Shuttle Columbia 'lost'

[Nusselt]

i bet sadam's laughing his **** off. Wonder what the mood of america will be. If war starts in about a months time (according to vermillion, although i heard it was in the middle of march and not the beginning, if this is the case ill castrate vermillion for losing me £10) anyway will 1 month be enough to get over the 'depression' and get pschyed up for war??




oh and this is a joke in very bad taste, but you have to laugh havent you?

my friends reaction as we sat watching the tv

'well at least they got cremated and the ashes spread'

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by General Geiger
This is no understatement: It is vital for the future of humanity that this disaster does not slow or scupper spatial development.

That cannot be over emphasized enough. We have to be in a position to take the next leap and finish the ISS; build a manned base on the Moon; build a manned base on Mars; start mining asteroids for resources.

Hopefully we will see the beginning's of this happen in our lifetime, if not, then I will die happy (at about the age of 120 I hope) that I won't have to survive in an over-populated, stinking world.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
start mining asteroids for resources.

doesn't this belong on PD?










Sorry.

A damn shame, although it had to happen sooner or later tbh. Hopefully the thermal tiling will be looked at more closely in light of this (even if this wasn't due to the tiling, it's bloody dodgy to begin with)

[W]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Much as I dislike Bush this is one thing he deals with very well. His speach after the September 11th attack on the WTC was just right, as was his response to this. An acknowledgement of grief, a message for the families of those involved, and a statement that the US will still move forward.

You'll not hear me say this often but well done Mr. Bush.

Speaches and symbolic actions is great, but it doesn't make up for true effort.

[Nixjim]

Watching the live NASA press conferance now.
First sign of trouble was when the thermal sensors for the left wing hydrualics stopped working. Then the thermal sensors for the left wheel well stopped working, a few moments after that all contact was lost.
Would seem to me to imply the left wing was damaged on takeoff and failed on landing.
I would hate to be the Engineers who stated the wing should be fine and no action was required.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Mirai
We still have 5 more shuttles..

And it was at 200,000 feet. 20,000 is below most airliner traffic.

um, 3 I believe

Atlantis, Endeavour and Discovery. Enterprise doesn't count

Vaio

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Much as I dislike Bush this is one thing he deals with very well. His speach after the September 11th attack on the WTC was just right, as was his response to this. An acknowledgement of grief, a message for the families of those involved, and a statement that the US will still move forward.

You'll not hear me say this often but well done Mr. Bush.

Irrelevant as it is to the long term future of man in space, Bush is indeed a brilliant speech maker. I will think of his words to the effect that this disaster will not stop development in space. I hope he can keep to them.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by General Geiger
Irrelevant as it is to the long term future of man in space, Bush is indeed a brilliant speech maker. I will think of his words to the effect that this disaster will not stop development in space. I hope he can keep to them.

You mean GWB's speech writers write good speeches.

I do agree with you though. I'm a fully paid up member of "The Star Fraction"

However, I'll leave you with a quote.

**** happens
In space, it happens quite a lot.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by ELeeming
You mean GWB's speech writers write good speeches.

No, exactly what he said. GWB is a good speach maker.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by ELeeming
You mean GWB's speech writers write good speeches.

You misunderstand the context of the word "make". I mean GWB makes good speeches as in he is good at saying them, in public. There is some element for confusion, I appreciate, but really, you must be a little dumb.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by General Geiger
There is some element for confusion, I appreciate, but really, you must be a little dumb.

If you dont mind, I will borrow that phrase for work on Monday when I ask for my pay rise

Vaio

[Bloomers III]

I'm a shallow shallow man, and usually I don't find things like thisshocking. but this i do and i don't know why, odd. but it's a great shame, the ISS's future was already in jeopardy, this will make things infinitely worse

[Smugs]

Never thought it would ever happen after the misstakes of Challenger. RIP Columbia Crew

[wu_trax]

now this is bad luck

[Gayle29uk]

There are reports from US radio stations that people in Nacogdoches have been buying large bags at Walmart in order to go scavenging for pieces of the shuttle. It's speculated they will appear on Ebay before too long (despite being government property) as people attempt to profiteer from the incident.

I really wish I were making this up

[edit]Link to a quick story about Ebay and the auctions posted so far.[/edit]

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Stop making sick jokes.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
[edit]Link to a quick story about Ebay and the auctions posted so far.[/edit]

From that story: The auction is no longer on eBay.

eBay won't want any trouble from the United State government.

[hinch]

how sad bits are for sale on ebay already
http://search.ebay.com/search/search...t&BasicSearch=

[acropolis]

I think the only reply i can ever come up with that suitably defines my opinion is this one

"Dear Sir. I sincerely hope you have a relative or two who is an astronaut. And i sincerely hope this person goes out into space and is killed. And when he comes home , and youre standing by the corpse , giving the Eulogy , you can say to everyone 'It was all worth it, because it gives america something that we don't suck at".

Yours Sincerely

Acro

(my punctuation is rather ****. oh well)
(ps- over here the news casters are all discussing how this relates to war on iraq. the thing was that when the challenger blew, qaddafi replayed it over and over again. people are guessing saddam will do likewise. and the fact that the israeli on board was the guy flying the mission that bombed the nuclear plant in iraq, and the fact that it crashed in palestine,texas, all obviously has some deeper meaning.)

[sigrid]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
I fear that this incident could set space travel back by decades.

Mebbe they can spent the money on those 20 kids a minute who die of hunger...
Anybody care to make a thread about that?
I seen carcrashes with more casualties.
A life is a life....

[Texan]

When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.
Robert A. Heinlein

[Phang]

if you look at the tiles for sale on eBay btw, they were legally obtained previously.

Originally posted by Mirai
We still have 5 more shuttles..

3

Atlantis, Endeavour and Discovery

The other 2 are not capabale of space flight

Pathfinder (which is just a model) & Enterprise (which was just used to test landing and is not capable of space flight)

[General Geiger]

On my first post here I indicated great pessimism. It would be like following Challenger, only worse; there would be a delay of several years before another shuttle flight went up. This would become obvious in Bush’s first statement, as soon as he got past general words of condolence. The US government would be unwilling to give NASA the immense funding required for an inevitable overhaul of the shuttle fleet; NASA, already deprived of funding, would be forced to abandon more and more operations; the International Space Station might never get completed. Mankind would fall just short of a glorious future which, if we get moving at an Apollo-like pace right now, could be a mere century away. The only hint of hope was the fact that, with three NASA astronauts aboard the fledgling ISS, the US Administration would be forced to send up more shuttle missions in order to keep them supplied. This would necessitate further spacial activity. Unwittingly, with their presence in orbit, those three astronauts may be keeping the whole future of man in space hanging by a thread that would otherwise snap. Only time will tell. Overall, though, my mood was one of resigned pessimism, of the space program being finally killed by the endless bureaucracy that has been throttling it since 1969. I would like to revise that impression somewhat.

I will take Bush at his word that (I forget his exact language; please forgive the quotes), “... we will continue to expand into space”. I will remember that he said that, following the Columbia tragedy, and grow extremely bitter if he does not keep his implicit promise. Remember that thirty years ago we were expecting to have Lunar colonies and missions to Mars by now, at least. Also, in the most blackly cynical of senses, which I can only excuse on the grounds that it is true, the publicity from this awful event will go some way towards reversing its negative impacts. These two factors, combined with the three astronauts already aboard the ISS forcing the government to keep up launches to keep them alive, go quite a long way towards negating my pessimism to a neutral position. I am, however, forced to keep to a mildly pessimistic stance, though I was practically morbid for the future of NASA immediately upon hearing of the disaster. Reading Titan by Stephen Baxter (the first part of which is uncannily reminiscent of this tragedy) just a couple of weeks ago didn’t help, either. It’s a bloody good book, by the way, though as always I must excuse Baxter’s overly macho and short-sentenced prose before you read it.

I feel a little better now, in a number of ways. Those seven deaths may not have been to a negative end; it is perfectly possible that they might have died to the end of slowing and ultimately scuppering the US manned space program - but, after hearing Bush speak, I’m willing to remove the last four letters of hopeless from my feelings about the long term implications here.

[General Geiger]

Also, I'm no statician, but even with such a small sample, two disasters in 111 flights should make the odds of disaster-per-flight significantly less than one in a hundred, shouldn't it? I'm willing to accept that we've been unlucky, but perhaps a compromise between 1/55 and 1/100 could be reached - 1/80, perhaps?

[Texan]

I calculate that flight 217 will be the next. Unfortunately, if we want to send flight 218, we must first send flight 217.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Texan
I calculate that flight 217 will be the next. Unfortunately, if we want to send flight 218, we must first send flight 217.

Incorrect. We could number them wrong. Yay for superstition!

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by General Geiger
On my first post here I indicated great pessimism. It would be like following Challenger, only worse; there would be a delay of several years before another shuttle flight went up. This would become obvious in Bush’s first statement, as soon as he got past general words of condolence. The US government would be unwilling to give NASA the immense funding required for an inevitable overhaul of the shuttle fleet; NASA, already deprived of funding, would be forced to abandon more and more operations; the International Space Station might never get completed.

Actually, the cost to overhaul the shuttle fleet isn't that expensive--except in time. NASA spends approximately a fifth of the cost of a shuttle just to launch one. Grounding the fleet for a couple of years would "save" enough money to build another shuttle and probably "fix" the existing ones (assuming the fixes weren't too extensive).

I'm a big proponent of space exploration, but I've always been rather skeptical of the International Space Station (ISS). It's enormously expensive for what is essentially a very small step into space and sucks up almost all of NASA's resources and shuttle launches (ironically, this last shuttle mission was the first in a year and a half that wasn't tasked to the ISS). With the Russian space program virtually bankrupt, NASA's had to pick up some of that funding as well.

Mankind would fall just short of a glorious future which, if we get moving at an Apollo-like pace right now, could be a mere century away. The only hint of hope was the fact that, with three NASA astronauts aboard the fledgling ISS, the US Administration would be forced to send up more shuttle missions in order to keep them supplied.

There's no need to "rush" the shuttle back into service. The Russians can easily keep the station supplied or retrieve the personnel--especially if NASA picked up the tab.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Rick
...just because they have been reminded its a real risk I dont think there is any problem getting people willing to fly in it.

Guarantee me odds of 5:1 or better and I'd be there like a shot given a choice. Shame I can't

[Nixjim]

First, Columbia was the 113th flight, not 111. It was the 28th flight for Columbia itself, which was the oldest shuttle in the fleet and the first shuttle sent into space.
The Russians have a supply mission set to launch for the ISS on Monday I believe, they say it will launch on schedule.
There is a Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to the ISS which could return the Astronauts to Earth at a moments notice, so NASA does not have to launch again to supply them if they do not wish to.
The odds of an accident on a shuttle flight, last I saw, was 1 in 438. Fears of just such an accident on re-entry were high on Columbias maiden flight, with every successful landing the fears were reduced until landings were considered by most to be safe. When Challenger (which was the second shuttle delivered and launched) exploded NASA already had the components to build Endeavor and were considering building it anyway.
NASA does not have any extra shuttle parts available now which makes replacing Columbia doubtful. The design is well over 20 years old now, designed in the 60's and 70's, first flight of Columbia in 1981, so it may be time to consider redisigning the shuttles rather than building another identical one.

[JammyJim]

i watched Columbia take off on Jan 16th :-((((

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I'm a big proponent of space exploration, but I've always been rather skeptical of the International Space Station (ISS). It's enormously expensive for what is essentially a very small step into space and sucks up almost all of NASA's resources and shuttle launches (ironically, this last shuttle mission was the first in a year and a half that wasn't tasked to the ISS). With the Russian space program virtually bankrupt, NASA's had to pick up some of that funding as well.

So am I. I'm skeptical of NASAs whole policy - the ISS, and the decision to go for the shuttle before that. However, one can only view the situations how it stands, rather than how one would like it to stand. The ISS is being built; we can only view things in that light. Personally I'd have much favoured the construction of a Mars mission rather than the ISS, but international opinion demanded some sort of peace-symbol initiative that isn't going to change anything down here on Earth anyway. C'est la vie. Politicians are idiots.

[Bunga]

I would like to see a radically new design for the space shuttle, maybe even something similar to the x33, launched by magrails out of a mountain, rather than with booster rockets.

Hell, I want to see Clavius Base on the moon within ten years, but good luck...

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Nixjim
First, Columbia was the 113th flight, not 111. It was the 28th flight for Columbia itself, which was the oldest shuttle in the fleet and the first shuttle sent into space.
The Russians have a supply mission set to launch for the ISS on Monday I believe, they say it will launch on schedule.
There is a Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to the ISS which could return the Astronauts to Earth at a moments notice, so NASA does not have to launch again to supply them if they do not wish to.
The odds of an accident on a shuttle flight, last I saw, was 1 in 438. Fears of just such an accident on re-entry were high on Columbias maiden flight, with every successful landing the fears were reduced until landings were considered by most to be safe. When Challenger (which was the second shuttle delivered and launched) exploded NASA already had the components to build Endeavor and were considering building it anyway.
NASA does not have any extra shuttle parts available now which makes replacing Columbia doubtful. The design is well over 20 years old now, designed in the 60's and 70's, first flight of Columbia in 1981, so it may be time to consider redisigning the shuttles rather than building another identical one.

I'm not sure there's any need to replace Columbia. Three shuttles plus Soviet aid will surely be sufficient to complete the ISS.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by General Geiger
I'm not sure there's any need to replace Columbia. Three shuttles plus Soviet aid will surely be sufficient to complete the ISS.

Yes, but fewer shuttles means longer turnaround and hence fewer flights per year (last I checked, shuttles had a turnaround time of 130-150 days).

A redesigned shuttle or shuttle-alternative (e.g., a large expendable unmanned launcher for lifting bulk cargo into orbit) would certainly be worth consideration, but even an unmanned launcher probably couldn't be brought online for several years and a new manned launcher might take a decade or more.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Yes, but fewer shuttles means longer turnaround and hence fewer flights per year (last I checked, shuttles had a turnaround time of 130-150 days).

A redesigned shuttle or shuttle-alternative (e.g., a large expendable unmanned launcher for lifting bulk cargo into orbit) would certainly be worth consideration, but even an unmanned launcher probably couldn't be brought online for several years and a new manned launcher might take a decade or more.

I didn't know that exact detail. Thanks.

As goes shuttle replacement, the X-15 (is that what it's called? Correct me if I'm wrong) is turning out like another ISS - eating up the billions while progressing very slowly, if at all. But the SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) principle is a very good one, and will reduce costs and launch turnaround times massively if it ever gets completed. I read somewhere that one or two SSTO MOV's could mop up the world's current launch capacity. Imagine a fleet. It'd be a halfway house between what we have now and mass, cheap space travel, at a level comparable with air travel in the 1930s.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

If you don't have anything relavant or constructive to say, then don't post it. Thus saving me time in having to delete your pointless and irrelevant posts, and the bickering that ensues.

ta.

[acropolis]

Query:
What should we be doing up in space?

I always hear people ask whether we should be or should not be spending tons o cash on our space program, but I never here anybody saying what we should actually be doing in space.

The list so far:
Satellites and the hubble.

We also spend billions to test how well spiders can spin webs in 0 g, but I wouldn't say that makes the whole deal worthwhile.

There is a consensus that the destiny of our race lies in OS, but what should we be actually doing right now?

In terms of working out how to colonize, we can do just as well here on earth with biodomes etc. for about a cool trillion less.

I think the only thing that has really been keeping the space program alive so far is the applications of space technology to the next generation of weapons applications.

So really I just want to know what we should have accomplished 10 years from now, 50 years from now, and 100 years from now.

[Jammers]

10yrs from now - Back to the Moon, only doing something worthwhile, as opposed to flags and footprints of Apollo.
50yrs - Moon base, off to mars.
100yrs - Martian base, off to the asteroid belt to see if theres anything interesting, or off to that moon on Jupiter that has a frozen ocean.

Could happen, especially the first one once China start heading towards the moon (as is apparantly their overall game plan)

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by acropolis
I think the only thing that has really been keeping the space program alive so far is the applications of space technology to the next generation of weapons applications.

Where do you think nearly every advance in human technology has come from? The need to have better weapons than the enemy, that's where. Even the internet started out as a milatary project, back in the late 60's.

Originally posted by Jammers
Could happen, especially the first one once China start heading towards the moon (as is apparantly their overall game plan)

Hopefully China's increased space program will spark another space race, just like the first one that saw America beat the USSR to the moon.

Also I would hope that we have a permanant moon colony within the next 20 years, as opposed to 50.

[Nixjim]

The ultimate goal of space travel has to be reaching and colonizing other planets. Right now all our eggs (people) are in one basket. (earth)
One major catastrphe and humans could be an endangered or extinct species. That may happen sooner than you think, Yellowstone is a supervolcano that is overdue to blowand has the potential to bring about mass extinctions, and if humans do survive they will be blasted back into the stone age. Having a self sufficient colony on the moon or Mars could make the difference between losing all we've gained permanetly or making a swift recover.
Not to mention I would love to make it to space myself before I get to old to go, which doesn't look likely.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
Hopefully China's increased space program will spark another space race, just like the first one that saw America beat the USSR to the moon.

Yes. This is where our best hope lies for another Apollo-esque boom in space development. Only this time it'll be the combined efforts of Russia, Europe and the USA - now a coalition with the ISS - versus China.

Originally posted by Nixjim
The ultimate goal of space travel has to be reaching and colonizing other planets. Right now all our eggs (people) are in one basket. (earth)
One major catastrphe and humans could be an endangered or extinct species. That may happen sooner than you think, Yellowstone is a supervolcano that is overdue to blowand has the potential to bring about mass extinctions, and if humans do survive they will be blasted back into the stone age. Having a self sufficient colony on the moon or Mars could make the difference between losing all we've gained permanetly or making a swift recover.
Not to mention I would love to make it to space myself before I get to old to go, which doesn't look likely.

This is the long term issue. Yellowstone is the main one. Asteroid impacts are an unlikely second. A megatsunami off that island in the Atlantic could also push things backa century or so. The longer we go, the more likely it is that one of these things will happen. This is why I said, earlier in this thread, words to the effect that it is imperative that this - admittedly awful - tragedy does not slow or scupper space deelopment: it is vital to safeguard the future of the species by getting out there as far and as fast as possible, with colonies on the Moon, and Mars as soon as possible, beyond the reach of some Earth-bound megalomaniac who accrues the power to wipe out humanity and send missiles to the Moon. Even better would be many mining bases among the asteroids; that would safeguard humanity's future once and for all.

My ideal space development (based on what I think is possible):

2010: ISS used as a stepping stone back to the Moon. Small, permanent Lunar base established.

2020: Mission to Mars in situ or completed. It consists of twenty men and women at least, in equal quantities, for obvious reasons; they form a small colony there.

2030: Significant settlement of the Moon. Missions to Venus and Mercury. Anything up to 80 people living on Mars. Everyone there f*cking like crazy.

2045: Increasingly massive development on Moon. Hundreds of people on Mars. People in asteroids, mining to further space exploration. Missions to a Jupiter and scientific bases on/around Jupiter's moons.

2060: Humankind's long term future adequately safeguarded, no matter what happens on Earth - a hundred thousand on the Moon, a thousand on Mars, a thousand among the asteroids, a hundred on Jupiter's moons; exploratory mission(s) to Saturn.

2100: Space travel commonplace. Feasible mass travel to orbit and the Moon, more expensive but possible civilian travel elsewhere in the solar system. More than a million people living on the Moon. Early stages on terraforming on Mars; planetary population of a quarter of a million. Terraforming tests on Venus (banging water-ice comets into it to cool it down). A hundred thousand or more mining the asteroids; tens of thousands on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All the major planets except possibly Pluto explored.

This could be achieved if, right now, we were to begin advancing in space travel at the rate that we were during the 1960s, and didn't stop for the next century.

What I think will [i]actually[i] happen:

2020: A return to the Moon, small base.

2030: Finally, a small scientific team gets to Mars and return as soon as planetary conjunctions allow them.

2045: Two hundred people living on the Moon. Near-orbital space planes that can "hop" into orbit with additional boosters put into service. Dozens of people in orbit, maintaining infrastructure between Earth and Moon.

2060: Five hundred people on Moon. Still dilly-dallying over a Mars base.

2100: Significant settlements on the Moon, more than two thousand people. A hundred living on Mars. Probe-mining of the asteroids. Humans reached Jupiter and maybe Saturn.

Please note: Even the latter timeline may be over-optimistic, and it's so approximate you can't really analyse it too heavily.

[Nixjim]

One thing that helps is the ever increasing rate of technological improvements. The biggest hangup on a Mars mission is the time it takes to reach Mars with current rockets. Humans are not well adapted to spending years in weightlessness. If we can develope faster ships, or viable artificial gravity then space travel becomes feasible. So it is important that, while time needs to be taken to insure this accident is not repeated, we do not slow the pace of space exploration.

[Nixjim]

New information points to left wing damage:
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Just before it disintegrated, space shuttle Columbia experienced an unexpected, 60-degree rise in temperature and automatically started adjusting its path, suggesting its heat-protection tiles were missing or damaged, NASA said Sunday.

Shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore said the engineering data showed a rise of 20 to 30 degrees in the left wheel well about seven minutes before communication was lost with the spacecraft. Then there was a rise of about 60 degrees over five minutes in the middle left side of the fuselage, he said.

The sharp rise was followed by increased drag on the spacecraft that caused its automated flight system to adjust its path, he said

Dittemore cautioned that the information was preliminary but said it could suggest that the thermal tiles that are designed to protect the shuttle from burning up during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere were damaged or missing, possibly from an episode earlier in the shuttle's flight.

"We've got some more detective work. But we're making progress inch by inch," Dittemore said.

The sensors are underneath the thermal tiles. The left side of the spacecraft has been the focus of suspicion almost from the start. Investigtors are focusing on whether a broken-off piece of insulation from the big external fuel tank caused damage to the shuttle's left wing during liftoff Jan. 16 that ultimately doomed the flight 16 days later.

http://www.9news.com/storyfull-newsroom.asp?id=10858

[W]

Originally posted by General Geiger
Yes. This is where our best hope lies for another Apollo-esque boom in space development. Only this time it'll be the combined efforts of Russia, Europe and the USA - now a coalition with the ISS - versus China.



This is the long term issue. Yellowstone is the main one. Asteroid impacts are an unlikely second. A megatsunami off that island in the Atlantic could also push things backa century or so. The longer we go, the more likely it is that one of these things will happen. This is why I said, earlier in this thread, words to the effect that it is imperative that this - admittedly awful - tragedy does not slow or scupper space deelopment: it is vital to safeguard the future of the species by getting out there as far and as fast as possible, with colonies on the Moon, and Mars as soon as possible, beyond the reach of some Earth-bound megalomaniac who accrues the power to wipe out humanity and send missiles to the Moon. Even better would be many mining bases among the asteroids; that would safeguard humanity's future once and for all.

My ideal space development (based on what I think is possible):

2010: ISS used as a stepping stone back to the Moon. Small, permanent Lunar base established.

2020: Mission to Mars in situ or completed. It consists of twenty men and women at least, in equal quantities, for obvious reasons; they form a small colony there.

2030: Significant settlement of the Moon. Missions to Venus and Mercury. Anything up to 80 people living on Mars. Everyone there f*cking like crazy.

2045: Increasingly massive development on Moon. Hundreds of people on Mars. People in asteroids, mining to further space exploration. Missions to a Jupiter and scientific bases on/around Jupiter's moons.

2060: Humankind's long term future adequately safeguarded, no matter what happens on Earth - a hundred thousand on the Moon, a thousand on Mars, a thousand among the asteroids, a hundred on Jupiter's moons; exploratory mission(s) to Saturn.

2100: Space travel commonplace. Feasible mass travel to orbit and the Moon, more expensive but possible civilian travel elsewhere in the solar system. More than a million people living on the Moon. Early stages on terraforming on Mars; planetary population of a quarter of a million. Terraforming tests on Venus (banging water-ice comets into it to cool it down). A hundred thousand or more mining the asteroids; tens of thousands on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All the major planets except possibly Pluto explored.

This could be achieved if, right now, we were to begin advancing in space travel at the rate that we were during the 1960s, and didn't stop for the next century.

What I think will [i]actually[i] happen:

2020: A return to the Moon, small base.

2030: Finally, a small scientific team gets to Mars and return as soon as planetary conjunctions allow them.

2045: Two hundred people living on the Moon. Near-orbital space planes that can "hop" into orbit with additional boosters put into service. Dozens of people in orbit, maintaining infrastructure between Earth and Moon.

2060: Five hundred people on Moon. Still dilly-dallying over a Mars base.

2100: Significant settlements on the Moon, more than two thousand people. A hundred living on Mars. Probe-mining of the asteroids. Humans reached Jupiter and maybe Saturn.

Please note: Even the latter timeline may be over-optimistic, and it's so approximate you can't really analyse it too heavily.

You read too much science fiction, or take it too seriously. This is pure guessword. (Or as I prefer to call it, "bull****")

It's impossible to make any kind of accurate predictions about the future. We could have huge colonies on the moon, mars, and in space within a decade or two, or we could go millenia (without any apocalyptic scifi-esque "setbacks") without ever putting people permanently into orbit. You simply have no idea, and if you had, you'd realize how silly this is.

[Nixjim]

Do a google search on Yellowstone and Supervulcanism. We don't have millienia until it blows, at best 100,000 years, at worst within our lifetime. And when it blows expect 99% of the human population to die. The survivors won't be able to continue business as usual, they will be blasted back to the stoneage.
It has happened before, 74,000 years ago a similar eruption wiped out all but a thousand or so humans on earth, we are all decended from those few survivors.

[W]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Do a google search on Yellowstone and Supervulcanism. We don't have millienia until it blows, at best 100,000 years, at worst within our lifetime. And when it blows expect 99% of the human population to die. The survivors won't be able to continue business as usual, they will be blasted back to the stoneage.
It has happened before, 74,000 years ago a similar eruption wiped out all but a thousand or so humans on earth, we are all decended from those few survivors.

I'll repeat my previous statement.

BULL****

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by W
I'll repeat my previous statement.

BULL****

Denial has never changed the facts, and it never will.
Read and learn, or remain ignorant, the choice is yours.
It will happen, within the next 100,000 years. Chances are good you'll be long gone when it blows, but it is not a certainty.

[W]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Denial has never changed the facts, and it never will.
Read and learn, or remain ignorant, the choice is yours.
It will happen, within the next 100,000 years. Chances are good you'll be long gone when it blows, but it is not a certainty.

How much geology do you even know? I bet everything you've ever read on the subject was on the internet. In fact, I bet everything you've read about it was from news sites. You don't know ****.

[edit]In fact, I bet you even missunderstood what the news sites said[/edit]

[cnaw]

Originally posted by W
How much geology do you even know? I bet everything you've ever read on the subject was on the internet. In fact, I bet everything you've read about it was from news sites. You don't know ****.

[edit]In fact, I bet you even missunderstood what the news sites said[/edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/628515.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...olcanoes.shtml