/sci/ - Science & Math

Probably when space programs make headway on developing those ion thruster-majigs. Don't really remember the proper name for them, but they're always described as shooting ions at a platform in space causing thrust that's more efficient and longer lasting. The problem is that it'd be as slow as shit.

>>5813240
If they are going to be slow as shit, how is that a development, at best its just a new technology we can't viably use.. unless they are significantly cheaper, then perhaps they would be useful for commercial moon flights?

I thought it would probably be when they finally had the materials to build a space elevator, but all the research I do talks about 'near term', and frankly I have no idea what 'near-term' means in relation to the fucking universe.

I think SpaceX has made something of the next major development for spaceflight with the idea of re-usable rockets and many flights. It should really open up space to many more people, especially if destinations are established, such as more space stations.

>>5813252
The point of the various ion thrusters is that they are extremely efficient. The low thrust is the tradeoff. Similar thing happens with cars - the powerful ones drink fuel much quicker than others. Such tradeoffs are everywhere. For example, take a transfer operation from one planet to another. You can do a Hohmann transfer, minimizing fuel use but maximizing flight time, or you can do a brachistochrone trajectory, which maximizes fuel use to minimize flight time.

Anyway, to address the question, once current research gets to the point where private operations in space become viable, the research will increase rapidly on account of corporate funding, and we'll get an explosion of technology, I expect.

>>5813515
So they are cheaper, essentially. I could see them being used for the sort of low level short distance missions etc.

>>5813495
Yeah, I think once we start exploring asteroids for rare minerals it will expand the corporate side of things.

>>5813527
>short distance
Eh.... Understand that the burn time is really fucking long - long enough that you'd orbit the earth many times over while executing a maneuver more involved than station keeping. That's generally not preferable. I think the use of ion engines has been suggested for supply runs to a lunar base or somesuch (get it into low earth orbit with liquid fuel, then use the ion engines to get it into a higher orbit so you have time to execute the lunar transfer burn), but the primary applications, to my knowledge, are station keeping and interplanetary transfers. The latter especially, as getting an interplanetary liquid-fueled craft's fuel into orbit would be exorbitantly expensive.

>>5813527
>So they are cheaper, essentially. I could see them being used for the sort of low level short distance missions etc.
Try the exact opposite.

>>5813234
When we build the first space fountain. Which is why I'm getting a degree in structural engineering.

>>5813589
>>5813549
Got it!

>>5813591
Yeah space architecture, nice.

>>5813591

Your enthusiasm and ambition brought a tear to my eye. You go build that space fountain, Anon, we're all depending on you.

Well, SpaceX is hoping to fly a reusable commercial orbital launcher next year.

I'm optimistic for breaking the $100/kg barrier this decade.

Off topic, but fits here. How do you suspect currency will work when we start space colonisation?

Either the reusable rocket or the space elevator.

>inb4 >space elevator

I have hopes for carbon nanotech. SOMETHING is going to come of that stuff. If nothing else just launching the tether and trying to equalize gravity:geocentric force or whatever it was called will have some interesting results.

>>5813666

Space cash.

>>5813704
Google x

>>5813709
>implying that's not the way they're going with their partnership with the us mil for drones

>>5813704
The Space Elevator would need several breakthroughs in materials science.

There are other cheap(er than rockets), more plausible ways to get into space.

Launch Loop, Space Fountain, Startram and so on.

>>5813596
Just an unmentioned tidbit about the ion engines:
a good consequence of being so efficient is that they can stay in action for much longer than traditional chemical engines. The constant acceleration will (with enough time) get you going at huge velocities, making them the faster option for deep space missions.

>>5813717
and they look cool as fuck, too bad they have such a low acceleration rate that it would take a long ass time to change direction.

>>5813717
>making them the faster option for deep space missions.

This is the vital bit of information I was failing to understand, so over the course of a mission to say Titan, they would build up enough speed to make the journey faster than with chemical engines? Could you clarify, are they cheaper or not, in the long term I suppose they must be if they can stay in action for much longer..

As you can tell I really know very little.

>>5813731
The chemical rockets provide a lot of thrust, but they last only a few minutes.

An ion engine provides a tiny amount of thrust, but it can go for months.

On shorter, fast journeys, chemical rockets rule.

But when your mission lasts for years and takes you from here to the Kuiper belt, you get more out of the ion engine.

>>5813746
Presumably over time the Ion canons will get more powerful and the adverse effects such as shitty manoeuvrability will decrease, right?

>>5813746
To make it clear, you could use a lot of chemical rockets and an intricate trajectory with many gravity slingshots for the longer missions, but it's less cost-effective than the ion engine.

And because of the low thrust, you can't get from ground to orbit or do fast course corrections or fast de-orbit burns with the ion engine.

>>5813754
You can't really fix the low thrust of the ion engine.

You CAN accelerate ions with other ways to higher velocities and use more thrust mass, but then you're not in the realm of ion engines anymore. An example is the VASIMR.

>>5813731
Yeah you pretty much have it.

And they're much cheaper for long term missions too because Ions as a fuel source are many times lighter and more compact than chemical rocket fuel.
It costs around $2000 dollars at the cheapest to get a pound of matter into low earth orbit (inb4 b-but muh metric system). Deep space probes usually weight a fuckton, and replacing the chemical fuel with ions plummets that initial cost.

>>5813714
The thing is, rockets are the only thing we can pull off today, and every advancement that will contribute to those other things is going to make rockets cheaper.

Rockets are actually pretty energy efficient. The only real problem is the expense of building them. Eventually, we'll be able to fully automate the process, and make them out of inexpensive materials.

On top of that, we'll get more sophisticated about space industry, so used rockets will be recyclable, and there won't really be any waste, just valuable raw materials that will be useful in orbit.

For orbital launch, a single-stage-to-orbit rocket will be effectively be all fuel and payload, and the fuel can be made from air and water. So in the long run, it's just another energy-to-orbit system, and one we've got a nice incremental path to develop along.

>>5813801
Except with rockets you're also lifting your means of lift.

With the abovementioned, you just lift the payload.

If the launch method is electromagnetic, you could build it near the equator and use a large field of solar collectors(pv or solar thermal) to charge the launch system. Or even if we never get nuclear rockets, use a nuclear plant to power the launch system.

>>5813666
>>5813666
that's tough to speculate on since anything like that is a long way away. who knows what currency will be like then, let alone space currency.

sadly, I think the next big breakthrough will be when a company makes a significant profit through space travel, through whatever means.

i'm gonna go ahead and not count those suborbital "experience weightlessness" trips, although i'm sure they make quite a bit of money

>>5813828
forgot to add, because if that happened then money would start pouring into space travel and related issues.

next after that would be working economy in space. centered on near earth mining stations and orbital stations

>>5813832
The mining is what I believe will trigger a huge boost to the technology, once they start to extract platinum or rare earth minerals from asteroids the money will pour in.

And then, personal spacecraft.

Why not just put several ion engines on a spacecraft then?

>>5813895
Bump, I want an answer to this as well.

>>5813895
>>5813983
>PUT MORE ENGINES ON IT
Do you play kerbal space program, by chance?

>>5813994
No, but It does seem like a logical step..

>>5813895
>>5813983
Doesn't help. A single ion engine can't produce enough thrust to lift itself, so even if you put a million ion engines on a spacecraft, it still couldn't lift off from the surface.

>>5814005
traditional fuel/ion engine hybrid?

>>5814005
Right, but once they get into space and gravity fucks off they come into there own.

>>5814008
We already do that. A chemical rocket for liftoff and an ion engine for the rest.

>>5814010
Yes, but they still use power, so unless you're lugging a nuclear reactor, you won't get much use out of the million-engine spaceship.

>>5814019
Not even playing devils advocate, but surely nuclear powered rockets are not that far off?

>>5814019
why not use the chemical rocket in space as well to facilitate jerk when needed?

>>5814021
I wish! Nuka-Cola can probably answer better as to why they're way off, but mainly it's because no funding and muh radio-atomic nucular contaminashun!

>>5814023
Mass efficiency, if you keep lugging around a big hulking fuel tank, the efficiency of the mission suffers. It's not only about money, but also about lift capability, which isn't really all that great especially with the current shuttle-deficiency.

>>5814038
>no funding and muh radio-atomic nucular contaminashun!

So as with most stuff that holds back space exploration bureaucracy and a poor economy? I get the impression that the fact no government wants to commit to long term development also hurts space travel, of course a large scale programme would have a massive economic boon, but not right away, and if it kicked in after they had left power what use is that to them!

They have no problem putting nuclear submarines in to action, but then I suppose they have a weapon on board and thus are considered necessary.

Anyway, its late UK time, so thanks for answering my questions. If you have time to answer this post that would be great, I will leave the thread open and check back in the morning.

>>5814044
That's pretty much the size of it. Also the fact that right now, there's no -perceived- burning need for a super-heavy lift capability or high-thrust, long-durability engines. But if the Mars-race goes forward, maybe...

No problem, it's even later Finnish time, but I'm kind of working nightshift.
See you.

>>5813666
>666 gdi
credits of some kind more than likely can't have the jewgold floating away upon your inevitable death.

>>5813858
deep space industries
and
planetary resources

are the only companies currently talking about or gearing up for mining asteroids. anyone know of more than those?

what about a fusion engine? obviously its not gonna happen tomorrow, but is a viable technology? maybe a tokamak type reactor with a small hole in the magnetic bottle to expel the helium by-product at near light speed

The finish line for our era is making space profitable. Humanity will not keep it's feet in the water for curiosity's sake forever. As soon as it becomes profitable humanity's presence beyond Earth will grow exponentially. Nothing in the universe will stop us save the heat death of the universe.

>>5814080
It's hot but not that hot. As it stands Tokamaks are far far to heavy.

>>5813706
USD

>>5813666
USD

They won't be independent nations. They will just be transnational corporation facilities.

>>5814138
alright. what about antimatter? is there any viable way to produce it other than a particle collider?

>>5814199
>antimatter? is there any viable way to produce it
nope.jpg

>>5814138
what about fission fragment rocket engines...
they are the shizzle
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/637129main_Werka_Presentation.pdf

>>5814555

>The design can, in theory, produce very high specific impulses while still being well within the abilities of current technologies.

>With exhaust velocities of 3% - 5% the speed of light and efficiencies up to 90%, the rocket should be able to achieve over 1,000,000 sec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket

>>5814199
>>5814422
You don't need to make it youself. Just mine out what's already available around Earth and other planets..
http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1108/19antimatter/

>>5813234

Next major development? There won't be any.

What's happening now is the Outsourcing Phase of the general withdrawal from spaceflight. Public agencies are committing funds towards private ventures to give the appearance of progression and money-saving. Soon enough this fraud will become outed as a fraud, and agencies will start cutting the lines of funding to the contractors. Since there's precisely ZERO profit to be made from space operations (under existing economic models), these contractors will collapse one by one. That's the Starvation Phase.

By the time all this matures, petroleum will be so depleted that world governments will pretty much enter a state of permanent and obvious emergency. By then, except for Cheetos-stained virgin-nerds living in their momma's basements, nobody will care about space. They will care about shortages in the local grocery. The shortage of previous levels of medical care. Etc.

By the year 2150 AD, nobody will bother sending any sort of vehicle above Earth's Karman Line. Uncontrolled, satellites still in orbit will start to rain down on Earth, a process taking centuries. In the year 2500 AD, some scratch farmer in the zone previously known as Upstate New York, will look up and see one the final large re-entries.

>>5815028
There's plenty of oil in the world. There were posts on /sci/ a few weeks back about huge quantities of the stuff being found under some shelf in the USA. There's also a lot of it up north of Scotland. We have enough oil for the next 200 years, and yes, that's *with* current spending patterns accounted for!

The reason all this alarmist shit is getting spammed around is because oil companies like their profits. You know who else does this? The faggots who run the diamond industry. Protip: diamons are plentiful, and there are fucktones of them in storage. So why are they expensive then? Yeah, good question...

>>5815036

Liar. Outright lying won't protect you from what's coming. There are no generally accepted conclusions from petroleum geological data that say there are centuries of supply in affordably exploitable oil deposits, sands or shales.

What the general conclusion DOES say is that there's about 30-35 years of supply at existing consumption from the 2005 world production peak. That means around 2035 AD, the world will enter an era of critical petroleum depletion, and efforts to exploit more will cost more than then-current users will be able to pay.

Take your "200 year" LIE and go back to /x/, /pol/ or other fagboards. I'm sooooo tired of you Corucopians that I could BARF.

>>5813252
>If they are going to be slow as shit, how is that a development
In the case of most long distance trips (basically anything beyond the Moon) you run out of fuel shortly after leaving the Earth-Moon system and coast the rest of the way.

An ion thruster is low-thrust but it uses a small enough amount of fuel that it can potentially fire continuously for months on end. A coasting trip to Mars takes something in the neighborhood of 6-8 months (less if you're in an optimal orbital configuration). An ion thruster trip (if the technology can be sufficiently ramped up and powered) could cut that down to a few weeks.

>>5815135
>no generally accepted conclusions from petroleum geological data
There's your problem, friend. Don't you think it's a conflict of interest for petroleum companies to be funding geological research (and they do, it's a well-known fact). Face it, today's academia of any stripe is bought by and paid for by the supra-national corps. Whole nations bow down to the might of industrial consortiums!

Fun fact: we were supposed to run out of oil in the late eighties. Then at the turn of the millenium. Now they've pushed the date past 2020. Scarcity breeds profits, and there's nothing like falsifying data and whipping up the public in panic to make stock prices soar.

And even if we ever did 'run out' of oil (lol at anyone being this dimwitted and naive), the world would switch to some hybrid energy scheme. Countries have a vested interest in stability, and wars/rioting isn't good for business (protip: governments are, in essence, corporations, and adhere to the same rules). Sure, we might have to cut back on our luxuries, and most families couldn't afford 2 cars and 3 air conditioners, but that doesn't mean the world would go Mad Max.

So keep deepthroating that corporate cock as you dream about Judgement Day. Virtual reality is bound to come around any time now, and then you'll finally be able to live out your post-apocalyptic fantasies in there. Or you could, you know, just play Fallout.

>>5815028
>zero profit
see
>>5813858
>>5814077
>>5814111
there is profit to be made, there isn't an infrastructure for private companies to exploit the resources as of yet.

running out of fuel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant
you should read this. really fucking read it.

>>5814077
well, NASA's new asteroid capture mission will be developing several technologies that might come in useful for asteroid mining: soft rendezvous, and inflatable ring capture. One of the techniques talked about is to surround the whole asteroid in a bubble, then heat it to capture the volatiles.

Any ISRU (in-situ resource utilization) research will be useful. Write your congressman to fund ISRU research today!

>>5815028
MOAR.

>>5815210
>Virtual reality is bound to come around any time now

>>5815181
As an example, go look up the trajectory of the Dawn asteroid mission to Vesta and Ceres. There are graphics showing where along the route the ion thrusters were firing. Turns out it is most of the time!

>>5815227
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P50fvL_EWYY
10 years, tops. Along with nano tech, customizable drugs, and the full exploitation of graphene and its properties. Suck it, luddite.

>>5815214
interesting heard that term "soft rendezvous" tossed around some places didnt know what they were talking about.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/we-the-geeks

>>5813234
Space developments I'm excited about:
1) Commercial cargo resupply. Two US suppliers to the ISS, SpaceX Dragon and Orbital Cygnus, competing to bring costs down. Cygnus should fly in September.
2) Commercial crew. SpaceX Dragon, Boeing CST-100, and Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser (spaceplane! fuck yeah!), competing to fly crew to the ISS.
3) SpaceX reusable first stage and Grasshopper prototype. Hopefully will have test flights this year. Has the potential to reduce flight cost and really break open the launch market. Also development of the Raptor methane engine, potentially more efficient than their current Merlin engines.
4) Planetary Resources. They are about to raise over a million dollars on a kickstarter to fund their first asteroid prospecting satellite. Once they find a suitable target, their next project is an ion drive probe to make a close visit for detailed assessment. Then future plan is to fully mine it.
5) VASIMR. Throttleable high-power ion drive. Might send a prototype to the ISS for testing and boosting its orbit. And this is only one of several advanced ion drives in development.
6) Bigelow inflatable space station modules. Already has two prototypes in orbit, and one scheduled for testing on the ISS. After the ISS is decommissioned, has a good chance to be the next big space station. Also recently showed plans for a lunar habitat.
7) Google Lunar X Prize. Encouraging small projects to put a lander on the moon. Kind of a race with China at the moment.

I'm generally proud that we have probes around Mercury, Mars, and Saturn. And probes arriving at Ceres and Pluto in 2015 and Juno arriving at Jupiter in 2016. It is a good time to be interested in space!

>>5815265
Bigelow space station

>>5815240
I'm not a luddite, that drool is genuine.

And that link gave me a hard on.

Realistically, the first major advance was re-purposed weapons tech from a show of power from two competing superpowers so the next one might come from another instance of this, although there probably won't be another war on the scale of ww2 for some time due to nuclear weapons so the biggest enemy for technology might be tech itself, but as stated in this thread there needs to be conditions for it being profitable, maybe not literally but with the rise of China maybe in the next few years, presuming current world conditions can afford another cold war.

>ctrl+f "skylon"
>nothing

/sci, i am disappointed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

There will be no real advancement in space technology until we convince the private sector that there is money to be made out there.

When we finally get off our asses and develop nuclear-blast propulsion.

There is no real point in space travel until we have either stasis or FTL technology.

>>5815537
FTL tech is a long term goal, seriously.

How could we, in future, increase the acceleration of ion thrusters dramatically to be practical in Earth's atmosphere?

Say, on a flying car like in the Jetsons or in Ironman's suit.

Is it a case of needing a massive energy source or getting a material that can handle the heat generated from the plasma produced?

>>5815537
>stasis
sure would be great, I agree
>FTL
not gonna happen.

>>5815564
ion drives require vacuum. will never work in atmosphere. And their thrust is so low, you wouldn't want to use them except in deep space anyway.
>Jetsons, Ironman
go back to /tv/, pleb

>>5815554
It's really more of a fantasy. We have many reasons to believe it is fundamentally physically impossible, so calling it a "goal" is unreasonable.

However, addressing: >>5815537
...there's enough material in the solar system to build millions of Earth-sized (in terms of liveable surface area, not mass) living areas, and the sun can provide ample power for them all, and a surplus for things like transport to other star systems.

We don't need to leave the solar system to reap major benefits (including the capability to leave the solar system).

I think rather than the technology for stasis, we will develop the technology for immortality, and craft with all the comforts of a world, so we can tolerate decades-long journeys to other star systems.

>>5815537
>FTL
Don't try to break the laws of physics beforehand.
>stasis
Good, though we could better improve our life expectancy and make use of the effects of relativity.

>>5815672
>ion drives require vacuum. will never work in atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

Anyway, ion drives don't require vacuum. That's silly.

The reason we don't use ion drives to launch into space is that their thrust-to-weight ratio is less than 1. They can't even lift themselves off the Earth's surface, let alone take a payload to orbit.

Out in freefall, where they don't have to overcome gravity (or air resistance), they can accelerate things slowly but efficiently (in terms of propellant consumed), and eventually produce a much larger change in velocity than a chemical rocket.

>>5815678
>immortality

Who's talking about fantasy now?

>>5815687
There's nothing to even suggest that reversing the damage of aging is physically impossible. It is simply an engineering challenge, and therefore practically inevitable at some point in the future.

>>5815678
>...there's enough material in the solar system to build millions of Earth-sized (in terms of liveable surface area, not mass) living areas
And without a molten core no magnetosphere to stop those pesky solar winds from ripping you to shreds.

That's an unreasonable idea.

>>5815694
>without a molten core no magnetosphere
Do you really think that people building worlds will be unable to set up a simple magnetic shield? Come on, guy.

The solar wind is a valuable resource of energy, hydrogen, and helium. Even if they didn't need protection from it, it would only make sense to set up a magnetic scoop to capture it anyway.

I'm not talking about doing this next year. Science marches on.

>>5815706
yfw no magnetosphere is no dealbreaker - thick enough atmosphere and everything's fine

>>5815706
yfw no magnetosphere is no deal breaker - thick enough atmosphere and everything's fine

>>5815732
Never mind the atmosphere, space habitats are going to need centrifugal gravity, so they'll be floor-side-out.

>>5815692
Not the anon you replied to, but why can't "FTL" be treated viewed as an engineering challenge as well? I agree that it's looking less than great now, but you can't say it's fantasy until negative energy density is entirely ruled out of the question. The rest of the physics behind it is sound, and it would be stupid to abandon it just yet.

>>5815757
on the topic of atmosphere... I remember watching an episode of some 'science' show with Michio Kaku where he proposed that fighter pilots in space could withstand high acceleration by being suspended in some kind of fluid which allows breathing (stuff like that already exists i think...)

how about putting humans into some kind of liquid that isn't as detrimental as water when applied for long time and applying pressure to it... you wouldn't have pressure only along one axis like on earth - but from basically everywhere - should be better than none...

Tl:dr: how about we put astronauts into liquid which is under a certain pressure -> could this simulate a kind of 'gravity' ?

>>5815766
>why can't "FTL" be treated viewed as an engineering challenge as well?
Because our current understanding of the basic science is that it's physically impossible, in fact it is one of the most fundamental principles of physics that the speed of light is an unbreakable limit.

This could eventually turn out to be wrong, like phlogiston, but the point is that new science would be needed, making more than an "engineering challenge". We can't predict or choose what new science we get, we can only study the universe with an open mind and see what turns up.

Things which are not presently possible with our technology, but which can reasonably be taken to be physically possible, can be called engineering challenges because we only have to find the way to do them within the rules of the universe we already know.

>>5815771
>some kind of fluid which allows breathing (stuff like that already exists i think...)
It's called "liquid air", and you need to wear two sweaters.

>>5815790
>>and you need to wear two sweaters
yeah then scratch that...

how about we make real iron man ? basically get each astronaut on a surgery table and plonking some metal onto their bones (head, rips, spine etc...) -> make the floor magneitc -> voila we have gravity

>>5815800
cos 'muh effics'

If we burn off all of the oil that's left, perhaps the earth will become efficient enough at gathering solar energy that we will get a permanent tornado in central usa. We can use it as a booster to eject payloads into space.

>>5815888
>we will get a permanent tornado in central usa
Explain this please.

>>5815893
like Jupiter's eye. obvi

>>5815692
Dream on, Mr. Kurzweil.

>>5815692
mr towne

>>5815771
nasa has already looked into this. It turns out that our lungs can't effectively transfer o2/co2 in high density fluids. The co2 kind of builds up and sticks to the tissue even when the fluid circulates from breathing, which blocks the o2 from getting in

>>5815943
that's pretty neat !

>>5814138
can't we assemble the Tokamaks in space like the space station and then use it to conquer the galaxy?
orbital industries when

>>5815912
DREM UN TRANZHUMUNISTS HUEHUEHUEHUE

What an intelligent, thoroughly thought out argument you have presented here.

>>5815912
so why wouldn't it be possible then?
when we have artificial nano factories we can just replace anything that breaks in a human
why would there be a limit to how long we can live if we keep getting new parts?

So, what is the best proposed method for Earth-Exosphere transport (disregarding expensive rockets and radioactive nuclear/antimatter).
Pure kinetic impulse and throwing up in the air? Elevator? Space ring?

>>5816046
guess as soon as we can create nano carbon tubes in the right quantity and form - the space elevator will revolutionize going to space - and hopefully make it viable - one could think of certain industrial processes and that are only possible or would be far easier in a low gravity environment !

>>The costs of using a well-tested system to launch payloads are high. Prices range from about $4,300/kg for a Proton launch[1] to about US$40,000/kg for a Pegasus launch

>>"The first space elevator would reduce lift costs immediately to $100 per pound" ($220/kg).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics]

>>5816944
Seven hour old off-topic futurism thread. You just bumped it.

>>5816951
And I'm not even sorry about it

>>5816001
Because of bullshit reasons and gut instinct.

But seriously, the heat problem of nanomachines makes it probable that widespread systematic issues can't be fixed without cooking the patient alive at the same time.

>>5816944
The strength requirements of a normal terrestrial space elevator are higher than even the theoretical strength afforded by CNTs.

But if need be, we can probably engineer our way past those problems.

Not until it becomes profitable to mine extra terrestrially.

While murica, one of the few countries that could actually afford a decent space program, cuts its space budget down to nothing while pouring trillions into overseas wars...

Well, we could have had moon bases and proper space travel, but you can all thank bush and the 99% for that.

>>5817214
Oh FFS!
I see this reason cropping up way too much.

Asteroid mining is not primarily about gathering more wealth on Earth, it's about off-world resource base and the utilization of those resources without having to ship everything up on expensive rockets.

Gods fuck, are you people so dense you can't get that through your thick skulls?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

Although later experiments have revealed complex interactions, this state of matter was first predicted, generally, in papers by Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein in 1924–25
A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or −273.15 °C[1]). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. These effects are called macroscopic quantum phenomena.

>>5817311
Quantum Ferrofluids:


Please note that the drawing I portray of the Anti-Gravity Engine shows superfluid Helium 3 nuclei engaging in cooper pairs. The Black and White sided coin is drawn to illustrate what I call "dual axis rotation" or conical rotation (spin a coin on a table and observe the motion) One idea is to use 2 different superfluids of different density which will cause each other to rotate through displacement. This can also be used to "jump start" the engine (by spinning the craft like a coin and letting it rotate on an edge to get that dual axis rotation going)

>>5816951

>>5817349
you.. you do know that's a t-shirt for pregnant mothers right?

>>5817350
Yeah, but I think they missed the market potential of 4chan users, not that I would be proud to wear a T-shirt showing that I go on 4chan, but whatever.

>>5817356
that would be sadder than the guy fawkes t-shirts i've seen retards wearing, i didn't think there could be something that sad.

>>5817360
Ha, next you'll be telling me Fedoras aren't cool. GTFO Newfag.

>>5817366
et tu

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005
Impulse Gravity Generator Based on Charged YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y} Superconductor with Composite Crystal Structure
Evgeny Podkletnov, Giovanni Modanese
(Submitted on 3 Aug 2001 (v1), last revised 30 Aug 2001 (this version, v2))
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm
Boeing tries to defy gravity
The company is examining an experiment by Yevgeny Podkletnov, who claims to have developed a device which can shield objects from the Earth's pull.
1. Solenoids create magnetic field
2. Spinning, super-conducting ceramic ring
3. Liquid Nitrogen acts as coolant
4. Dr Podkletnov claims weight can be reduced by 2% (1kg=980g)

The project is being run by the top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, the part of the company which handles Boeing's most sensitive programmes.

The head of the Phantom Works, George Muellner, told the security analysis journal Jane's Defence Weekly that the science appeared to be valid and plausible.

Dr Podkletnov claims to have countered the effects of gravity in an experiment at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland in 1992.
Research explored

But documents obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly and seen by the BBC show that Boeing is taking Dr Podkletnov's research seriously.

The hypothesis is being tested in a programme codenamed Project Grasp.

Boeing is the latest in a series of high-profile institutions trying to replicate Dr Podkletnov's experiment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm
Tajmar and the ESA replications:
Mar. 26, 2006 — Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34790928/Mike-Gamble-Boeing-Gravity-Research-Paper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34791006/Boeing-Gravity-Research-Paper-Part-2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2159487.stm

But George Muellner of Boeing has been quoted as saying that the science of the antigravity device appeared to be valid and possible. Why did he say that?

There are three possibilities. Perhaps he knows something the rest of the world's physicists don't, or he does not understand the laws of physics, which would be highly surprising for a man in his position, or he has been misquoted.

If it were possible what would be the outcome?

We could build spacecraft that would not need any rockets to power them. Aircraft would not need engines and could be any size and stay up indefinitely using no fuel.

http://thecrit.com/2008/06/30/boeing-develops-anti-gravity-propulsion/

‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

“If gravity modification is real,” it says, “it will alter the entire aerospace business.”

GRASP’s objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world’s more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov’s work and “examine possible uses for such a technology”. Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ‘fuelless’ electricity generation — so-called ‘free energy’.

The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov “and have some activity in this area”.

It is also possible, Boeing admits, that “classified activities in gravity modification may exist”. The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ‘white world’ of open development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ

http://www.alienscientist.com/forum/showthread.php?314-The-Physics-of-Anti-Gravity&p=930#post930

>>5815028
>he thinks rockets use petroleum

We're pretty fucked because of how terrified the public is of nuclear propulsion. Blame Kennedy for being a pussy.

The guy who developed Project Orion wanted to put an oldscool barber's chair in his launch vehicle, just to give the finger to chemical rockets where every gram counts.

>>5815028
Being this pessimistic about the future is in the same tier as being one of those edgy teens whose posts run along the lines of "fuck politics man, look at me, aren't I mature".

>>5813704
sup Space Elevator...I know you are in here
How do you guys plan to handle the collapse/collision of the elevator and cable with the earth?

>>5817541
Pretty much all the big space rockets have been powered by petroleum-source energy. One of the major rocket fuels is kerosene, which is what the Saturn V first stage ran on, along with most of the Russian rockets, and the fancy new SpaceX rockets are kerosene top-to-bottom. Another is hydrogen, made by cracking natural gas. Hydrazine and NTO are made from ammonia, made from natural gas.

The solids may contain more metals, refined with coal or nuclear power, but the oxidizer is usually ammonia-based, such as ammonium perchlorate.

>>5817650
>the oxidizer is usually ammonia-based, such as ammonium perchlorate.
...and the binder is generally some kind of plastic.

>>5817545
that would've been awesome.
Can't we do the same but with fusion, so that we don't get so much dangerous radioactive waste spewing out?

>>5817679
Sure, as soon as you develop a light, compact fusion bomb with no fission trigger.

Get to work.

>>5817683
I said "we" :)

>>5817687
Well...
http://vixra.org/pdf/1106.0009v1.pdf

>>5817385
>The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ‘white world’ of open development.
We need more people like Dr. Podkletnov. ;_;

>>5817552

Who cares what arbitrary tier you place people's reactions on? Can you sensible criticize anyhing I said? NO. That's why you didn't even bother, and rammed right up the ad-hominem anus with your bias-cock.

>>5815978
Bioengineering, in addition to being hampered by all the factors that usually slow down cutting-edge research (funding, manpower, commercial application or lack thereof) has another enormous thing going against it - superstition.

Even if we could easily overcome the former, it would still be decades before this kind of advanced technology ever reached the masses. But that won't happen, and we'll never get that far (almost certainly not in our own lifetimes). Why? Because most of this research is being done in developed countries, where, incidentally, the majority of the population still practices some kind of religion. These people are luddites in the worst sense, as anything that dares encroach upon the sanctity of the human form is anathema to them. To change their opinion would require a monumental paradigm shift - one which no government or large institution wants to undertake.

USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, South-East Asia... all are (more or less) ruled by democratic means, and the people elected pander to their voters. The very same voters who balk at the thought of experiments being done on convicts, or stem-cell research, or cloning, etc. Soccer moms and borderline retards are the people whose votes shape what is permissible and within reach of the academic institutions.

You know why we had a huge leap in medical science after WWII? It's because lots of unethical doctors did lots of terrible things to lots of people who were held and experimented upon against their will. I don't condone this, but biotech will never progress if we remain squeamish. And we will, because your average hick from the US of A can't fathom that humans are biological robots, and terribly designed ones at that -- bags of meat, really -- not infallible, sacred soul-beings made in the shining image of an all powerful and loving God.

So there, enjoy your mortality, you delusional, optimistic faggot.

>>5817541

How do you build rockets, rube? Using pure mental force emanating from a mass of enlightened spacebros, floating in the air like in OP's ridiculous pic? Your oil-fueled civilization made all that shit possible, and when the oil stops supporting it, it's gonna collapse like a stellar layer once the fusion stops.

>>5817743
I forgot to add that, as ironic as this sounds, China is our best hope. They're not constrained by Abrahamic morality, and if they make enough breakthroughs in the field, the West will have no choice but to get back in the game.

However, I'm not too optimistic about China's long-term survival... not as a centralized, dominant superpower, anyway. They've way too many problems to solve, and far too little time to do it in. As always, time will tell...

>inb4 China stronk!

>>5817746
>when the oil stops supporting it, it's gonna collapse like a stellar layer once the fusion stops.
>>>/x/

Why do these peak oil kooks hang out in /sci/?

>>5817214

Bush had little to do with it. The economy was already hell-bent on petroleum exploitation. It was the 100%, not the 99%.

Remember, it will be ALWAYS cheaper and more useful to the world's elites to kill people off in the millions, even billions, using war and starvation, than to EVER seek out new exploitations via space colonization.

Once I understood how this world REALLY runs, I stopped being a spacebro. Humans will never expand into space. We prefer to kill each other instead.

>>5817743
>>5817759
You have a very twisted, ignorant, adolescent perception of the world.

>>5817760

Because Peak Oil is a FACT. US peak oil happened right on schedule in 1971. World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. World oil production peaked in 2005/6. There just isn't an infinite supply of fucking petroleum, you unbelievable fucker! WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S AN INFINITE SUPPLY!?!??

You're what's now called a "Cornucopian". You believe in the mythical "horn of plenty". Hey douchebag, THERE ARE NO MAGIC ITEMS. Life isn't D&D. Put down the game controller and FACE REALITY.

>>5817762
That depends. Tyrannical leadership has been deposed before, it can be taken down again. The question is, how long do people have to suffer until they wake up? I doubt we'll see any real revolution against the military-industrial complex and their petro-mafia cronies any time soon... not until living conditions in the developed nations worsen to such a degree that the majority has nothing to lose by rising up in all-out rebellion.

Realistically, it'll be decades before that happens. We've got plenty of oil left, and hybrid energy schemes will only become more efficient with time. Hopefully, the private sector will make industrial space travel a reality, and we can start mining local rocks for resources. If that happens, the boom generated by it would kick off a second industrial revolution which would pretty much free the world from resource tyranny and artificial scarcity; both cased and propagated by our kleptocratic elite and their sociopathic cronies in the government.

So, fingers crossed for the free market!

>>5817766

Not the guy you're talking to, but if he's so fucking wrong, why can't you critique his points?

Because he's not fucking wrong, that's why. He's right. We're not going to get anywhere with biotech as long as we're squeamish about opening up people on the dissection table. And yet, we murder people by the bucketful in wars and in our inner cities. I guess we prefer to kill Humans by bullets, not scalpels. That's a mark of the Violent Simian.

>>5817775

By waiting until they have nothing to lose, they really have nothing to gain, either. Did you ever think of that one?

>>5817766
Why, because I don't masturbate to unrealistic fantasies like you transhumanist idiots do?

Grow the fuck up.

>>5817770
You need to turn off Fox News.

http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
>Proponents of so-called "abiotic oil" claim that the proof is found in the fact that many capped wells, which were formerly dry of oil, are found to be plentiful again after many years, They claim that the replenished oil is manufactured by natural forces in the Earth's mantle.
>Reported in ScienceDaily, researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
>"There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil," says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been
prospected for these energy sources.
>But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically -- from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.

Think of it this way; what's more likely:
a) oil is a finite resource, making it scarce and worth fighting over, as well as expensive
b) oil is a nigh-infinite resource, thus not scarce at all... and should be cheap!

Think it over. It's the same shit with diamonds - not rare, yet overpriced. Why? Artificial scarcity. Use your head, anon, don't let the bullshitters control what you believe in.

>>5817786
>Grow the fuck up.
Said like a real 14-year-old.

>>5817770
>WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S AN INFINITE SUPPLY!?!??
Good lord, the kooks are bad today.

Nobody claims there's an infinite supply, but you have to be a total kook to think that we're about to run out, or that society will collapse when we do.

"Oh shit, oil is going to get gradually more expensive over time! And just when solar power and batteries are getting really good! And we've had ways for ages to make liquid fuel drop-in replacements for gasoline etc. from coal, which we still have supplies to last for hundreds of years! And there's a hundred different options for nuclear power! Whatever shall we do?"

You have to be incredibly stupid to think that society is about to collapse because we're starting to exploit oil shale and tar sand. And you drag this idiotic /x/ shit into completely unrelated /sci/ threads, like everything anyone is doing doesn't matter, because the reptilians are about to reveal themselves.

God damn, fuck right off.

>>5817810
>abiotic oil
So the soviets were right? Huh, that's pretty dope.

>>5817912
Why does EVERYONE ignore natural gas in these shitstorms?

>>5817964
not enough gas, not enough ozone. Both are pretty big problems if we want to keep living our wasteful lives.

>>5817964
Because natural gas is petroleum. It's closely linked with the oil supply.

ITT: a bunch of high school luddites debate things they can't even begin to understand.

>>5817977
Getting steamy steve? Angry at people who actually know what they're talking about and are making good contributions while all you can do is shitpost?

>>5817977
Please, enlighten us, and feel free to join the discussion. I'm sure you have advanced degrees in both aeronautics and geophysics.

>>5817914
We don't know for sure... but there's a chance. Which is why it's naive and irresponsible to fear-monger with these apocalyptic predictions, especially since we don't have all the data yet. But the doomsayers are so wrapped up in their end-of-days rhetoric that it's pretty much impossible to dissuade them from it.

>>5816046
>thinking rockets are expensive
Everything you mention is either impossible or far more expensive than rockets.

Though kinetic impulse (i.e. GIANT GUNS) is worth reinvestigating for bulk material that can withstand the immense G-forces. See Bull's Project HARP.

>>5817977
It's like what your mom always told you. If you're going to shitpost, don't post at all.
Unless your mom sucks. Then I feel sorry for you.

>>5817912

Your society wasn't just based on oil, tardo. It was based on CHEAP oil. Digging up a lot of ground to bake out the petroleum fraction is a hell of a lot more expensive than just drilling and then catching the pressurized outflow.

Somehow /sci/ducks can never wrap their tiny minds around physics, geology AND economics all at once. AT ONCE!

>>5817989

Wrong Steve. Keep trying to find me.

>>5818025
no, i wasn't. You couldn't respond when you were asked to contribute, now you're embarassed so you have to pretend it's not you and sweep the whole incident under the rug like so many before. Just get a fucking vacuum because u suk.

>>5818023
But society isn't based on oil at all. Oil was only ever a convenience. It meant we didn't have to do coal dust turbines, coal liquefaction, and acetylene-based synthesis.

Everything possible with oil was possible with coal. Things would just have moved a little slower.

And now we're getting fantastic batteries, electricity-based synthesis, and transmission technology that will make a world-wide power grid possible, at the same time that we're getting cheap and unlimited solar power.

In another few decades, we'll be done with oil regardless of how much is available. Not only would a lack of it not be a disaster, it just won't be worth bothering with.

>>5818044
>we're getting cheap and unlimited solar power.
you might want to check your facts there

As much as I hate Angry Monkey's doom-and-gloom, it is true that we don't have any energy sources as rich and abundant as fossil fuels. It currently takes a lot of energy to manufacture solar cells and install them in panels, and they wear out after a few decades. It is not clear that we make back the energy we invested. Solar thermal plants are promising, but don't seem to have taken off.

Nuclear is closer to meeting our need to replace coal for baseload power generation, but it is held back by high initial capital expenditure and irrational fears.

>>5818243
huh! I ended up checking my own facts, and found that over the last decade, the energy investment payback time for solar panels has declined from 11 years to 2 years! That is much more promising than I had feared. The US sun belt is estimated to reach grid parity sometime around 2015 even without subsidies.

>>5818261
communist LIES! the free market will set us free!

>>5818261
I'm telling you, man, it's improving like computer technology did. It's been on an exponential curve for a while, it just got a slow start.

We're in the late 70s of solar power, where it's kind of distant and futuristic, but a few tinkerers are messing around with home systems. A few more years, and it'll be a common product that doesn't seem all that important, but it will be considered normal for a homeowner to have at least *some* solar panels out.

Ten years after that, solar panels will be a normal part of home construction and renovations. Everyone will be putting them on their roofs, covering the power requirements of their air conditioning, charging up their cordless lawnmowers and electric cars.

Another ten years, and there will be solar panels in everything, they won't look like solar panels, and you won't even notice them: solar shingles, solar sidewalks, solar siding, solar window blinds, solar patio umbrellas. Any surface that sits in the sun: why not make it a solar panel? If you don't, you're just throwing away kilowatts, tossing free money in the garbage.

>>5818349
Solar motherfucking astroturf.

You will live to see it. It will feel reasonably grasslike, and it'll come with a robot to clean and repair it.