Friends and fellow pioneers, it is time we discussed the future of Space.

-NASA has re-grounded it's Shuttle fleet due to the persistant 'chunks O foam' issue
-Russia is offering cash to do it's space-work for it
-The X-Prize has been won, and civilians are OK for space

It is time we put our brains together and came up with a better way to do things. Colonizing the moon, building space-stations, and even settling nearby planets are all attainable within the next decade or so. There will be setbacks and dangers...but these risks are nothing compared to the potential gains upon success.

So, here's what I propose: We create a fictional space agency and decide how it would run. Who would fund it, who would run it, who would build and fly and engineer, and most importantly, what first steps would we need to take to ensure our survival in the midst of a world who has grown somewhat apathetic to Space?

First questions: Budget.
-NASA's budget hovers around 14billion a year, but they also do a lot of government work like weather tracking and the like. Considering we're focusing our efforts on buildup and human space travel, let's assume we're working with something more like ESA's budget of just under 4 billion Euros. Considering we'd be starting with nothing but grants and well wishes, how's 1billion USD / year sound?

Second Question: Facilities.
-Where would we manufacture / launch from? Would we contract out or keep things in-house for the moment? do we rely on generous donations of time and effort or do we pay sallaries for needed services?

Third Question: Missions.
-Reusable / One-shot spacecraft
-Space Station / Zero-G manufacturing?
-Mars and other planet missions?
-Hell, while we're at it: Surveying missions to planets/asteroids for minerals / mining?

Here's your chance to brainstorm. Go nuts!

First question: Working on nothing but grants and well wishes may work for the first few years of development or so, but eventually, costs are going to accrue. Potentially branching out to other governments (making it a real international effort) would work, after a fair bit of diplomacy, possibly.

Second Question: Wait for contracting. With the funding hovering around 1 billion USD per year, it would be best to keep it under wraps for the time being until plans and goals are solidified, personnel for the facilities (astrophysicists, astronomers, industrial workers, and so on) are secured, and the location of the facility is settled upon. Maybe something like an island not too far from the US/Canadian area, in the Pacific. Manufacturing location-wise, I'm not too sure. That would probably be the time for contracting with some aerospace companies.

Third Question: I'm leaning towards the Zero-G manufacturing idea, but the suggestion of scouting out planets and asteroids for mining sounds appealing as well. Keep colonizations plans on hold for the time being, until we know just what's going to happen in the near future.

Making the administration economically viable wouldn't happen for the first couple years unless there's some giant breakthrough with something that can ONLY be manufactured in Zero-G, but I think that the first couple years would be alright, so long as long term plans had promise.

Anyone have some ideas on what Zero-G has theoretical uses for?

I think that there should be an effort for commercial applications of space and then using the profits from the commercial efforts to finance the research in a not-for-profit sort of thing. Some examples of commercial applications would be using space-born solar arrays beaming power down to Earth in the form of microwaves; the same technology could be used to accelerate solar sails. Another example would be to install high-volume communications satelite network and sell bandwidth on it; this same network could be used to communicate with ships in orbit, as well as probes.

VERY nice. Like a orbital communications platform?

i've been waiting for this for years. my take on something we should do: semi-automated asteroid mining. seriously, we need to send a ship, or 7, to the belt, select and asteroid, land on it, set up basic mining and metal manufacturing. after a year of so of this, deploy engines on the roid, and boost it back to earth, by the time it arrives, most of it should be mined and/or smelted. more raw materials for colonies and the like. also, a series of asteroids in near earth alignment orbit would make excellent testing facilities and colonies. though they would be mining at first, by the time they get here, they should be mostly converted. and ready to receave civilians and the like.

First thing is getting to orbit. Tricky part is reducing payload cost from ground to orbit. Short - term, that means a chemical rocket cheaper than current boosters, and more reliable than the Shuttle (most of the Shuttle costs are "duct tape and baling wire" troubleshooting over and above routine maintenance) Mid - to- long - term, we'll need something other than a booster. Anybody got current numbers on the laser launch concepts that were being kicked around in the '70s-'80s, for instance?

And what about the Space Elevator concepts? From what I've been hearing, it's going to be a lot cheaper than a launch to use.

So do we wait for another company/agency to make it then lease the line? ^_^

Hmmm.... Giant construction projects are always a logistics nightmare.

I think anti-grav theories will be a good place to direct research in the practical realm. If even a fractional piece of that can be figured out/understood, applying it to practical use would be a fantastic achievement. If even the ability to neutralize a quarter of the effects of Earth's gravity could be found... the resulting savings in booster fuel would be phenominal.

Barring that, save Megaconstruction for when there's enough funds to support the Megalogistics that will be involved. Go for more efficient aerospace concepts that can use available resources to make it into space.

Perhaps something along the lines of the Spaceplane, launched from a large, although not Megalithic, catapult system similar to an aircraft carrier.

The catapult system would allow to keep much of the fuel and power needed for the initial takeoff elements, off the actual vehicle, reducing weight, and allowing for higher payload capacity as well as more specialization for high atmosphere to orbit transition.

It's no space elevator, but it's doable.

Perhaps, make the catapult a combination MAGLEV/linear accellerator... powered by a series of nuclear reactors. MAGLEV would ensure there are no moving contact points on the catapult that would cause extreme friction at launch, and the linear accellerator would be able to make the catapult longer than what a steam pressure launch system like on Aircraft carriers would permit.

And unlike carrier based catapults... which match the weight of the craft being launched... the pressure could be increased to spend more power from the catapult side to fling the craft forward than to waste fuel with "afterburner" or its rocket equivilant.

Utilize every energy saving concept we can get our hands on.
As quite frankly, NASA's current "Brute Force" method of launching is wastefull. Use ground based accelleration to get started, LIFT from the atmosphere to gain altitude, and then just launch into orbit like that.

Doable, cheaper, within our technology and probable logistics.

indeed, the catapult is better suited for now, then the long term preject of teh space elevator. also, having more stations would help too, because while the ISS is good, being able to set up an orbital economy and having multiple goals would require more than one. also, a thought: orbital solar arrays. if we could put them in an earth alignment orbit, the power they would generate could be transmitted back to earth, via some form of tranmitable energy.

We should probably look into the costs of launching on modern and existing platforms. IE, buying a rocket from the ESA or NASA or something to get our inital hardware up in orbit.

As fo a launch site, the best place would be an island along the equator. Physics says that this would be the best place as the engines on the space craft will be doing the leaast amount of work. It should also be in international waters, that way one country can not have undue inffluence over the operation.

I think the first craft will be expanded upon versions of the Burt Rutan craft. These can take people up and net the company large amounts of money. The excellent thing about this design is that it is quick, reusable, and none of the parts are detroyed.

For a space station i think we should turn to NASA. Ever since I was 5 or so, I have had a plan to use the large external fuel tanks as pieces of a station. The idea would be that the main structures are designed into the tank, once up there workers would join the sections together and install various systems. NASA had at one time planed to do this but turned the idea down as it took weight away from their scientific explorations.

As for space craft to other planets. The plan I envision is for prefab spacecraft to be built at the station. These craft would never taste atmosphere, their only job to ferry people and equipment to colonies. That way you dont have to design it to do everything and thus reducing its cost.

The big thing I see for coloniztion it robots. They would be sent ahead and build the innitial structures. Once that is done, humans come in to build larger, more permanant, structures. And, if our desire is to make a planet, say Mars, more habitable for us I have a way of doing so. I say we pollute it. There are plans to manufacture large amounts of greenhouse gasses on the surface of Mars and inject them into the atmosphere. Scientists say that this could take hundreds of years to work. I think I have a way to speed up the process and give us two habitable planets at the same time. My suggestion is to pump the gasses out of Venus. Then transfer them, via tanker, to Mars to be released. In this way we bring up Mars' temperature and lower Venus'. Now granted, I have no idea reguarding the feasibility of this plan, but I think it is one that should be looked into to. As it would give us two worlds to settle.

Fiss, what kind of rocket are you looking at?
There's the Saturn V, the Titan IV, Ariane 5, and the Delta 4 Heavy.

Here's a site explaining the budget of the Apollo program using the Saturn-type rocket.

Here's another site giving the cost of the Titan rocket, as well as some background and data.

THIS site has the specs of the Ariane, as well as a list of other possible rockets.

Basic specifications for the Delta 4, but only a small mentioning about cost (between $140 to $170 million USD

Hope this helps.

in regards to the sucking of venus's gasses and transplanting them to mars, i've been saying it for years aswell. , or we could land a buck of plants on venus. they'd absord the gasses and grow and absorb and grow auntil there's no CO left and they all die. yes we'd have to GE a growth limit and acceleration on them.

The only problem with that plan is the intense heat and pressure of Venus would kill any plants before they could make a difference.

VENUS:

Surface temp: 900 degrees. *Hotter than oven on BROIL*
Surface Pressure: High enough to crush a man.
Other hazzards: High sulfuric acid concentraition.


Got anything that can survive that longer than a few minutes?

If the heat and pressure don't get you, the acid will.

The alternitive is using all that heat for power.

Can you expend that power as fast as you can accumulate it, right away?

Yep. Could microwave beam it to Earth for power. ^_^

hmm.... wait.... acid..... heheheh. we could collect bases compatable with venus, and dump them onto the planet. not only would this add mass, but eliminate the acid.... getting the atmosphere cleared would take more work.

Can you do it fast enought to cool the planet down?

Sulphuric Acid comes from the once extreme volcanic activity. The manpower you'd need on earth to produce a counter mehcanism would be on the Megalith scale.

Then, the atmosphere is high pressure, high concentraition Carbon Dioxide. Anything you set down on the surface will roast or be crushed.

I say, wanna get megalithic... build a titanic sheet of metal at the Lagrange point between venus and the sun. It would be VERY megalithic... (Enough to block the sun for the entire earth-mass planet.) but if you block the sun off, and cut off the thermal engine... chances are you can bring the temperature down low enough for much of the material pressent in the atmosphere to condense and fall to the planet. This would drop much of the sulfuric acid out of the atmosphere, and perhaps reduce pressure by a significant ammount. Then you could begin landing devices and scooping up things. Perhaps if we can create a heating/cooling balance and bring it under control, we can stablize the out of control greenhouse gas effect the planet's locked in, and make it possibly habitable.

There's a lot of crap in the air at 900 degrees that wouldn't be there at 90.

Keep this in perspective, people:

Building a giant sun shield is not exactly in the 'current projects' bin. ^_^

Well, I think the most important thing we need right now is a reliable, cheap, and safe way to get stuff into orbit. That is what the shuttle was intended to do, but that, as we all know, did not pan out.

Perhaps the most intriguing idea at this time is the space elevator. Of course, the technology needed for such a project is still years away. Then again they also went from tinkering with German V3 rockets to flying men to the moon with Saturn Vs in 14 years, so you can never really say how fast technology can advance, given the right budget.

I've been thinking a maglev launch track could also be a possibility. That is, to get a launch vehicle up to speed before it fires its rockets, saving on the cost and, more importantly, the weight of the fuel normally spent to do this. Think of a space shuttle or rocket launch: the thing barely moves for the first few seconds as the craft accelerates from a stand still. All the fuel spent on this could be saved if the craft is initiallly accelerated by other means.

There are several examples of functional maglev technology today. Many rollercoasters are now using this technology to bypass the traditional "towed up a big incline" thing. There is a successful maglev test track in Germany (on which I rode - mega awesome, 412kmh top speed!) that has been running test trains for over 20 years. And there is a maglev train in service in Shanghai, connecting the city to the airport. So, maglev technology is viable, and it can be used to accelerate things to a great speed.

Once we have a reliable and cheap way to get stuff into orbit, we can look at building zero-g manufacturing plants, space hotels, or orbital shipyards to build asteroid mining ships. Actually, that might need to be planned in advance in order to attract investment dollars to the research of the launch vehicle.

Let's hope somebody figures this stuff out before we all die. I wanna see some cool stuff!

That's what I was saying. Maglev EM Catapult. Hell, if the damn thing ends up being ten miles long, so be it!

10 miles long would actually be better, as more inertia would built. hell, if we could make the entire thing vacuum sealed until it gets higher up, all the more better, if not, ah well. so, the next step is to design it all.