heruamon -

We have the ability to travel to the stars. It's really the question of how long it'll take to exploit it.

The key to space travel is the simple key to driving: Energy. The problem is finding a source of energy that can power a spacecraft to very fast speeds. Such a power source must be cheap, readily available, and safe. Solar really doesn't fit that bill because it's bulky.

However, we've already researched how to do it. It was called Project Daedalus, and it was completed in the 1960's. Also, Project Orion used similar studies into near-FTL travel in the 60's.

Essentially, the key is some sort of nuclear process. Project Orion used nuclear bomb explosions behind the craft, while Daedalus used a nuclear nozzle jetting behind it.

The problem with both crafts is the amount of material needed to achieve 1/10th (or so) of lightspeed. Daedalus would need ~50,000 tons of material to travel at 1/10th the speed of light.

However, those studies were decades ago. We now have a fairly reasonable source of fissionable material: He3. 10 tons of HE3 would be able to able to power roughly 300KG of material up to 0.75c (c = speed of light). HE3 is readily abundant in our solar system, and should be mostly abundant in other solar systems where gas giants are present. Because of this, a craft could refuel at other solar systems.

Of course, making a drive core that can burn HE3 is still many decades away. We don't even have a power plant that can process the stuff, so we have to first make it applicable, then miniaturize it.

Nevertheless, it can and will happen. It may take decades or even a century, but it will happen. I just wish I was younger to see it

mrstickball said: heruamon - We have the ability to travel to the stars. It's really the question of how long it'll take to exploit it. The key to space travel is the simple key to driving: Energy. The problem is finding a source of energy that can power a spacecraft to very fast speeds. Such a power source must be cheap, readily available, and safe. Solar really doesn't fit that bill because it's bulky. However, we've already researched how to do it. It was called Project Daedalus, and it was completed in the 1960's. Also, Project Orion used similar studies into near-FTL travel in the 60's. Essentially, the key is some sort of nuclear process. Project Orion used nuclear bomb explosions behind the craft, while Daedalus used a nuclear nozzle jetting behind it. The problem with both crafts is the amount of material needed to achieve 1/10th (or so) of lightspeed. Daedalus would need ~50,000 tons of material to travel at 1/10th the speed of light. However, those studies were decades ago. We now have a fairly reasonable source of fissionable material: He3. 10 tons of HE3 would be able to able to power roughly 300KG of material up to 0.75c (c = speed of light). HE3 is readily abundant in our solar system, and should be mostly abundant in other solar systems where gas giants are present. Because of this, a craft could refuel at other solar systems. Of course, making a drive core that can burn HE3 is still many decades away. We don't even have a power plant that can process the stuff, so we have to first make it applicable, then miniaturize it. Nevertheless, it can and will happen. It may take decades or even a century, but it will happen. I just wish I was younger to see it

Yeah...I read about it before, but the cost would be astronomical, and it wouldn't be functional for manned space travel...detonating nuclear material to provide thrust...good concept.  I think inter system travel and commerce is probably the best way to get humans more acclamated to space travel.  The key is what's the ROI for mankind...can you imagine if we would have found some rare valuable minerals on the moon...the place would be covered with clonies at this point...instead...we only found moon rocks.  Now, if we could discover some amazing materials in the asteriod field, national government would go for broke to exploit space.

heruamon said: mrstickball said: heruamon - We have the ability to travel to the stars. It's really the question of how long it'll take to exploit it. The key to space travel is the simple key to driving: Energy. The problem is finding a source of energy that can power a spacecraft to very fast speeds. Such a power source must be cheap, readily available, and safe. Solar really doesn't fit that bill because it's bulky. However, we've already researched how to do it. It was called Project Daedalus, and it was completed in the 1960's. Also, Project Orion used similar studies into near-FTL travel in the 60's. Essentially, the key is some sort of nuclear process. Project Orion used nuclear bomb explosions behind the craft, while Daedalus used a nuclear nozzle jetting behind it. The problem with both crafts is the amount of material needed to achieve 1/10th (or so) of lightspeed. Daedalus would need ~50,000 tons of material to travel at 1/10th the speed of light. However, those studies were decades ago. We now have a fairly reasonable source of fissionable material: He3. 10 tons of HE3 would be able to able to power roughly 300KG of material up to 0.75c (c = speed of light). HE3 is readily abundant in our solar system, and should be mostly abundant in other solar systems where gas giants are present. Because of this, a craft could refuel at other solar systems. Of course, making a drive core that can burn HE3 is still many decades away. We don't even have a power plant that can process the stuff, so we have to first make it applicable, then miniaturize it. Nevertheless, it can and will happen. It may take decades or even a century, but it will happen. I just wish I was younger to see it Yeah...I read about it before, but the cost would be astronomical, and it wouldn't be functional for manned space travel...detonating nuclear material to provide thrust...good concept.  I think inter system travel and commerce is probably the best way to get humans more acclamated to space travel.  The key is what's the ROI for mankind...can you imagine if we would have found some rare valuable minerals on the moon...the place would be covered with clonies at this point...instead...we only found moon rocks.  Now, if we could discover some amazing materials in the asteriod field, national government would go for broke to exploit space.

See, the problem isn't if they have valuable minerals - it's if the cost to get there offsets whatever the value is.

Currently, our technology for delivering payload to space is HORRIBLE. We are using nasty chemical rockets to blast off into space. This requires thousands of tons of fuel (which also takes more fuel to get up there). By and large, it's just atrocious because we're attempting to reach escape velocity by a self-enclosed system.

Change such a system to a space elevator, where we merely use energy, and the costs go considerably down. Currently, it costs ~$4,000/KG-$40,000/KG to lift an object into space via rockets. So imagine trying to build a mining colony with humans at $20,000/kg (cost for putting a sat in geosync orbit) - It's just not economically feasible.

Now, with a space elevator, costs drop to $100-$300/KG. Much, MUCH cheaper. Suddenly, the cost to deploy a moon base goes from billions, if not a trillion, down to just a few billion in R&D and other costs to actually build the colony, not put it there.

One should also note that the wholesale cost to launch something via energy projection (that is, shooting a laser at a pusher plate to push it along a rail into the air) is currently at $220/KG with the beam at 0.5% efficiency. Imagine the cost if the beam was 10% efficient  

Once that happens, and it should in the next 10-20 years (I really think Obama and the govt. have botched this by not using some of that stim money on this), we'll see space flight become a very affordable thing to do.

mrstickball said: heruamon said: mrstickball said: heruamon - We have the ability to travel to the stars. It's really the question of how long it'll take to exploit it. The key to space travel is the simple key to driving: Energy. The problem is finding a source of energy that can power a spacecraft to very fast speeds. Such a power source must be cheap, readily available, and safe. Solar really doesn't fit that bill because it's bulky. However, we've already researched how to do it. It was called Project Daedalus, and it was completed in the 1960's. Also, Project Orion used similar studies into near-FTL travel in the 60's. Essentially, the key is some sort of nuclear process. Project Orion used nuclear bomb explosions behind the craft, while Daedalus used a nuclear nozzle jetting behind it. The problem with both crafts is the amount of material needed to achieve 1/10th (or so) of lightspeed. Daedalus would need ~50,000 tons of material to travel at 1/10th the speed of light. However, those studies were decades ago. We now have a fairly reasonable source of fissionable material: He3. 10 tons of HE3 would be able to able to power roughly 300KG of material up to 0.75c (c = speed of light). HE3 is readily abundant in our solar system, and should be mostly abundant in other solar systems where gas giants are present. Because of this, a craft could refuel at other solar systems. Of course, making a drive core that can burn HE3 is still many decades away. We don't even have a power plant that can process the stuff, so we have to first make it applicable, then miniaturize it. Nevertheless, it can and will happen. It may take decades or even a century, but it will happen. I just wish I was younger to see it Yeah...I read about it before, but the cost would be astronomical, and it wouldn't be functional for manned space travel...detonating nuclear material to provide thrust...good concept.  I think inter system travel and commerce is probably the best way to get humans more acclamated to space travel.  The key is what's the ROI for mankind...can you imagine if we would have found some rare valuable minerals on the moon...the place would be covered with clonies at this point...instead...we only found moon rocks.  Now, if we could discover some amazing materials in the asteriod field, national government would go for broke to exploit space. See, the problem isn't if they have valuable minerals - it's if the cost to get there offsets whatever the value is. Currently, our technology for delivering payload to space is HORRIBLE. We are using nasty chemical rockets to blast off into space. This requires thousands of tons of fuel (which also takes more fuel to get up there). By and large, it's just atrocious because we're attempting to reach escape velocity by a self-enclosed system. Change such a system to a space elevator, where we merely use energy, and the costs go considerably down. Currently, it costs ~$4,000/KG-$40,000/KG to lift an object into space via rockets. So imagine trying to build a mining colony with humans at $20,000/kg (cost for putting a sat in geosync orbit) - It's just not economically feasible. Now, with a space elevator, costs drop to $100-$300/KG. Much, MUCH cheaper. Suddenly, the cost to deploy a moon base goes from billions, if not a trillion, down to just a few billion in R&D and other costs to actually build the colony, not put it there. One should also note that the wholesale cost to launch something via energy projection (that is, shooting a laser at a pusher plate to push it along a rail into the air) is currently at $220/KG with the beam at 0.5% efficiency. Imagine the cost if the beam was 10% efficient   Once that happens, and it should in the next 10-20 years (I really think Obama and the govt. have botched this by not using some of that stim money on this), we'll see space flight become a very affordable thing to do.

The administration would have been freaking raped by the like of communist hater if they had pushed hard for space initiatives, specificly.  There was alot of money for R&D in general, and that's what needed, as propulsion is only one piece of the puzzle (although a very important piece).  WRT a mineral, I was thinking something sci-fi-ish...nothing that we already have on Earth...some super dense alloy 100X lighter than aluminum but 100X stronger than steel...believe me...if we discover something like that on Mars...Mars would be colonized in 20 years!  It’s sad, but in higher education, there is almost a disdain for researching, for the sake of knowledge…everybody is looking at the bottom-line…and what products they can make a buck off…

See, here's the thing:

I don't think that exotics should dominate the reason we go to space. Common business should. The reason for this is that there will be far more capital to invest in spacial resource aquisition if we have many reasons to go, instead of just a few rare, but valuable reasons. Think about history: Some of our greatest progresses came in finding very common items. People wanted light, so we got the lightbulb. People wanted faster transportation, so we got the car. People wanted a quicker way to asia, so we found America. So on and so on.

Could Mars be colonize quickly if an exotic was found there? Yes. But if we want it to be colonized right, we need a lot more than just one exotic. We need an extensive network of resources, and ways to acquire resources to make it happen.

For example, space tourism is becoming a more hotly discussed commodity as of late. Does it really serve a noble purpose? No. But the fact is that the profits earned from such a thing will result in more R&D on assets that can be put into other projects. Eventually, business can catch up and invest where government can't or won't.

Consider my thread a few days ago: John Carmack, developer of Doom, is also a space junkie. He founded Armadillo Aerospace. They are in a contest to provide private landers for the moon. Guess how much their lunar lander cost? It cost the US government $11 billion USD in 1969 dollars. Still guessing? It's costing Carmack ~$1m USD for his lunar lander that's 15 feet tall, and can land on the moon, and relaunch back to earth or to a lagrange point elsewhere. With costs being at that for private businesses, it may become a matter of time when BP, Wal-Mart or Virgin are going to the moon. And unlike the government, they'll keep the capital rolling into those areas.

When i was working on my MSEE...I saw this trend, where we are moving away from 6.0 basic research, more and more every year.  The problem is that coporations WON'T invest in it, and they depend on the government (US in the past) to plow millions into this to get this accomplish...but the government has been weaning this more and more over the decades, because of all the furor over eggheads wasting money.  It was great to see Carmack's team win it last year...but let's not forget...they haven't landed on the moon yet!  Also...NASA put men on the moon in 1969...we've made huge strides in teechnology since then...and I think the Chinese will be on the moon, before we are again.

Ah yes. I think we're both agreeing with eachother. I wasn't thinking about undeground. I was refering to the space above the surface. And because of how heat disipates in space, it would have to be very hot ground to creat livable heat above it. But sure, there would definitely be a band of undeground that would see moderate temperature, though it may be very unstable since it would be fairly close to molten rock.

Of course, we still wouldn't be able to get close to the planet, as any ship would melt long before it gets there.