Space tech heading in reverse

Jessica Kelly4 said:I think you’re getting a bit too hyped up about NASA. To me, the real strength of American technology lies in the countless small, innovative companies and research institutes—places like IBM—rather than in a massive behemoth like NASA.

Same goes for the science; no sane person would question Russian science or their space program. As for practical everyday benefits, I think you're right—the US economic system is great at quickly turning "military toys" into civilian tech.

I couldn't agree more, and I find everything you've stated to be entirely accurate. 👍

goldenmason172 said:Honestly, tell me what the Russians have actually contributed to the world that we can still benefit from regarding all this powerful space technology? I know exactly what NASA has provided us, but I'm struggling to see what Russia has given to the global community.🤔 🤔 🤔

I know too... a tiny little non-stick pan!😬

Look, the real issue with space travel is that we're stuck playing by the rules of physics, which dictate the pace.
So... maybe one day we'll make it to Mars, or maybe even reach Proxima Centauri in 500 years... but that's pretty much the ceiling for humanity.
Even in 10 billion years, we aren't just going to hop over to another galaxy. That's the realization that really hits you.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, the real issue with space travel is that we're stuck playing by the rules of physics, which dictate the pace.
So... maybe one day we'll make it to Mars, or maybe even reach Proxima Centauri in 500 years... but that's pretty much the ceiling for humanity.
Even in 10 billion years, we aren't just going to hop over to another galaxy. That's the realization that really hits you.

Not in human form, anyway.

northernbison63 said:Not in human form, anyway.

Look, you can go in any other form you want... it doesn't matter. You're still looking at a million years just to reach the nearest galaxy... which isn't even the kicker. The real issue is that it'll take you a million years just to get back.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, you can go in any other form you want... it doesn't matter. You're still looking at a million years just to reach the nearest galaxy... which isn't even the kicker. The real issue is that it'll take you a million years just to get back.

Exactly. If we were sticking to old-school methods based on particles and that classic Einstein view of the universe.

But by the late 70s, this theoretical "wormhole" method was dreamed up (thanks to Carl Sagan) that would let us basically "shortcut" through space, even in a universe like this, much faster. The catch? The energy consumption is absolutely insane.

Then you've got String Theory, which gives you the chance to look at our 4D universe as nothing more than the thin skin of a balloon within an 11-dimensional reality. It’s just like a balloon—you can reach something incredibly far away just by traveling along the surface.

There's this classic experiment, at least 50 years old now, that proves things just don't line up with classical theory. I'd have to dig around for the specifics, but it's something involving quantum electron values. When you pair an electron with a positron and separate them by hundreds of miles, if you change one quantum value, the other changes its own instantly—meaning faster than light. Nobody actually knows why.

Of course, we're talking about theoretical possibilities here, and there's still a long road ahead, but it just goes to show we haven't even scratched the surface of space yet. This whole space race feels like ants and dust motes playing around with theoretical physics; one thing is for sure, we aren't getting there in an >.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, the real issue with space travel is that we're stuck playing by the rules of physics, which dictate the pace.
So... maybe one day we'll make it to Mars, or maybe even reach Proxima Centauri in 500 years... but that's pretty much the ceiling for humanity.
Even in 10 billion years, we aren't just going to hop over to another galaxy. That's the realization that really hits you.

👍
We’re way too small-time in this field to ever actually be big shots!!
Major props to everyone working in this industry, though; you really have to be a total fanatic to do this job!!

P.S.—we're also way too small-time to handle basic problems right here on Earth.🙏

Dennis Myers6 said:👍
We’re way too small-time in this field to ever actually be big shots!!
Major props to everyone working in this industry, though; you really have to be a total fanatic to do this job!!

P.S.—we're also way too small-time to handle basic problems right here on Earth.🙏

Einstein and Oppenheimer were too small for Germany, and Fermi was too small for Italy.

And they were all way too small for Hiroshima.

What does "size" even mean, anyway?

We’ve drifted a bit off-topic here... anyway, back to the main point.

Back in the mid-1950s, they were busy deciding what a "spaceship"—or more accurately, a capsule—should actually look like. The Americans went with a cone shape because it's easier to handle during launch and especially during reentry. Meanwhile, the Russians opted for a sphere, thinking it was the most efficient way to maximize living space while orbiting. That single decision basically dictated the entire trajectory of both space programs, from Mercury through Apollo, and from Vostok all the way to Soyuz. And honestly? I think the Americans totally missed the mark there. A trip to the Moon takes forever, and that design choice caused constant headaches regarding how much room the crew actually had to breathe.

Now, after that massive, multi-billion dollar disaster with the Space Shuttle, it looks like the US is retreating to the tried-and-true Apollo design (now rebranded as Orion). We’re essentially circling back to technology designed in the early 1960s—sure, it's been modernized with fancy new materials and tech, but we're also circling back to that SAME ORIGINAL MISTAKE in the capsule's shape.

It’ll be real interesting to watch sometime around 2015 as this latest "marvel" of American engineering potentially falls apart right in front of the whole nation's eyes.

And what about teleportation?
I mean, to my totally uneducated ears, that sounds way cheaper than building those massive beasts just to travel through space.🙏

Dennis Myers6 said:And what about teleportation?
I mean, to my totally uneducated ears, that sounds way cheaper than building those massive beasts just to travel through space.🙏

Look, teleportation isn't just some sci-fi fever dream from Star Trek—it’s actually been done experimentally a few years back over in Denmark. We're talking about teleporting an electron over a distance of a few meters, and I think they even managed a whole atom after that. But let’s be real, we are still light-years away from anything useful. The massive catch? The sheer, mind-boggling amount of energy required—not to mention the insane level of complexity involved. It's a nightmare.

So, is there actually some kind of strategy or, I don't know, a real plan to make researching our system worth the money?
I'm talking about all those different ores, gases, water reserves, and stuff like that which 🙏 could actually be useful for our civilization, I guess.
Or is the whole space program just a purely human exploration thing, you know, like just seeing what's around the corner or if we're alone in space and all that?🙏

Dennis Myers6 said:So, is there actually some kind of strategy or, I don't know, a real plan to make researching our system worth the money?
I'm talking about all those different ores, gases, water reserves, and stuff like that which 🙏 could actually be useful for our civilization, I guess.
Or is the whole space program just a purely human exploration thing, you know, like just seeing what's around the corner or if we're alone in space and all that?🙏

Whether such a specific economic strategy exists or not, I couldn't say for sure, but I truly believe the core drivers behind space exploration boil down to this:
- The propaganda factor (which, honestly, I think is still incredibly relevant today). It's how the USA, for instance, demonstrates to the rest of the world that they are leading the charge in human progress.
- Telecommunications and defense requirements (think satellite deployment).
- The ability to funnel massive amounts of capital into pure scientific research. Doing that in almost any other field would be nearly impossible—mostly because you wouldn't have that synergy with national prestige, global comms, and military needs. A superpower like the USA can afford to bankroll fundamental research where the practical payoff isn't immediately obvious. However, many technical breakthroughs born from space programs eventually find their way into everyday life. It makes me think of those specialized tubes they developed just to solve food storage issues in deep space!

goldentrucker17 said:You barely manage to scrape together two sentences before you end up tripping over your own feet and contradicting yourself anyway.
You really don't think there's any actual benefit to all this "space technology"? I mean, come on. You know damn well what NASA has handed down to us.
The Russians have had an operational space station—the Mir—up there for 30 years now, and honestly, it’s basically the backbone of today's International Space Station. If it wasn't for that Russian tech, we wouldn't even have the regular communication or the crew rotations on the ISS that we see happening today. It's all built on that foundation.

So, tell me this—when some billionaire decides they’re finally ready to blast off into space, who exactly are they supposed to call? Do they just ring up the USA? Or maybe try their luck with the European Union? Honestly, I can only imagine the ridiculous nonsense people have to explain over and over again on this Forum. It's exhausting.

That station would be dead in the water without Americans, and it totally would've crashed when those gyroscopes failed. Plus, the Russians don't even have decent launch vehicles for building stations because their payload capacity is tiny—like 500kg—which is basically nothing. That barely covers the bare essentials.

Shouldn't every nation on Earth collaborate to construct a vessel capable of reaching geosynchronous orbit, where it could intercept a fuel reservoir ignited by a nuclear pulse to propel itself toward the Moon? If it currently takes four days just to reach the Moon, can we truly call that progress? Wouldn't it be revolutionary if we could slash that transit time to mere hours, allowing for the rapid transport of people and cargo back and forth?

From there, we could implement a magnetic "railgun" system to launch payloads directly from the lunar surface.

Next, we must pioneer nuclear-thermal spacecraft capable of hitting two or three percent of light speed to reach Mars and the Asteroid Belt, where we would establish permanent colonies.

These colonies would then serve as hubs for advancing nuclear technology and experimenting with next-generation reactors. Once our engineering reaches the point where we can fit a reactor inside a craft the size of a Boeing 747—one that carries enough fuel to sustain speeds of 10 to 15 percent of light speed—only then can we truly discuss conquering the solar system and pushing the boundaries of space technology. After all, what is the point of any vessel traveling slower than 100 kilometers per second? It is only at that threshold that we can begin to contemplate exploring the first few hundred solar systems in our vicinity and achieving true expansion into Space.

Nicole Barrett76 said:Shouldn't every nation on Earth collaborate to construct a vessel capable of reaching geosynchronous orbit, where it could intercept a fuel reservoir ignited by a nuclear pulse to propel itself toward the Moon? If it currently takes four days just to reach the Moon, can we truly call that progress? Wouldn't it be revolutionary if we could slash that transit time to mere hours, allowing for the rapid transport of people and cargo back and forth?

From there, we could implement a magnetic "railgun" system to launch payloads directly from the lunar surface.

Next, we must pioneer nuclear-thermal spacecraft capable of hitting two or three percent of light speed to reach Mars and the Asteroid Belt, where we would establish permanent colonies.

These colonies would then serve as hubs for advancing nuclear technology and experimenting with next-generation reactors. Once our engineering reaches the point where we can fit a reactor inside a craft the size of a Boeing 747—one that carries enough fuel to sustain speeds of 10 to 15 percent of light speed—only then can we truly discuss conquering the solar system and pushing the boundaries of space technology. After all, what is the point of any vessel traveling slower than 100 kilometers per second? It is only at that threshold that we can begin to contemplate exploring the first few hundred solar systems in our vicinity and achieving true expansion into Space.

In a perfect world—if we could actually get the entire human race to pull in the same direction for once—we could build massive starships in Earth's orbit! Imagine it: giant vessels designed for years of comfortable living, drifting through the solar system from planet to planet (or even to a Moon!) and deploying landing modules wherever we can touch down. Wouldn't that be incredible?

But let’s get real for a second, shall we? Right now, humanity is dealing with far too many immediate crises. The global stage has become incredibly hyper-competitive—it's this cutthroat struggle at every level, where some nations even resort to desperate measures like trying to develop their own nuclear arsenals just to keep up. On top of that, can we even talk about sustainable development anymore? Between energy shortages, pollution, dwindling raw materials, and the terrifying reality that our exponential growth in knowledge might not be sustainable forever, plus the sheer pressure of overpopulation... it's a lot! Honestly, I truly believe the next few decades will be the ultimate make-or-break moment for our species. We absolutely have to find a way to reach a state of long-term stability if we want to survive.

Dennis Myers6 said:So, is there actually some kind of strategy or, I don't know, a real plan to make researching our system worth the money?
I'm talking about all those different ores, gases, water reserves, and stuff like that which 🙏 could actually be useful for our civilization, I guess.
Or is the whole space program just a purely human exploration thing, you know, like just seeing what's around the corner or if we're alone in space and all that?🙏

There are. People have run the numbers, and I don't mean those "let's build a space city for 30,000 people in orbit" fantasies—I mean actual, serious math. Everything boils down to the cost of launching one kilogram of payload into orbit. And getting one kg to the Moon? That’s roughly ten times more expensive because you're fighting to hit escape velocity and then dealing with the nightmare of soft landings.

Right now, we're looking at costs somewhere around $2,000 per launch (I can't remember the specifics on recovery, I think that's not factored in yet), and that's just for dead weight. No humans, nothing. Just cargo.

Any attempt to mine resources on the Moon is basically a non-starter at these rates. I mean, there's zero point in hauling ore back to Earth; the shipping costs would be astronomical, even for super rare materials. And trying to process them on the Moon and then ship the finished product? Forget it. Even if you try to optimize the price-to-shipping ratio, it’s impossible because you'd first have to haul an incredibly complex industrial plant up there, and then you'd have to bake that massive upfront cost into every single thing you produce.

Everything we can realistically achieve in the near future—maybe the next 25 years or so—is just setting up some base on the Moon that doesn't even really serve a major purpose, other than maybe finding out there's iron sitting there. Which will be completely useless to us.

Even when the private sector finally manages to crash the prices through mass launches (not to mention the environmental disaster that'll cause), it's unlikely they'll drop below a third of current prices. And honestly? That's still way too damn expensive.

So yeah, basically, we're just gonna sit here on Earth staring up at the Moon and the stars, just like we've been doing for the last million years.

Nicole Barrett76 said:Shouldn't every nation on Earth collaborate to construct a vessel capable of reaching geosynchronous orbit, where it could intercept a fuel reservoir ignited by a nuclear pulse to propel itself toward the Moon? If it currently takes four days just to reach the Moon, can we truly call that progress? Wouldn't it be revolutionary if we could slash that transit time to mere hours, allowing for the rapid transport of people and cargo back and forth?

From there, we could implement a magnetic "railgun" system to launch payloads directly from the lunar surface.

Next, we must pioneer nuclear-thermal spacecraft capable of hitting two or three percent of light speed to reach Mars and the Asteroid Belt, where we would establish permanent colonies.

These colonies would then serve as hubs for advancing nuclear technology and experimenting with next-generation reactors. Once our engineering reaches the point where we can fit a reactor inside a craft the size of a Boeing 747—one that carries enough fuel to sustain speeds of 10 to 15 percent of light speed—only then can we truly discuss conquering the solar system and pushing the boundaries of space technology. After all, what is the point of any vessel traveling slower than 100 kilometers per second? It is only at that threshold that we can begin to contemplate exploring the first few hundred solar systems in our vicinity and achieving true expansion into Space.

Actually, if I remember correctly, about a year and a half ago, someone theoretically designed an engine powered by americium fission strips. A ship like that would have enough kick to cut the trip to Mars from six months down to just two weeks! But look, the massive headache right now isn't even the engine; it's the brutal radiation in Space (from the Sun and cosmic rays) that the crew has to endure. And don't even get me started on bone density loss and muscle atrophy... though it seems like Russ figured out a workaround a decade ago with those specialized "penguin" suits.