You must log in or register to comment.

Orpa__ t1_j9knpmj wrote

I think a permanent presence around the Moon is a good place to start.


jinqsi t1_j9krob2 wrote

Manufacturing in orbit may be a better place to start. Microgravity is a big deal for 3D printing. Basically if the only place you can make something is in friggin space, the value of that thing will be huge.


[deleted] t1_j9l1xfh wrote



carso150 t1_j9la5ew wrote

it will be high initially, as more and more infrastructure is build and more and more of space is developed the price drops, its basic economics things start expensive and then over time become cheap


Topsyye t1_j9ked3s wrote

In my opinion you can’t predict anything like this until a vehicle like starship or similar has been tested and proven for human&cargo flight.

If a vehicle like that doesn’t work, I don’t have much hope for what you mentioned tbh.


LatterCardiologist47 OP t1_j9kfq2n wrote

Well let's hope it does


Topsyye t1_j9kkl25 wrote

If I can predict anything it’s that if the “dear moon” mission is a success and highly publicized, that will set many things off for the world for space flight.


SpaceAngel2001 t1_j9ky0ia wrote

What the negative Nellie's replying are missing was demonstrated in a fictionalized version in " The Martian," written in 2011 IIRC, and IRL by NASA's best projections 10 years ago. The pace of change was vastly underestimated by sci-fi authors and our best engineers.

SpaceX is planning 2 launches per week this year. China has become the #2 space power. There's a subtle race to create a long term moon base. Blue origin is saying they can do cheap lunar energy and construction.

I'm a space angel and I'm seeing billions of private capital flow into projects that will support lunar and Martian exploration and services. I was pitched 3 times last year with asteroid mining projects.

I'm not saying I know who will win or what the wins will look like. There will probably be more failures than successes, but a lot of people are putting ever increasing resources and brain power into a space economy that is moving beyond GEO.


carso150 t1_j9l79b7 wrote

yeah, people expect that 2100 will just be 2023 but maybe with some more robots, remember that 100 years ago the most advanced rocket looked like this


KeaboUltra t1_j9zohef wrote

20-30 years ago people couldn't listen to music wirelessly unless they had a portable cassette player, tape, and headphones. Today, you can have access to seemingly limitless music from around the world and wirelessly beam the audio to a pair of wireless earbuds that are about the size of a dime. 5 years ago, people couldn't ask an AI to code something for them and fix the errors, now it do all that, at the level of a flawed intermediate level programmer, nor has it reached its potential yet, minimalizing a job that normally takes time to do.

Although technology focuses more on refining, people mistake that and think the evolution of tech is minimal when it literally means technology quickly evolves.


carso150 t1_ja0gz99 wrote

one way i like to describe it is that technology goes through cliffs and plateaus of development and adoption

when a new technology is introduced it quickly develops at insane speed until it reaches a point were the development slows down then after that plateau is hit it hits another cliff of adoption in which the technology goes from being barely available and expensive to propagate all over the world, rinse and repeat new developments take time to reach the market but once they do they do at warp speed and it a technology is in quick development and quick adoption like cellphones and computers for example you have constant changes and adoptions until the entire technological landscape looks completly diferent from just a couple of years ago

AI and space technology are two realms of technological development and adoption that i think will be the focus for the next 20 to 30 years if not more until we reach the limits of either one of them and the development slows down for a while, this usually happens but its not noticeable because when some technology reaches its peak we usually develop another one that quickly keeps the pace of development, usually a technology that utilizes all of that developed technolgy to progress even further (for example computing technology is already hitting its limit, we have nearly reached the end of moores law but 30 years of technological progression means that modern computers are powerful enough to now power this AI and reusable rocket revolution that we are living right now)


simcoder t1_j9lp1x6 wrote

Complexity adds a diminishing returns factor the further you get down the tech tree. For instance, in the very early 1900s, a huge number of the tech advances were a result of someone figuratively tinkering in their garage. These days you often need the collaboration of large institutions or even nation states to continue those efforts.

We're also approaching the limits of material properties/chemistry. We're extracting just about all the useful work that is available by burning hydrogen in a rocket engine. There will always be improvements to be made but those will likely require large efforts for minor improvements. OFC, nanotube advances and such are also possible. But, those will tend to be fewer and farther between.

Tech advances will never stop. But the rate of change will likely slow down overall, maybe quite a bit. You will have the gamechangers like carbon nanotubes and maybe even fusion happening every once in a while. And those will be huge. But taking fusion for example. That might happen in 20 years. Or it might be 200 years.

That's not to say you shouldn't be excited about the future and advances and so forth. But maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to temper the expectations a little bit.


SpaceAngel2001 t1_j9m3d3f wrote

If you are betting the pace of change will slow, I'll take that action. You're really fighting history with that one. Just as soon as we can make fuel outside the g well, everything changes. I've been pitched multiple times with ideas I don't think are ripe, but I do think they will happen.

And we are still a long ways from reaching potential from LEO. I've got multiple active deals trying to improve the human condition. The space economy is going to continue to grow even without going super geo.


simcoder t1_j9m9caa wrote

I would bet that the rate of technological advancement at the furthest ends of the tech tree will slow. I think it applies more broadly but certainly there will be areas where things continue to advance rapidly.

Regarding commercial opportunities here in Earth orbit, I'm sure there is huge potential. Particularly on the defense side, I'd imagine that's pretty much open ended as far as potential revenues and profits go.

But, I do think those profits will end up coming at the cost of the long term stability and commercial viability of Earth orbit. So, it's a bit tricky.


SpaceAngel2001 t1_j9mbb41 wrote

Your smart phone is real close to going global. Reconditioned Smart phones in Africa can be bought for <$7. But they've been slow to catch on bc the towers get stolen/destroyed too often. Move the towers into space and suddenly 1B new users have internet access. All the Einsteins and Beethovens that never got a chance to learn anything more than subsistence lvl farming get a better chance to reach their potential. China will find it more difficult to censor info.

Yes, it's going to take time, but good things are coming.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zprdh wrote

I cant agree with this considering the internet was a pretty big change and happened within our lifetime. Automation, combined with robotics will allow us to refine the manual world we're still transitioning from. This would be near the same level of shift as electricity had on the world. instead of people using electricity to power things and create a lot of QoL improvements (also the destruction of certain industries) so will AI automation as it becomes more refined. Despite that, I do understand your POV. I just think what constitutes as "trash" really depends on the focus of society.

People collaborate in large constitutions today all thanks to the interconnected world we now live in for the last 25-30 years. People collaborated in the past, but it's not like they could submit findings and results, etc in a digital archive and discuss them remotely and have world wide information in the palm of their hands


Quwinsoft t1_j9koxwn wrote

I don't see a business case for Moon or Mars colonies.

Astroid mining only makes sense if you are supporting some other off-Earth business.

Telecom will likely swarm LOE, but venture capital is likely going to be tight for then next 20 years + with the retirement of the Babey Boomers so that is hard to say.

If micro-G industry or orbital power ever become viable then things will change but that is a big if.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9kihq6 wrote

In my personal opinion, we won't be able to get off this planet in any significant way, until humanity develops a social structure different and a bit more politically advanced. We just don't have the culture yet to support more than small projects, and the big projects won't get off the ground until the species decides to stop fighting so much.

ATM, I see nothing more than small stuff in the inner planets. Mostly military buildup over Terra and lots of science. Maybe a billionaire hotel somewhere pretty.


TheViceroy919 t1_j9koa33 wrote

This is absolutely my opinion as well. Truly taking the next step is being held back more by our society than our science.


Crazed_Archivist t1_j9kopv1 wrote

Completely disagree.

Europeans had waaaaay more backwards societal structures and tech. Didn't stop them from colonizing the Americas.


tom_tencats t1_j9kr44u wrote

There is tremendous difference between colonizing another terrestrial continent and colonizing space.


Crazed_Archivist t1_j9ksv4g wrote

There's also 500 years of development between us and the Europeans that got to America

Have faith in humanity


PandaEven3982 t1_j9kvfub wrote

Technology development yes. Social development? Take a good hard look around. I have faith in the tech and the science. I have no faith in the human component. We haven't kept pace with our technical development.


Just consider. There are about 2500 billionaires in the world. About 1 million millionaires. And then there 9 billion of the rest of us. Does this seem sensible to you from the macro perspective? Is this a sensible allocation of human wealth?


Crazed_Archivist t1_j9kvvyd wrote

You think that the western world, you know, the ones leading the space race Departament, didn't evolve socially that much in comparison to when... check notes... we had the inquisition; absolute monarchy; no worker laws; no freedom of speech; no human rights; the entire industry of human slavery; propertied woman; etc etc etc


PandaEven3982 t1_j9ky9nl wrote

And now we have the manosphere, religious political conflict in America, misogyny across the world, political torture, scientology, rednecks. Brexits...

Go away LoL. We have plenty of atrocity today. I'm a 61-year-old man, and the idea of you telling me that we're much more civilized now is just whistling in the effing dark. We still do bread and circuses, and that was coined in Roman times. Stop making me laugh, it hurts too much. Sheesh.


Crazed_Archivist t1_j9kyp3j wrote

  1. Manosphere - Still better than when woman couldn't vote, or have jobs, or go on the street alone.

  2. Religious political conflict - Remember when towns used to hang witches? Me neither, that happened 300 years before I was born.

  3. Political torture - Rare in western societies, in comparison to the medieval shit we had

None of what you say comes then close to how bad shit were lol


PandaEven3982 t1_j9l0rwz wrote

Okay. You're saying what we have is good enough to take into space. I think you're insane, but it's your life. Um, your number 3 is really really inaccurate. You just don't hear about it in western society as much. Because we're supposed to be above it. Don't believe all you don't get to hear.

Also, the manosphere is actually worse. Go snd actually look at whats being said out there. Think Nazis and dehumanization. There's a reason this is the loneliest generation ever. For instance, the mild thing I saw today was "women shouldn't go on dates if they aren't expecting to have sex." That was mild. Take s look i to that piece of the Internet snd tell me we're ready for the cold equations. :-)


Crazed_Archivist t1_j9l0zyf wrote


The current state of society is worse for woman than what was 400 years ago because of a minority of losers that like Andrew Tate and never leave their basements?

Your are delusional


PandaEven3982 t1_j9l4iba wrote

Yeah. I'm really not. You're the captain of the titanic, looking at the very tip of the iceberg, never seeing the size of the thing. Go look up the estimate sizes of the market women and children being trafficed. It's an industry. A rather large one. Do you think the cops do a good job at ferreting this stuff out? You sir, are the delusional one. GO FORTH AND ACTUALLY LOOK. Try it for real. Or stay deluded.

Edit:' being discussed in r/futurology rught now, in fact.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9ksy7v wrote

They colonized by using disease and war. You think war in the most inimical environment around is gonna be cheap?


stemandall t1_j9l5gud wrote

If that were true, the Americas never would have been settled by European colonizers. If that were true, we never would have gone to the moon because of the Cold war with the USSR. Exploration can and will happen during periods of political turmoil and upheaval.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9l68kl wrote

Untill we blow the planet up sure. But we're being pretty irresponsible down here and I don't see you having survivability out there for a while without the stuff earth currently provides. We spend a lot more on military than we do on space. Between planetary warming and social violence and capitalism, the pot is boiling. Shrugs


KeaboUltra t1_j9kw1h8 wrote

I disagree, I dont think a "social structure different and a bit more politically advanced" will happen unless we find ourselves in space first, and develop calendars, time, and laws that work for an environment that doesn't utilize these things. This may come about in a lunar colony, the likes of what we're seeing with the moonbase space race with artemis. we may not see anything immediate but I think this is the recipe. I think going to the moon, for residency and work with regular trips to Mars the way we treated the moon would be significant enough for the next century to begin making their way to other planets.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9kxi1m wrote

I wish I agreed with you. Untill humans stop all the short-term thinking, we're fucked. I expect it will take war or a significant die back for the wakeup call.

Meanwhile, you are overestimating our technical capabilities. Reagan fucked up. And thus the space age is now instead of 30 years ago. But unless the sociology changes, the only thing we are going to export out of the atmosphere is war. Shrugs. I'm busy dying. I have zero stake in this anymore. I'm just telling you what I see. It won't be up to me. :-)


KeaboUltra t1_j9m9d8f wrote

I don't think you know what I meant in my response to you saying "we won't be able to get off this planet in any significant way, until humanity develops a social structure different and a bit more politically advanced." Us being fucked is possible, I'm not ruling that out, but Humanity doesn't decide anything. I don't think we would even begin to be able to do that until we become a type 1 civilization, until then, we're bound by Human/Nature. We grow around whatever life changing discoveries or revolutions we make, base off how humanity is hardwired to adapt. There are obviously things that could prevent growth, but I just believe that it won't happen until it randomly happens, we're in a perpetual state of being fucked and based on where we are, technologically, until your proposed mindset happens. We don't have to do anything spectacular outside of our capabilities, except refine and prove the things we have until we eventually hit a turning point, things like the world wars, the space race, or the internet and now, interest in AI and AR/VR.

Humanity wont be able to congregate and decide as a whole. We develop around whatever gets dropped onto us. A choice will be made and people will live on the moon, or start some sort of colony in space in a near earth orbit, whether that choice is made in effort to keep the advantage over geopolitical enemies and influence their will, or for the sake and benefit of humanity, science and our curiosity. This, especially if Artemis 2 and 3 are successful. The amount of difference that makes is enormous. in 27 years, that base could become a manufacturing facility with a bigger crew, and new technologies to develop in that time, just as the internet practically changed how the world communicated in 15-30 years and the explosion of smart phones, homes, and other devices. travel could be made easier with residential space station hotels, as you mention, then a technology is developed to launch smaller crafts for trips around the earth, maybe for faster long range shipping, or a "trip" you could take, and more important trips to the moon for research without having to launch heavy rockets on earth. Money could be made with that commercially.

As the technology gets more efficient, it gets easier to send things to and from a moon base. Maybe using solar sails or utilizing fuel more efficiently due to lower to no gravity. in time their technologies and communities grow. We may not be space travelling actively but this scenario is possible, but depending on if technologies like chatGPT and robotics develop to be more reliable and accurate, it's possible in 27-30 years to have stuff like this completely automated, if not more than we expect. It would force humanity to think differently, it really just depends on what scalable discoveries we make, because as we start implementing them, the world will change bit by bit, as laws are made and the technologies made commercially in these advancements inevitably puts us in that mindset.. The world thinks radically different already than it did 50-70 years ago, even if a lot of people still live in the past.. The world in general is different, society itself would probably break down or at least grind to a halt if access to the internet just disappeared in todays world, especially as younger people who deal with automated things likely wont have manual knowledge, or how company identities and worldwide services fully exist on the internet. Imagine how short a change could take when now the world is connected by the internet? Stuff like that can happen any moment.

I understand what you see, and why you think that way, I'm simply expressing a differing perspective.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9uuzn9 wrote

I invite you to look at what this discussion devolved into, and factor in pollution, global warming, decling biodiversity, etc. It's not like we have a lot of time. At this rate, the more interesting question is who drowns or bakes first. We're generating enough heat to actually delay what should be an encroaching ice age, according to the science we think we know.

I think you're an optimist. Shrugs.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zmto2 wrote

Again, to repeat what I said simply. Humanity will not decide to be ready for space colonization. Nothing I'm saying to you is in opposition except to say that we will never collectively decide to change society, society will change around what we do, don't do, or achieve, therefore there's equal potential of everything. instead of trying to label me things you could just accept it as an opinion, there's no need to get agitated. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not we will overcome anything we're dealing with, optimism has nothing to do with it. I'm saying we wont be in that mindset unless the wheels of general progress hit the ground rolling, which they're already doing.

Also, you're looking at the world in black and white if you think the question boils down to who bakes or drowns first. Climate change isn't about that, It's about a changing climate that threatens how we've become accustomed to the water and environments around us that we base our society on, and the animals/humans that will suffer for it. humanity can manage the changing climate and heat, but the strife this will bring is the danger. nevertheless, that doesn't stifle human progress until a nuke, asteroid, or EMP is dropped on our heads, until that happens, an impeding moon base or a breakthrough in technology is all that's keeping us from utilizing extraterrestrial space and what with this seemingly renewed space race and activity, we could be in the beginnings of that change. Humanity doesn't need to collectively change and do better no more than the early settlers and colonizers didn't need to work together to travel the sea or explore otherwise uncharted territory.


PandaEven3982 t1_j9zobzu wrote

I'm s firm believer in Murphy, since engineering was my thing. We now control enough energy to affect climate the slow way. We also control enough energy to really" affect the environment a lot more significantly and faster. We are an armed, aggressive, warlike species. Shrugs. I've been thinking about EMP and fobs and l5 since the early 70s. I'll lay any money someone has tungsten rods in orbit right now.

No humanity won't decide. Not educated enough, kept artificially divided, kept artificially poor. Nope. Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

Edit: Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zut7d wrote

>Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

That's the point of what I'm saying. Significant, and or violent changes happen through progress, it doesn't matter if the progress is positive or negative, unless the negative is completely catastrophic to the entire planet at a point were life can no longer be possible. Violence doesn't necessarily mean technological regression as seen with the atomic bomb. These changes don't have to originate from society to affect society. Society is forced to accept whatever we're given. If man successfully lands on the moon and a base is made. that's already significant enough. There are already missions surrounding it, if we get people on the moon by 2030, then OPs question becomes what does space travel look like in 20 years after an established moon base. If we were doing nothing at all with space as a species, then I'd have your POV, but the internet, GPS, JWST, space probes, star link, rovers and much others all show that the interest is there and it's a matter of when this happens, and who makes it there first. As things fall into place, peacefully or violently, humanity will adapt to a society that utilizes space travel, even if it's only between the moon and earth for the next 30-50 years. That in itself is significant enough because our affairs will not only affect earth, and a proper moon base would serve to supplement earth with resources, energy, a celestial community, assisted research and more. Having a successful Artemis 3 mission before 2030, and other countries pushing to reach the moon first makes this even more tangible, because it all starts with progress.


PandaEven3982 t1_ja12gzb wrote

Why do ya think I brought it up?? We handle amounts of energy now that can catastrophically affect this planet. We have an aggressive society, lots of unhappy unhealthy people and enough bombs to literally crack the planet. Je suis fin. Bon soir.


KeaboUltra t1_ja1hcw4 wrote

And what does any of that have to do with being unable to achieve a future of space travel in any meaningful way? What does meaningful mean to you vs humanity? You talked about how we cant get big projects off the ground due to no funding yet we've already managed to complete step 1 of 3 on the artemis mission after shooting JWST into orbit among other space related missions. those are pretty significant. in a time frame of 27 years, I don't think anyone's expecting to be on Mars or Venus levels of significant, let alone travelling out of the solar system unless it was just a probe but the beginnings of a moon base are significant none the less.

Back when you said:

>ATM, I see nothing more than small stuff in the inner planets. Mostly military buildup over Terra and lots of science. Maybe a billionaire hotel somewhere pretty


>Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.

Is exactly what I'm talking about. A research facility on the moon or even military activity is significant. None of that is small. And when these things start, it will be what allows us to travel further into space as it becomes the norm throughout society from 2050 and beyond. Anything more than what we currently have on the moon is significant, but the perspective I'm adding is that this is what will be what pushes humanity in a direction to have the mindset you claim we wouldn't get unless we worked together, the more we ingrain local space faring, the more our society advances in that direction, not because we'll be more mature, but because of what it has to offer to humanity.


PandaEven3982 t1_ja2y91i wrote

You aren't actually reading what I've said to you, or you keep missing the points. I am disengaging. If you think blowing up the planet isn't capable of ruining post scarcity, I don't think we need further discussion. You don't seem to have a problem with risky stuff. I do.


KeaboUltra t1_ja37e24 wrote

Nor are you because not once have I said or thought blowing up the planet wasn't capable of that. You're hyper focused on destruction, saying that none of our current projects are meaningful and all I'm literally telling you is that humanity is already making steps towards making significant strides onto being a space faring species no matter how much capacity we have for destruction and irrelevant to what you deem significant. Humanity has plenty of potential until we blow up, just as we have plenty potential to advance. Has it happened yet? It makes zero sense to be completely on either side when we would likely achieve significant progress (that is to say ANY space colony, inner planet or just between earth and the moon) whether humanity peacefully or violently reaches that reality. It random chance, with supporting facts and evidence that drives people to believe what we're capable of in the near future but it's like you want the world to blow up, why? Because only you know what the future holds? You, someone who seriously thinks climate change will really be about who bakes or drowns? How can I care to read the full extent of your post when the majority of your points is under researched hyped up doomerism? You brought up an interesting perspective initially and all I wanted was to provide differing perspectives surrounding a similar position yet you all have the same panicky, anxiety induced hopeless responses about the world as if human depravity and destruction is new, yet here we are talking wirelessly on a web forum, waiting to see which country establishes a moon base first.


UmpShow t1_j9kqtef wrote

It all depends on cost. If Starship works as expected (or something like it), you will see activity in space explode. It is the 21st century version of the transcontinental railroad.


verifiedboomer t1_j9ki0ot wrote

There is no reason for colonizing the moon or Mars or even low Earth orbit that will ever come close to justifying the expense or hazards. Just because these things are so convincingly depicted in science fiction films or games doesn't make them any easier to do.

Political will may exist long enough to boots on the moon again, but it won't last long.


random_shitter t1_j9kmmt5 wrote

Ithink you sincerely underestimate how much money can be made in space. We're just cracking the tools and 1st benefits of micro-g production and biosciences. There needs to be only 1 succesful product that has to be produced in space to let asteroid mining companies have business plans viable for venture capital. As soon as there is some asteroid mining the cat's out of the bag and things will explode.


Quwinsoft t1_j9kniey wrote

With the Baby Boomers retiring and deglobalization, venture capital is already starting to dry up.


verifiedboomer t1_j9l08e0 wrote

And I think people sincerely overestimate the benefits of space manufacturing.

I also think people sincerely underestimate the challenges and expense involved in retrieving commercially useful amounts of material from asteroids, or of using those materials in situ for space-based manufacturing.

Achieving inexpensive launch capability with Starship, if possible, only scratches the surface of what needs to be in place to do any of this stuff.


carso150 t1_j9l7w2b wrote

and i think some severly understimate just how long 30 years are, starship will more than certainly fly sometime this year and once it flies once you can expect that spacex will quickly develop and improve uppon the design, because even if it only scratches what is needed that slightly scratch is only step 1 and again, 30 years is a fucking long time a lot of stuff can and will change in 30 years far faster than many people expect


random_shitter t1_j9m5u2g wrote

Have you ever watched Primitive Technology make some iron from ore? The guys who first made some iron didn't say "okay, now let's make an integrated steel mill". And we still ended up in today's world.

We're currently in the Primitive Technology phase of space mastery. But we don't need to jump straight to in-situ resource-utilised manufacturing. Each new capability unlocks a new way of making money. Each new way of making money pushes development of new capabilities.

First satellite 1957; first communications satellite 1960. Many steps since. More steps to go. But we are getting close to a tipping point. SpaceX is launching often enough to get good at it, making it routine. Space-based manufacturing research is at the point that they see viable products at the horizon. Either StarShip or competitors will drive launch costs further down. There will be a point where these lines cross, and the floodgates will open.

I don't think I will live to see the space equivalent of an integrated steel mill, but I do think space will touch my life in more ways than only through communications and remote sensing.


Villad_rock t1_j9l7xdw wrote

In 50-100 years everything will most likely be ai and robots driven and money doesn’t exist anymore. Humans will just have fun and watch everything unfolding. At that point space exploration is as simple as driving to the next store.


Villad_rock t1_j9l7h1e wrote

In 800 million years the sun will be 10% brighter and someday the sun will eat the earth. So yes they will come a day where it justifies the expense.


onioning t1_j9kv7ny wrote

It's not the flashy things people want, but drones and robots. There is so very much more we can do. What we've done on Mars is amazing. Do more of that.

I know people want manned travel but that is not only impractical, it may always be impractical.


carso150 t1_j9l89wy wrote

never say never, people are usually always mistaken when they say that something will always be imposible


onioning t1_j9l8wqv wrote

Well, that is what the word "may" means. Not saying it will always be impossible. It is plausible that it will never be possible.


[deleted] t1_j9liera wrote



simcoder t1_j9lkp3n wrote

Yeah, I think the deep ocean is a decent corollary for space. ROVs are the future!


abstractengineer2000 t1_j9kxr90 wrote

Moonbase + Mars Landing + Numerous unmanned missions to planets/moons + Bigger telescopes in space + Billionaire tourists


AMAIWasALizardPerson t1_j9l9ezt wrote

I've read all these comments so far, and only one person has mentioned briefly the hazards of space travel. If you do any minor internet research, going to Mars (just Mars) is such an uphill battle for human survivability. The technology for space suits is not there yet in regards to keeping out dust that would eat up the material that makes up the suits and are definitely and extremely toxic to human beings. Drones are definitely a more feasible bet, but even drone technology needs the same protections that an astronaut suit would need to keep them from malfunctioning constantly on another planet. If something breaks, who is there to fix it? And then there needs to be contingencies for the contingencies because convenience is literally a world away.

There are a lot of contingencies to plan develop and to plan for when it comes to spacefaring. There are a lot of danger scenarios we may not be able to preemptively plan for either until we are on the surface of our destination cosmic location and most likely suffered some losses. Each cosmic body would be its own set of obstacles.

There are numerous startups working quietly on problems just like these in anticipation of space travel eventually becoming a viable commerce and not just speculative. You can bet NASA, along with all other possible government bodies associated with space travel, are invested in these startups.

Still, space travel is still so fatal to humans and machines. Add in the delay in communication if you're as far away as the moon, efficient fuel, self-sufficient energy and resources IN SPACE and not waiting for them to be re-supplied, and there's still a lot of hypothetical technology that needs to be developed.

The space race isn't really as hot as it was during the Cold War, because the political one upmanship game is using other means these days, but the push toward innovation is still happening. I don't think by 2050 it will be dramatically noticeable, like how we're not all in flying cars these days like people in the 1980s thought we would be, but maybe by 2100.

But who knows! Excelsior!


carso150 t1_j9lctwh wrote

the moon is actually not all that far away, its only a three days travel with near instantaneus comunication, right now the biggest limitation is that rockets take months of preparation to launch anything and you have a limited number of them but taking into account that spacex is right now able to launch with only a 2 week window and that starship will be much more capable than falcon 9 we could reach a point in the next 10 to 15 years were we are able to do daily missions to space or even multiple missions in the same day, it only took spacex 10 years to reach this current rate of launches after all

at that point responce times to any emergency happening on the moon would not really be any slower than the responce to emergencies on earth, a couple days at most which unless its a literal catastrophic emergency would be more than enough time for most stuff

this all sounds imposible right now, but so did reusable rockets launching once per week 10 years ago

mars will be far harder, i fully expect a mars landing in before 2050 but i do agree that full colonization will likely take longer

moon colonization i do see it much feasible, we already were able to put humans on the moon and keep them there safe for 12 days over 50 years ago, the moon is going to start colonization in the next couple of decades and that is just the first step


Misco3 t1_j9lj5xx wrote

I imagine larger fusion powered spacecraft that are assembled and remain in space where they would be restocked and refuelled. These would take humans to the outer planets.


Tycho81 t1_j9kg52i wrote

Next 25 years we just begin with colonizing, then new doors will go open, also discussie points

For example, will mars go industrial path or science with life searching path? If mars want to be independent and create own economy, they will be very poor on paper but can be very rich because asteroids belt is near mars, for selling rare metals to the earth.


SituationThat8253 t1_j9kx5xa wrote

I was 10 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I thought ,yes we're doing space stuff now. Lookout Mars here we come. I didn't know we wouldn't be at least on the moon by now. Man was I waaay wrong.


boogiesm t1_j9l04ee wrote

Maybe a station on the moon..but not Mars. That's a 1 way trip to hell.


misc0007 t1_j9l15kl wrote

Self Serving Short Holiday resorts on Moon and Mars

With Robots helping in various ways.. as server.


AvcalmQ t1_j9l2fpc wrote

Now what're the chances a less-educated construction laborer who self studies astrodynamics and holds a PPL gets to go... anywhere, really?


Villad_rock t1_j9l6bm7 wrote

Either solar and maybe laser propulsion or we will still use mostly chemical rockets like today in 2100.


slickhedstrong t1_j9l8l3l wrote

the range expressed doesn't match the years asked about


East-Relationship592 t1_j9lf15o wrote

I think we will see a lot of robots/probes being sent out instead of humans. Too much risk/variables associated with a human life, there will be so little a human can do in space currently as opposed to a computerized system that we can control 24/7..

for example food, oxygen, illness, etc.. a robot would essentially require a power source and steady connection


simcoder t1_j9lkh30 wrote

I think engines will advance allowing missions that are beyond our reach right now. But, I'm not bullish on large numbers of people spending long periods of time in space happening this century. Perhaps next century if we manage to get on top of all the looming issues and figure out fusion or something...


Dutchleek t1_j9llivp wrote

2055 COCCY2 satellite breaks speed record 0.0955% speed of light. 2076 Bowwie Mars Frontier (🇺🇸 🇮🇳 🇸🇬) return would had planed by 2080 but failed. 2077 1e type-4 Galaxy found 2085 Wesel-radiation confirmed in supermagnetars 2098 landing on asteroid 2010ST3 changing trajectory and taking a piece home.


Bright_Tackle t1_j9lloqd wrote

i am from medical physics. i can say as long as there is no solution to shield radiation, there is no way to reach planets with humans further away. so even frozen embryos or cryostasis will be useless, bcz they will be damaged and or destroyed through radiation.

another point is travelling distance. you can reach high speed. but keep in mind that you need the same time for braking speed down as for speeding up. and at these velocities you need big big shields even for the smallest objects in space...

so huh... will be tough. living on mars will be possible imo. needs 200 to 300 y imo.


Someoneoverthere42 t1_j9m0udb wrote

A few more long term probes space x and most private space travel is going to just evaporate one day. Starting the replacement for the ISS. Orbital debris is going to become a massive proplem. Maybe a moon landing.


Decronym t1_j9maxib wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |AR|Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell)| | |Aerojet Rocketdyne| | |Augmented Reality real-time processing| | |Anti-Reflective optical coating| |GEO|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |JWST|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 7 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8597 for this sub, first seen 23rd Feb 2023, 00:12]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])


youkmowwhatyouarefor t1_j9kywa8 wrote

Orbit makes the most sense imo. Maybe the moon but Mars would be a mission and would probably be like the moon missions of the 70’s & 80’s. Don’t go back for decades after it’s done once


misc0007 t1_j9l1r9o wrote

Burial grounds industry may thrive. People will spend good amount to bury themselves on Moon or Mars..


A_bleak_ass_in_tote t1_j9l234d wrote

LEO tourism for the world's billionaires and an arms race to mine near-Earth objects with drones are all I can reasonably see happening over the next 50 years or so.

While our technology has advanced significantly over the last 54 years, the perils of long-term space colonies are almost incalculable. Any small mistake could cost the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people, which could bring huge legal liabilities.

We only get a few thousand people each year to risk life and limb in Antarctica, which is a much more hospitable environment than anything else outside Earth's atmosphere.

Unless some alien culture brings their technology to us gift-wrapped and ready to use by our very fragile bodies, I don't foresee us getting off this rock for the next few hundred years.


19dm19 t1_j9kpsmf wrote

Goal for 2200 is to have all factory production robotized and on moon and mars

2050 is too close, maximum what could happen - mission to moon.

Mars manned mission is impossible untill 2100 because of no science on human protection against radiation in far space orbits


nw342 t1_j9kw4oo wrote

its not impossible, just not enough money is being spent of research. We could have a manned mars mission in 5 years with enough money


CovidIsntReal19 t1_j9l17oc wrote

Same as the last 50... We can't remember how to go back because science went backwards and we got rid of the telemetry data... We probably never went/ space is fake. NASA is basically Hollywood with a better budget and better actors... Founded by nazis


zephyr-zoo t1_j9l74f1 wrote

If only they could figure how to pass people safely through the van allen radiation belts 🫠