A base on the moon would help with that. If we had a mining operation, we could get the heavier materials required in space. With the moons lower gravity, it would be easier. The current hurdle right now is the delay in communication and AI. Controlling robots from earth isn't really a good option. We need a robot that knows what to do to accomplish all the tasks so long as we tell it the task.
We have to keep space travel separated from the initial take off. In the space a nuclear engine can accelerate a spacecraft at a decent speed consuming not a lot of fuel [as for I know, this would be the option preferred by NASA]. There are also other ideas on the table for the future [I can mention the "Positron Catalyzed Fusion Drive", a great name which promise a lot ... with the problem that you need a system to generate anti-matter while the engine is working, since so far it's difficult to store antimatter. They talk about "positron dynamics".]. But the problem of the take off remains. To use antimatter on Earth to generate a thrust doesn't sound a great idea. It would be better to find a way block gravity [quantum mechanics tells us that gravity runs on virtual particles called "gravitons", but so far no one has found a way to block the action of that field].
Well, I agree that significant commercial fusion generated electricity is still many years in the future. Today, EVs do have a lower fuel cost per mile, and they have lower maintenance costs as well. The only real catch is that EVs are new technology and are thus expensive. I believe prices will come down for a number of reasons.
Interesting post. I would add a couple notes. Mining and launching stuff from the moon is still going to be expensive. I suspect mining asteroids will be more cost effective. Plus, I haven't heard of anything on the moon that would interest mining corporations other than for use on the moon. Of course, we'll see as more is learned about the moon. Our robots are getting a whole lot smarter. We are flying a helicopter on Mars today - a pretty good demonstration of combining autonomous robotics with higher level control from Earth, with communication time to Mars being between 5 and 20 minutes. My own view is that robotics is progressing rapidly while "moon men" projects still face difficult problems in keeping humans alive that have been known for ages. Plus, every single thing that involves humans in space is stupendously expensive compared to the costs of robotics. And, that is a serious reality when we have relatively fixed budgets for NASA. We could be doing science instead of trying to keep astronauts alive.
I agree that the major issue is getting from Earth to space. Once in space, one can use drives that don't have the power to get off Earth, but are comparatively light weight and can be allowed to run for long periods of time. I'm not a big fan of the anti-matter, anti-graviton, ideas as they amount to scifi today. Also, anti-matter costs $62 trillion per gram. We can boost a LOT of rocket fuel into space for that kind of money.
Quite, and I believe it will happen quicker than anyone thinks. An electric car doesn't require a transmission and each wheel could be an engine so it is inherently a much simpler device. Once the batteries are developed just a little better they should take off
True. I'd add that pretty much every significant automaker in the world believes this is where we are going - as demonstrated by their huge investments in EV design and manufacturing today.
This is where the Space Elevator might be used as you could have a ship coming down as one goes up and not have to throw away all the energy used to lift you out of Earth's huge Gravity well. Or not, I'm not really sure how that would work, but I have seen a Space Station idea that would capture all the energy and re use it a mass driver. Problem is it would require a mass driver 150 kilometers long. Quite possible in Space, really. Anti-matter is a LOONG way off, but who knows? They aren't called breakthus for nothing.
Yes, the space elevator idea was a good one. However, investigation of that found it essentially impossible, as the material for the cable would have to be stronger than anything we have. Simply making the cable bigger would also add additional weight - in the end, not solving the problem. That could work in cases where gravity is less than that of Earth. For example, I've heard knowledgeable commentators who believe the math works out for Mars. However, I haven't heard of NASA working on that. And, landing on Mars has taken the "lives" of many landing craft. Other ideas have included ramps with rocket cars (saving by launching the payload without the major boosters and fuel) and launching from aircraft. But, I haven't heard of one of these actually penciling out.
The space elevator was always held up on substances from the very first. I heard they had a sort of carbon nanotube fabric stronger than steel and Kevlar combined (how in hell would they cut it?) made of microscopic "buckyballs" (tiny geodesic domes, this is all no feces, I swear) but I guess that didn't work out. The nicest thing I've heard in this area was that they discovered water on the Moon. I'd never realized this was a problem before but it turns out it's very heavy and hard to get into space. It's not for drinking, mind, since you can recycle that (ewww, maybe I don't want to be an astronaut after all) but you can make rocket fuel with it and that is a major weight consideration gone which would enable you to make lots of things and go lots of places and this is sort of why NASA is looking to start Moon missions again. To Infinity and Beyond
Good stuff. Yes, cables made of carbon nanotubes seem to be the best idea. I've heard the tubes would need to be miles long and perfect - something nobody has achieved. And, yes, I have no idea how these tubes would be used in manufacturing.
Yes, and the oxygen can be used for breathing. NASA reports to congress. I think we're going to the moon because congress said we're going to the moon. There are reasons for missions to the moon. I think China is planning on turning a crater on the side away from Earth into giant radio antenna - something that can be done robotically. That would keep out Earthly radio pollution. I'm just not sure why humans need to go there. We could do a LOT of trips to the moon for science for the cost of one manned mission - which is going to do almost no science. NASA doesn't have a way to protect astronauts from radiation, by the way. So, our fastest trip to Mars and back would leave the astronauts at or above their lifetime radiation limit. If we sent humans somewhere farther, well, ...
I'm among the first to agree here. History shows this; we didn't really start to use Space well until we stopped having human travel there as the main purpose. We will eventually do that, we will someday colonise other planets (I think Mars will someday be like the Hamptons are now), but we will never get there so easily that large numbers can migrate. To coin a cliche, there is no planet B
It depends ... to generate positrons [so anti-electrons = antimatter] is not so difficult. But what are you going to do with your beloved positrons? If you try and take off issuing positrons you will annihilate something! Personally I'd prefer a different solution ...
I think the cost of anti-matter is a serious issue. If anyone thinks then can create anti-matter more cheaply, they should start reaping the profits of doing so. I agree with the rest of your post. So far, the anti-matter idea looks like a dead end for more than one reason.
That's clear. To make a photon produce an electron and a positron you need an energy of 1.022 MeV [don't think to produce anti-protons: you would need 1.9 GeV and in the 60's they demonstrated that to produce an anti-atom of hydrogen you need 70 GeV]. No, the right way is to find a trick to inhibit the gravitational field [probably a quantum trick]. Without gravity you can reach the orbit even with a little ionic engine and once in the space you can use nuclear propulsion, anti-matter or whatever you like best. But thinking well, a quantum reactor could do all, if you discover the "trick" to win gravity.
So far, isn't Bezos mostly interested in suborbital tourism? Bezos is selling rides that don't even make it to orbit. NASA's Space Launch System was built exclusively for the ride to the moon, and costs more than $4B per launch. There are only 4 launches that were ever scheduled, as each launch vehicle is totally destroyed on each launch. So far, each SpaceX launch includes a reusable component (which costs $97M) and an expendable component (which costs $150M. That is a STUPENDOUS savings, plus SpaceX has been servicing the ISS on a regular basis, as seats on a Russian launch vehicle are FAR more expensive than a SpaceX ride. So, Russia no longer gets our dollars for launching stuff to the ISS! Really, we should scrap the NASA SLS. It just does not have a future.
