moon, both for research/exploration and military purposes
- Multiple manned research and military space stations in near earth and geosynchronous orbits.
- More robotic missions to the asteroids, Mars, and other planets to prospect for resources and determine habitability.
- possibly manned missions to Mars for status and bragging rights
Anymore is probably in the realm of SF. Actually, this is not unlike what Kubrick/Clarke imagined for 2001.
- Regular use of more reliable space planes such as the US DynaSoar and space shuttles.
- A permanent human presence on the Moon, both for research/exploration and military purposes
- Multiple manned research and military space stations in near earth and geosynchronous orbits.
- More robotic missions to the asteroids, Mars, and other planets to prospect for resources and determine habitability.
- possibly manned missions to Mars for status and bragging rights
Anymore is probably in the realm of SF. Actually, this is not unlike what Kubrick/Clarke imagined for 2001.
With or without nuclear engines? Starting with the relatively sane RD- 0410 and NERVA, and moving on up from there- remembering that the real danger of such things rises more or less in proportion to their power, but the fear of them rises exponentially?
Without, then we're almost as screwed as we are now. If Marquardt's LACE or Rolls- Royce's RB545 had actually worked, (the modern Skylon SABRE is basically trying to reinvent in the public domain the still- classified late sixties RB545), there could have been fly-to-orbit genuine spaceplanes, capable of a few (single digit) tons to low orbit; almost certainly a European joint project for RR, the UK didn't have the money to go it alone.
Given that, assembly in orbit- for maybe a thousand dollars a pound at a wild ass guess, order of magnitude cheaper than the usual figure of merit- becomes relatively easy, shuttle up parts and components. Probably still have to send up assembly workshops by heavy lifter in one piece. Solar power satellites may become feasible; much larger space optical and radio telescopes become feasible.
Surveying asteroids for exploitation potential becomes more feasible, too- and if one can be found that contains enough rare earths to make it potentially profitable, within the context of strategic mineral reserves, if the on orbit construction capacity is there, it could happen.
With atomic rocket engines, long range exploration becomes a lot easier- lousy thrust to weight for most, incapable (thank God) of planetary takeoff, except the most extreme, and the extra mass of the engine outweighs the fuel efficiency on operations within the orbit of mars; but for heavy weights over long distances, yes. A NERVA or descendant is what you need for the asteroid mining, and the biologists' trips to Europa.
And then there are the zealots (including me) who think Project Orion may be the greatest missed opportunity in the history of the human race, and we've basically sentenced ourselves to death on this festering rock by not going with it.
Orion is technically feasible; overcoming the public reaction is the part that is probably ASB. (On the other hand, nuclear salt water rockets, Zubrin engines, are just barking mad.)
Without, then we're almost as screwed as we are now. If Marquardt's LACE or Rolls- Royce's RB545 had actually worked, (the modern Skylon SABRE is basically trying to reinvent in the public domain the still- classified late sixties RB545), there could have been fly-to-orbit genuine spaceplanes, capable of a few (single digit) tons to low orbit; almost certainly a European joint project for RR, the UK didn't have the money to go it alone.
Given that, assembly in orbit- for maybe a thousand dollars a pound at a wild ass guess, order of magnitude cheaper than the usual figure of merit- becomes relatively easy, shuttle up parts and components. Probably still have to send up assembly workshops by heavy lifter in one piece. Solar power satellites may become feasible; much larger space optical and radio telescopes become feasible.
Surveying asteroids for exploitation potential becomes more feasible, too- and if one can be found that contains enough rare earths to make it potentially profitable, within the context of strategic mineral reserves, if the on orbit construction capacity is there, it could happen.
With atomic rocket engines, long range exploration becomes a lot easier- lousy thrust to weight for most, incapable (thank God) of planetary takeoff, except the most extreme, and the extra mass of the engine outweighs the fuel efficiency on operations within the orbit of mars; but for heavy weights over long distances, yes. A NERVA or descendant is what you need for the asteroid mining, and the biologists' trips to Europa.
And then there are the zealots (including me) who think Project Orion may be the greatest missed opportunity in the history of the human race, and we've basically sentenced ourselves to death on this festering rock by not going with it.
Orion is technically feasible; overcoming the public reaction is the part that is probably ASB. (On the other hand, nuclear salt water rockets, Zubrin engines, are just barking mad.)
Not really, I'm afraid. Cheap space has turned out totally hard.
Nuclear bomb launch irradiates too much.
Spaceplanes need recent computers to not burn up. It's called waveriding.
Rockets are inevitably expensive.
There are two things we can finally probably do now, finally.
Best would we could build a bridge to orbit called a space elevator using structural carbon. This'd turn space pretty cheap, enough for colonization.
We can probably use waverider space shuttles to orbit.
Nuclear bomb launch irradiates too much.
Spaceplanes need recent computers to not burn up. It's called waveriding.
Rockets are inevitably expensive.
There are two things we can finally probably do now, finally.
Best would we could build a bridge to orbit called a space elevator using structural carbon. This'd turn space pretty cheap, enough for colonization.
We can probably use waverider space shuttles to orbit.
Not really. High-ISP engines become better the farther you have to go (because you get more time to thrust), so they still outcompete nuclear thermal rockets for beyond Mars orbit operations. Of course, nuclear power is much more attractive in that region, though not really necessary until maybe Jupiter or the Trojans.
Assuming that you avoid the perils of Shuttle and Apollo, which each for their own reason greatly hindered the American space program, about the best you can expect by now is a modestly more advanced version of what we have now, with a few permanently crewed space stations in low Earth orbit and regular lunar expeditions, perhaps a transiently or even permanently occupied lunar base. This depends either on more sensible decisions being made by NASA and Soviet leadership over the years, or on there being more countries and programs realistically competing to keep budgets high.
Mars missions are probably out of the question; they are very technically challenging and would be difficult to pull off with realistic funding levels. Mars bases are certainly out of the question, as are crewed expeditions to anywhere past Mars. Colonies are similarly impossible with realistic funding levels. You could have a rather larger robotic program, especially if the Soviets ran things better and were less prone to mad flights of fancy (particularly for their Mars missions).
Gosh, that sounds nifty. Someone should write a timeline like that.
Earlier successes in the fifties and sixties. Most early launches were to find out about radiation, life support modifications, best rocket engine design, orbital mechanics et cetera. Just cut down the early failures, increase the materials science and computing power, luck and funding. Also early choices on capsule and shuttle designs.
Wango Bango, Zip Zap Zoop, you've got a edgier start.
Wango Bango, Zip Zap Zoop, you've got a edgier start.
Gosh, that sounds nifty. Someone should write a timeline like that.
I do enjoy Nixonhead's no-Korolev timeline, it really sells a no-Sputnik history.
Radiation is minimal actually, and if they were to launch with conventional rockets and assemble the engine in orbit as most plans called for there would be none. The biggest problem is the EMP but the impact can be minimized by remote launch locations. And if the 1950s generally tolerant attitude toward atomic weapons and radiation continues you could certainly see some ground launches, especially if they're launching from some remote Pacific islands. Reportedly the thing that really did the Orion engine in was Kennedy's fear of a heavily militarized space race. They presented the Orion to him as a way to launch a space battleship to control Earth orbit and he was horrified.
I think a stronger Cold War or the Soviets openly launching weapons into orbit would significantly boost space exploration.
Exactly. To substantially increase the pace of the space race you need a reason. National defense is the best and most logical reason.
Gosh, that sounds nifty. Someone should write a timeline like that.
Yeah, e. What's been holding you back from giving us a good space-wank timeline?
Not sure I follow. You disregard proven (or currently available) technologies that could have been used more commonly and then propose a 22,000 mile high elevator to geosynchronous orbit that is almost certainly impossible to achieve with today's technology. Someday, yes. But this is not anything that would have sped up space exploration until now. To speed up space exploration in the 20th century the only way to do this is to spend more money on rockets, space planes, and quit fearing the word nuclear.
I want to highlight this, and not just to drive more reader's to WG's excellent Eyes Turned Skywards timeline, which is basically the situation that WG is describing here. Some call ETS a space-wank or NASA-wank, which it's really not; or if it is, it is a very modest and very plausible wank, which happens to show what happens if you take the obvious alternative to the Shuttle Decision. (if you want to see a real wank, go read David Portree's Dreaming a Different Apollo, a delightful dream, but just a wank with no obvious cause.) So:
1. ASB gives you the most obvious and powerful wanks - we discover alien artifacts or life somewhere in the solar system (I am not sure something a thousand light years away gets you the same results, unless there's proof that it's hostile), or a discovery of unobtanium in the Solar System. Or some killer asteroid on its way to Earth.
2. Failing ASB's, others have highlighted the the one plausible extrinsic cause: more intense and sustained Soviet space competition. If the Soviets beat us to the Moon, or up the ante to a base...if there's no detente (that is important)...this is your best bet for expanding Apollo and going beyond it. I don't think it gets you to Mars - too difficult - but it could get you a lot more besides. It also gets you a higher risk of splitting atoms over most of the Northern Hemisphere at some point, too.
Short of that, there's no obvious way to wank space exploration. There's just no domestic political constituency for it in any major nation.
But I like what WG says about Apollo and Shuttle doing more harm than good to U.S. space exploration. I think we're all pretty much agreed on the Shuttle's effects, marvelous machines that they were notwithstanding; but Apollo badly distorted our space effort, too. The Moon Race had some positive short-term results, no question; but it created a mindset around an unsustainable approach, and slowed commercial entry into space. The Moon Race was, in effect, a kind of wank, but a short-term one, with a hell of a hangover.
Last edited:
The biggest problem here is not the Hardware, but the Political Motivation to do manned space exploration !
See Apollo Program, after Success of Apollo 11 and lack of Soviets manned lunar landing.
Capitol Hill abandon the Program and further exploration programs like Manned Mars Mission
Nasa terminate Apollo with remaining Saturn V rockets and Nixon gave them the Space Shuttle program.
But how to Motivate politics to do manned space exploration of Solar system ?
One way is extended the Space Race. were Soviet land cosmonaut on Moon and Nixon (better Agnew) push for next level: MARS
another thing is that something happen on Earth and politics jumps on manned space exploration and Colonization !
That could be Nuclear War, Super-volcano eruption etc.
See Apollo Program, after Success of Apollo 11 and lack of Soviets manned lunar landing.
Capitol Hill abandon the Program and further exploration programs like Manned Mars Mission
Nasa terminate Apollo with remaining Saturn V rockets and Nixon gave them the Space Shuttle program.
But how to Motivate politics to do manned space exploration of Solar system ?
One way is extended the Space Race. were Soviet land cosmonaut on Moon and Nixon (better Agnew) push for next level: MARS
another thing is that something happen on Earth and politics jumps on manned space exploration and Colonization !
That could be Nuclear War, Super-volcano eruption etc.
Seems like there's an emerging consensus on this point.
The Cold War was a great stimulant to space exploration, albeit a very distorting one...
And any satellite withing optical line to the departing Orion vehicle in hundreds of kilometers range would be fried by the X and gamma rays emitted by the explosions. Telecom companies would love it.
If we're assembling something the size of Orion in space, how difficult would it be to send up one or more 'tugs' to push it out of orbit?
If we're sending up tugs then they have to be able to push it. In which case, why not just use the tugs as the propulsion system and forget about the nuke issues entirely?
Because they wouldn't be able to push it very quickly. Given the fuel/mass issues related to chemical rockets, you'd be talking days for Orion to reach a safe distance to operate its own propulsion system. That isn't a propulsion method that is conducive to manned interplanetary travel.