In 30 Years in Space.

[book reader]

The more I research what's going on in Space now and what experts are saying about when we will get to the Moon let alone Mars e.g. the difficulties of physiological and many risks, I cannot see us being there soon say 2070ish. Any challenges to that idea?

Space missions require huge investments, and not always are governments or private companies willing to invest such funds in space exploration. This is one of the problems that can arise.

 

[Omits]

Maybe militarisation will be the focus in the near future. The risk of one nation being stronger in NEO. Is the Moon a factor there? It's also like someone achieves something then a competitor must go a bit further. The cost would be building on infrastructure.

 

[StilLearning]

I'd predict: Five or six private space stations with governments as anchor customers, but other organisations (including wealthy space tourists) also making some use - a higher human population in Earth orbit than today: Maybe as high as 50*. A bit of an industry capturing, repurposing and re-using space junk. Regular crewed sub orbital flights - both joyrides for the well off (but not super-rich) and by various research organisations. A regular flow of private missions to the Moon - mostly robotics, perhaps some teleoperated permanent structures like radio telescopes on the far side, and some crewed missions. More missions to Mars, but either still all robotic or just a few landings - which will have stayed for some months on the surface by necessity of orbital mechanics, but not formed a regular traffic, and probably ceased when whatever international tension inspired them has been satisfied. Some publicly confirmed instances of space-craft-on-spacecraft military 'incidents' - i.e. where one nations 'rendezvous and inspect' satellite has tried to interfere with a satellite belonging to a nation it's ion a hot or cold conflict with.

* That may all be optimistic, but then it may all be lowballing too - predicting the future, y'know.

 

[Astro Pen]

To be realistic the future 'up there' lies in astronomy, not space travel.

Even if you were optimistic about the moon and Mars it is pretty evident over the last couple of years the the west is facing a degenerate "Fall of Rome" moment, and that is happening by intent. Technology may be advancing but sociology is failing faster.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

At the end of the day, someone will get to the Moon again. Its no worse than crossing the oceans a thousand years ago. The "trending" as it is called, towards the practice of using personal beliefs in place of science and logic is worldwide and is nothing new. There were a lot of scientific advancements made over the past couple of thousand years which propelled humanity forward at an ever increasing speed. Sociology advanced and receded throughout those times, as did many other things. We thought things like feudal kingdoms with castle walls were a thing of the past, but alas, they now come in many formats and are not gone yet. And the winner will be the world of business, as it always is.

 

[BAYLOR]

The first factory has been launched into space. Its a pharmaceutical lab and the investors expect that they will be able to create valuable products in Zero-G that they could not create on earth.

Space born, Earth bound • Varda Space Industries

Expanding the economic bounds of humankind with the world's first orbital manufacturing & reentry platform.

varda.com

Over time more engineers will come up with more products that make sense to produce in space. "Perfect" ball-bearings is something that has been described to me. So, 30 years, expect a variety of "factories" in space. Someone will have a "hotel" in space.

Will someone discover something on the moon worth mining? Probably not. Will our corporate overlords convince governments (probably the US) to spend tax dollars on a permanently occupied habitat on the moon akin to the current ISS? Maybe.

Could be interesting.

Helium 3

 

[Swank]

The factor missing from the predictions are a rogue state doing something that causes some sort of technology race, or just takes the genie out of the bottle. Say India or Russia puts a nuclear drive up as a sort of vanity project. Why wouldn't other countries follow in short order? And with a small fleet of allied Orions or similar - why would asteroid capture rev up? Especially when that sort of technology would have a direct application fixing the environmental disaster.

 

[Toby Frost]

a fantasist, totally divorced from reality

The trouble with these discussions, I think, is that we're sane normal people and the people making the decisions may well not be sane or normal. Virtually all dictators (or leaders of "managed democracies", which is dictatorship by corruption as much as force) are deranged manbabies who are treated as gods by their imbecile minions. If some tyrant or aspiring tyrant decides "I wanna statue of me on Mars because I am the bestest ever", it'll happen if he wants it enough, even if lives are lost and trillions of dollars are wasted.

This is why I think saying "predict the next 30 years of X" is almost impossible. Often the question is taken to mean "Will the tech be ready?" but equally important is "Who is in charge of this?", which leads us inevitably to politics. I wonder if it's possible to divorce hard SF from social SF?

 

[Oligonicella]

The Moon? Yes. We'll land, take samples, and come back. No base established though. Mars? At no point this century will we even travel there, let alone land.

I'll take the bet on both of those.

 

[Oligonicella]

Musk is a big problem because he is a fantasist, totally divorced from reality.

So divorced from reality that he's taken space launch technology from a bazillion dollar one use per launch modus to heavy rockets that not only can but have landed themselves to be refurbished and relaunched twenty times. In less than ten years (12/21/2015).

That in and of itself drops launch expenses enough to justify the investment.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think the problem isn't so much Musk on his own as the idea of so much power being given to one man and his whims - not really wealth, as I've no issue with people becoming rich and enjoying that without damaging anyone else (I'm no communist). Imagine if Musk went insane and decided to arrange a civil war in an African state, say. He could do it very easily and cause immense damage. If anyone tried to stop him, he could just move his operation to another jurisdiction. I'm reminded of Josef Virek, the villain of William Gibson's Count Zero, who buys spaceships, hires assassins and wrecks entire economies in order to make himself immortal (which he fails to do). One man shouldn't wield such power, even if the power is used for trivialities and vanity projects.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

…..I've no issue with people becoming rich and enjoying that without damaging anyone else (I'm no communist).

Honestly, Musk is a consumer of wealth rather than a creator. The money he has pocketed is clearly produced by speculation over stock value, not from making a product and selling it for a profit. With no dividend ever paid out, every dollar made will be matched by a dollar lost when Tesla inevitably goes to zero. Add to that the enormous public money that has subsidized his failed ventures (whether direct grants to Space X or incentives for choosing one or another competing locations for a car factory, or even incentives paid to his customer for buying one of Tesla's cars). I'm no communist either, but Musk does more than anyone to demonstrate the failings of our present capitalist system.