[XKCD] Age of powered flight versus age of space flight

Matthew said:
Some good points. We're making huge technological advances that do let us explore remotely. But have we gone from humanity being explorers to drone operaters?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose not dying or be left on a distant planet without much human interaction would be worth leaving the exploration to the "drone operators". Again, I get that it isn't as romantic as waxing poetic about the moon landing or any number of feats accomplished in manned-space travel, but it just doesn't make any sense to do it. When we have discovered a planet that can be capable of sustaining human life, we will see a return to manned space flight due to needing infrastructure built to accommodate such an undertaking (think Moon Base as jumping off point for deep space travel). Until then, it's just pointless to send astronauts any further out than the ISS as it doesn't likely teach us anything we don't already know and only stands to potentially shorten the lifespan of the astronauts, if not kill them outright.
 
Half Fast said:
Son, I saw it decades ago when it was this: [Roadster in space from Heavy Metal]
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it was science fiction then.

Watch Star Trek (1966-1969). There are a lot of things that were SciFi then that are reality now. Smartphones being the communicator and tricorder being one prominent example.

skier said:
Sorry, this thread is still bugging me. The latest generation of commercial jet engines (CFM Leap and PW GTF) advertise ~15% improvements in fuel efficiency. That’s insanity in a world/field where 1-2% improvements are lauded as game changing.
Click to expand...
The 727 was introduced in 1964. It burned about 10,000 pound-per-hour.
The latest 737, with similar passenger and weight carrying capability, burns about 5,000pph.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, I suppose not dying or be left on a distant planet without much human interaction would be worth leaving the exploration to the "drone operators". Again, I get that it isn't as romantic as waxing poetic about the moon landing or any number of feats accomplished in manned-space travel, but it just doesn't make any sense to do it. When we have discovered a planet that can be capable of sustaining human life, we will see a return to manned space flight due to needing infrastructure built to accommodate such an undertaking (think Moon Base as jumping off point for deep space travel). Until then, it's just pointless to send astronauts any further out than the ISS as it doesn't likely teach us anything we don't already know and only stands to potentially shorten the lifespan of the astronauts, if not kill them outright.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I hope manned space travel will continue, but I think it needs to do so largely as a private venture. We still need to learn how to do it affordably, and that's a matter for private businesses, not government.

We don't learn anything new from going to the top of Everest, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Just that it's an activity for private adventure-seekers.
 
skier said:
As for another type of rocket propulsion, Blue Origin has gone through 3 different chemistries in the engines, that I know of. Maybe not completely different than our old technology, but still a lot of changes. They also managed to be the first ones to reuse a rocket, which is another pretty cool advancement.
Click to expand...
Rocket propulsion is the problem. As long as you need tons of propellant and oxidizer to provide three minutes' thrust, manned space flight is going to be stuck in the Conestoga phase. Come up with a system that'll convert massive electrical power into massive thrust, and the solar system is ours. Casually take off and climb to orbit like an aircraft would, travel under thrust to provide onboard gravity, come to a complete stop and orbital altitude and let down like a helicopter to negate the need for re-entry shielding.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top