What shape would actual spaceships of the future have?

[SpookyFrank]

We've now had spaceships for longer than we'd had aeroplanes at the time we first flew in spaceships.

They're still a bit crap though aren't they? Spaceships? Much better in movies and books. They should get writers to make the spaceships because engineers, and let's be fair to them here, have failed miserably.

 

[NoXion]

Since we had a huge number of examples of powered flight all round us, birds, insects etc, I am not sure there was ever anything like a scientific consensus on powered flight being impossible. Whats more when Lord Kelvin, who was elderly and speaking way out of his realm of experiance, made his famous pronouncement on heavier than air flight not being possible, humans had been producing heavier than air rocket powered vehicles for about 600 years.

While in the physical universe we currently observe nothing with mass travelling faster than light. In spite of the huge number of tiny particles with incredibly small mass that have been produced by processes on the scale of the big bang, quasars and supernova... nothing that looks like breaking our current physics.

In the spirit that we do not know everything about the universe there is a small possibility there are some unknown conditions to allow a massed particle to move faster than light.... it is currently at the far fringes of credibility and would have little application when talking about what shape a space craft might have. Its not far from trying to discuss the future of rail travel and someone piping up we do not need to think about future trains because we might invent teleportation.

I think it's a mistake to look at how objects with non-imaginary rest mass can't reach C, and then conclude from that fact that FTL travel is forbidden. Some of the more popular proposals for FTL travel/communication (same thing as far as physics is concerned) are explicitly intended to circumvent that. With wormholes and warp drives, there are no observers travelling FTL from their own perspective, rather they involve shortcuts through space-time, since the same theory that tells us accelerating past C is impossible, is the same one that tells us that space-time can be bent into a pretzel.

It's the potential breaking of causality which is the real show-stopper.

 

[NoXion]

We've now had spaceships for longer than we'd had aeroplanes at the time we first flew in spaceships.

They're still a bit crap though aren't they? Spaceships? Much better in movies and books. They should get writers to make the spaceships because engineers, and let's be fair to them here, have failed miserably.

Progress in spacecraft engineering has been slow, with good reason. Until very recently it took an entire nation-state deploying the best minds of a generation to get people into space. Even Elon Musk for all his New Money Brashness has only got part-way there, unless I missed something SpaceX has yet to launch anything crew-rated.

Add onto that the fact that the old Space Race turned out to be an international dick-waving competition rather than a serious and sustained attempt at extraterrestrial development or settlement (also fuck you Nixon for choosing the Vietnam War over space exploration). Once we invented the transistor in the 1960s, advancements in human spaceflight took a backseat. We didn't need to send humans into orbit to make economic use of space, since we could just send satellites. Before then, futurists envisioned space stations orbiting Earth for the purposes of surface monitoring, space telescopes and communications relays. A possible rung on the ladder up to the stars turned out to be missing. Dang.

 

[weltweit]

Humans have always, at least thus far, explored uncharted territories, at least some have, so I see space exploration as an extension to that. Machines first, rovers and the like and then humans.

But the desire to explore ought to be balanced with a desire to care for our home planet, our current only home, it is about time world governments took global warming seriously and took concerted action.

 

[ferrelhadley]

But the desire to explore ought to be balanced with a desire to care for our home planet,

An invaluable contribution to "What shape would actual spaceships of the future have?"

 

[NoXion]

Humans have always, at least thus far, explored uncharted territories, at least some have, so I see space exploration as an extension to that. Machines first, rovers and the like and then humans.

But the desire to explore ought to be balanced with a desire to care for our home planet, our current only home, it is about time world governments took global warming seriously and took concerted action.

This post reminds me that a lot of people seem to think that space travel and looking after our home planet are ideas in opposition to each other, and I'm really not sure why.

It seems especially odd that people tend to focus on the environment rather than say, the cohesion of our societies, which is arguably just as important; we can't solve environmental problems if we can't get enough members of our species to pull in the right directions.

 

[weltweit]

An invaluable contribution to "What shape would actual spaceships of the future have?"

Thanks, I try! It should be expansion from a position of strength, not expansion because we are killing our home planet.

 

[weltweit]

This post reminds me that a lot of people seem to think that space travel and looking after our home planet are ideas in opposition to each other, and I'm really not sure why.

I don't think in opposition, however there is an idea that staying earthbound we face whatever our planet faces, be it from our own influence or not. Some say we need to become multiplanetary because of how we are messing up the earth.

It seems especially odd that people tend to focus on the environment rather than say, the cohesion of our societies, which is arguably just as important; we can't solve environmental problems if we can't get enough members of our species to pull in the right directions.

Often nations just can't decide how they want to cooperate with their neighbors.

 

[NoXion]

Thanks, I try! It should be expansion from a position of strength, not expansion because we are killing our home planet.

We're not "killing our home planet". We're just making it harder for ourselves to live here. Our Earth and it's accompanying biosphere have survived multiple different versions of global environmental devastation that make our recent Anthropocene extinction event look like amateur hour. Volcanic eruptions the size of Siberia, ice caps reaching close to the equator, multiple asteroid impacts, and supernova-catalysed ozone layer destruction are just some of the ways that Nature one-ups us, and lo, life on Earth is still here.

No, the reasons we should look after the environment are ultimately in the interests of our own survival.

I don't think in opposition, however there is an idea that staying earthbound we face whatever our planet faces, be it from our own influence or not.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's what you think. But I often see people saying something along the lines that we should fix our problems here on Earth before going into space.

But if such logic is consistently applied, as opposed to someone simply using environmental concerns as a handy excuse for their opposition, then the result is deadlock. There will always be problems here on Earth, even if we were to achieve a post-scarcity civilisation where everyone's needs and a great majority of their wants are met.

Then there are what I like to think of as the misanthropes*. These people seem to think that the human species as a whole is somehow broken or morally-compromised, and that by spreading into space we would become some kind of awful cancer in the universe. To be honest, I find such a position to be nigh-incomprehensible. If one thinks that humans are terrible, why continue being human? I'm not even sure that the people who express such opinions genuinely believe them.

*(to be absolutely clear, I don't think you share this position at all)

Some say we need to become multiplanetary because of how we are messing up the earth.

Those people are idiots. Any notions as to how long it will take before we can sustain human life in space without significant input from Earth are entirely speculative, but I think it's fair to say that climate change will seriously fuck shit up within the next century or two, we simply don't have the time to neglect that.

Over spans of time much longer than a couple of centuries, and if you include potential natural disasters as well, then that position makes sense. But I am just as opposed to the notion of extraterrestrial settlement being used as an excuse to ignore climate change, as I am opposed to the idea that the need to fight climate change means we shouldn't go into space either.

 

[weltweit]

We're not "killing our home planet". We're just making it harder for ourselves to live here. Our Earth and it's accompanying biosphere have survived multiple different versions of global environmental devastation that make our recent Anthropocene extinction event look like amateur hour. Volcanic eruptions the size of Siberia, ice caps reaching close to the equator, multiple asteroid impacts, and supernova-catalysed ozone layer destruction are just some of the ways that Nature one-ups us, and lo, life on Earth is still here.

No, the reasons we should look after the environment are ultimately in the interests of our own survival.

Agree, for our own survival, but I think we have a duty of care for the rest of life on the planet also.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's what you think. But I often see people saying something along the lines that we should fix our problems here on Earth before going into space.

But if such logic is consistently applied, as opposed to someone simply using environmental concerns as a handy excuse for their opposition, then the result is deadlock. There will always be problems here on Earth, even if we were to achieve a post-scarcity civilisation where everyone's needs and a great majority of their wants are met.

I don't think we should wait, full steam ahead. It would be nice if we could resolve wars, famine and human suffering at the same time, important even, but it isn't necessary.

Then there are what I like to think of as the misanthropes*. These people seem to think that the human species as a whole is somehow broken or morally-compromised, and that by spreading into space we would become some kind of awful cancer in the universe. To be honest, I find such a position to be nigh-incomprehensible. If one thinks that humans are terrible, why continue being human? I'm not even sure that the people who express such opinions genuinely believe them.

*(to be absolutely clear, I don't think you share this position at all)

I don't

Those people are idiots. Any notions as to how long it will take before we can sustain human life in space without significant input from Earth are entirely speculative, but I think it's fair to say that climate change will seriously fuck shit up within the next century or two, we simply don't have the time to neglect that.

Over spans of time much longer than a couple of centuries, and if you include potential natural disasters as well, then that position makes sense. But I am just as opposed to the notion of extraterrestrial settlement being used as an excuse to ignore climate change, as I am opposed to the idea that the need to fight climate change means we shouldn't go into space either.

Sure, the planet has been through a lot and as you mentioned at the beginning, our potential survival is critical allied with nature from which so much of our wealth is derived.

I am all for space exploration, despite that we haven't solved all earthbound issues and continue even to create more ourselves. We are an inquisitive species, long may it last.

 

[weltweit]

The main issue of the shape of spaceships is, rather than their shape, where are they going to go? Mars just isn't that enticing to my way of thinking, unable to sustain life, ideally we need to identify a suitable goldilocks planet somewhere and head for that.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But the desire to explore ought to be balanced with a desire to care for our home planet, our current only home, it is about time world governments took global warming seriously and took concerted action.

*Abandons plans for whale oil-powered spaceship*

 

[weltweit]

*Abandons plans for whale oil-powered spaceship*

Not so far fetched (for yesterday) if you consider how we used to use all available natural resources

 

[NoXion]

The main issue of the shape of spaceships is, rather than their shape, where are they going to go? Mars just isn't that enticing to my way of thinking, unable to sustain life, ideally we need to identify a suitable goldilocks planet somewhere and head for that.

Even if we find a planet in the habitable zone, there is huge scope for variation in terms of local gravity, atmospheric density and composition, length of local solar day, type of parent star, the presence or absence of compatible local life, and possibly more variables. Most stars are red dwarfs, and Earth-like planets within the habitable zones of such stars will most likely be tidally-locked, and thus require at least some work to make them acceptable to unmodified Earth life.

We will need to be adept at shaping our local environment to our needs wherever we may go. Colonising the Solar system would be easier than colonising other star systems, due to lower distance factors. Given that space is mostly hard vacuum in a fairly radiation-intense environment, we should be starting there.

It's a big series of challenges. Perhaps we're not up to the task, but I believe that as a species we should be trying. If we can establish a significant presence in space, even it's only within our own Solar system, it would be easily within our power to avert a number of challenges and existential threats that might put a full stop on the narrative of humanity.

 

[SpookyFrank]

How much methane does a whale fart into the atmosphere in its lifetime eh? We'd be doing the planet a favour I reckon. And the rockets would burn with a lovely clean white flame.

 

[weltweit]

... If we can establish a significant presence in space, even it's only within our own Solar system, it would be easily within our power to avert a number of challenges and existential threats that might put a full stop on the narrative of humanity.

What sort of threats do you mean?

 

[existentialist]

What sort of threats do you mean?

Well, the Earth becoming uninhabitable, for a start, I would imagine.

 

[weltweit]

Well, the Earth becoming uninhabitable, for a start, I would imagine.

I was thinking more like large near earth objects that could be deflected or destroyed by people already on the outside more easily. I think a sci-fi book I read recently had that as a scenario.

 

[NoXion]

What sort of threats do you mean?

For a start we're all sitting in a cosmic shooting gallery, just ask the residents of Chelyabinsk who were at home on 15th February 2013. We're not due for a really big asteroid impact any time soon. That we know about! Predictions have error ranges and we haven't the knowledge of every object's orbit out there. Even just a city-killer would be a massive tragedy and an environmental mess. A comet could do a lot of damage, they come diving in from the outer reaches of the Solar system and beyond, plus their range of potential vectors is much greater. O hai there 'Oumuamua! didn't catch you until you were well into the Solar system, thanks to your lack of outgassing! The sooner we can catch these things the easier it is to divert them, especially the bigger ones.

In the event of a supernova explosion destroying the ozone layer, an ice age, a supervolcano eruption, or some other global disaster natural or artificial that befalls the Earth, then for example a civilised Mars could be in a position to render assistance.

These events don't come around often. Which is good, because that means we have time to get things right before the universe takes another pot-shot at us.

How much methane does a whale fart into the atmosphere in its lifetime eh? We'd be doing the planet a favour I reckon. And the rockets would burn with a lovely clean white flame.

Well, water is pretty clean since that's what you get when you combust liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Thermal rockets would use hydrogen or water as a propellant. But there are also non-rocket launch concepts that could be entirely powered by renewable energy.

 

[existentialist]

I was thinking more like large near earth objects that could be deflected or destroyed by people already on the outside more easily. I think a sci-fi book I read recently had that as a scenario.

I think I could count that within my definition of "earth becoming uninhabitable", yes .

ETA: just as a word to the wise, don't believe everything you read in sci fi books, though

 

[Don Troooomp]

Lord Kelvin, who was elderly and speaking way out of his realm of experiance

So, in a nutshell, Kelvin was wrong because he had no clue what he was talking about, but posters here are correct in their expressions of impossibility because they're experts on space travel.
Is that correct?

I don't claim any expertise, nor do I claim such things will happen, just I don't dismiss the possibility just because my imagination is limited to a cup of coffee in my nice, safe, boring environment where the clock never ticks its way forward, but I do know there are a lot of exceptionally bright people out there with the imagination to achieve great things.

A passenger space ship from a company named after an untouched lady and started by promoting punk rock bands, and a car playing Bowie sent into space by a man who with a name that would make him a fortune in the perfume industry - Never going to happen.

 

[ferrelhadley]

So, in a nutshell,

If nutshell is a synonym for strawman then you may have a case.

a man who with a name that would make him a fortune in the perfume industry - Never going to happen.

When considering the design of future space vehicles, confining oneself to existing physics has a certain appeal.

 

[Don Troooomp]

The problem with FTL technology is that under our current understanding, its existence would break one of two things:

1) Relativity. Given that it's one of the best tested physical theories we have to date, this is vanishingly unlikely.

2) Causality. An FTL ship would be able to return home before setting off. Physicists tend to cling even more tightly to this one, and for good reasons.

I disagree - not because you're wrong, but more because we have no clue if Albert got it right. Clever - absolutely, but the institute of Photonic Sciences in Spain released results of experiments they claim proved the hairy lad was wrong.

I'm not even close to clever enough to understand these experiments but plenty of people are, and that dismisses the impossibility argument in epic fashion.

 

[Don Troooomp]

At least he's not swearing as much as he does in the Donald Trump thread. I guess that's something to be grateful for.

Get fucking fucked

 

[Don Troooomp]

If nutshell is a synonym for strawman then you may have a case.
When considering the design of future space vehicles, confining oneself to existing physics has a certain appeal.

Imagination coupled with genius allows us to achieve great things - Dismissing possibilities holds us back.
I have no expertise in such matters but I refuse to reject any possibility based on my lack of ability - that's narrow minded shit

 

[Don Troooomp]

Arthur C. Clarke's three laws:

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clark, apart from being a visionary, gave us the means to create satellite TV (Murdoch is a git ).
Back to the impossible, that being why Laika was sent into space. Scientists assured us a man couldn't survive space flight - how wrong they were (Mostly).

 

[Don Troooomp]

Star trek arrived on our screens many years ago, people wandering around with impossibly small communicators and, even worse, a black woman senior officer who kissed a white man.

Impossible - never going to happen (if you're a narrow minded fool with the IQ of a carrot and an imagination your goldfish would be proud of)

 

[NoXion]

I disagree - not because you're wrong, but more because we have no clue if Albert got it right. Clever - absolutely, but the institute of Photonic Sciences in Spain released results of experiments they claim proved the hairy lad was wrong.

I'm not even close to clever enough to understand these experiments but plenty of people are, and that dismisses the impossibility argument in epic fashion.

Predictions made by general relativity have been tested multiple times, using different methods. These results stand as independent confirmation. That experiment you linked to wasn't even testing relativity, it was testing quantum theory!

Einstein had some problems with the philosophical implications of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, but that's got nothing to do with relativity, which stands on its own merits.

Maybe (in our luckiest dreams of dreams) there is some higher physical theory that unites quantum mechanics and relativity (because despite describing the same universe, they do so in ways that are mutually incompatible in mathematical terms, producing absurdities like singularities) and which as an extra bonus will let have us have faster than light travel. Even if the causality problems are ignored or a non-issue, I would bet serious money that FTL tech is going to come with a steep enough price tag to warrant anyone short of a full-fledged Kardashev 2 civilisation giving the alternatives a second look. Indications are that warping space is energy intensive, and warping space enough to travel literally astronomical distances or produce traversable wormholes will likely be exponentially more so. Maybe we could get some form of quantum teleportation to work. Except that it would involve destroying the original person and producing a copy at the destination. Unless you subscribe to an extreme version of the pattern theory of identity in which case, knock yourself out, but personally I'd be taking alternative transportation.

But there is precious little at present to justify anything beyond the theoretical studies on such possibilities that bodies like NASA have already undertaken. We haven't even got any orbital industries going yet, the meat of space development should be focused on that.

 

[A380]

Large, long distance exploring vessels carrying hundreds and able to travel for months or years a la Star Trek, I mean. There is no need for aerodynamic, Star Destroyer-style pointy shapes in space, at least not for larger ships that would not be meant to land on planets, so what would be the most logical shape? Spherical? Cubic? Or long and thin to minimise damage from asteroids/ cosmic debris?

Very important question, this...

They will be spaceship shaped obvs.

Right, next question please.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Star trek arrived on our screens many years ago, people wandering around with impossibly small communicators and, even worse, a black woman senior officer who kissed a white man.

Impossible - never going to happen

You are trolling this thread with incoherent drivel because you have nothing of value to add that is on topic but are still are desperate for attention.

that being why Laika was sent into space. Scientists assured us a man couldn't survive space flight - how wrong they were (Mostly).

Stop lying.