2074: Airplanes and Spaceships

[CorruptUser]

Alt txt: "Despite having now taken three months longer than the airplane people, we're making disappointingly little progress toward the obvious next stage of vehicle: The Unobtanium-hulled tunneling ship from the 2003 film 'The Core.'"


Welp. This is depressing.

[ijuin]

Unobtanium remains unobtainable for the time being.

As for the slow pace of spacecraft development relative to aircraft development, aircraft had the advantage that the two biggest and most financially expensive wars of the twentieth century saw massive investment in aircraft as warfighting platforms. There has been no comparable pressure on spacecraft development since the Apollo program ended, and indeed even in peacetime less money is spent on spacecraft development than on aircraft development.

That said, if we are going to be pouring tens of billions of dollars each year into Boeing and Lockheed anyway, then we may as well have some of those contracts be for spacecraft. Boeing is developing the Starliner. What vehicle is Lockheed developing, or what vehicle should it be contracted to develop?

[DavidSh]

Lockheed Martin is developing part of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. Specifically, the Command Module. The Service Module is being developed by Airbus.

[speising]

i just read a story by Stephen Baxter playing in an alternative reality where apollo 11 was (allegedly) sabotaged by the russians and this led to a massive space war program with daily shuttle flights by 84 and the end of the world as we know it (by blowing up part of the moon as a demonstration of a doomsday device) by the 90's...

[kwags]

I think a better time for the start of human flight would be 1783, when the Montgolfier brothers started their human carrying balloon flights. That would mean that we are only 57+ years into the 124 year "Balloon flight" era.

So we have the next 67 years to do the space travelling equivalent of rudimentary gliders (without the properly researched airfoil data generated by the Wright brothers), internal combustion engine developments (and/or steam if you feel that had a chance of working) and a whole host of materials developments, at which point, according to this timelines expectations, we can expect the space going equivalent to sustained heavier than air flight.

I'd love that to be faster than light travel. But I think a more realistic target would be transport of humans to other star systems at a high enough fraction of the speed of light for it to be viable. Combine that with advances in astronomy and humans can become an interstellar species.

[TV4Fun]

Shall we talk about the time interval between the discovery of the transistor and the creation of the first smartphone?

[qvxb]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

[Soupspoon]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

Futurama is 19 years old. 19 years before that, Voyager I passed Saturn.

Frank Sinatra's Fly Me To The Moon was 64 years ago. 64 years previously, the steam-powered Ader Éole flew. A decade before the Wright Flier.

[rmsgrey]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

And vice versa.

[PracticalM]

I like Michael F. Flynn's novel Firestar as a driving a new vehicle science fiction world building.
Big fan of the rest of the series as well. Plus In the Country of the Blind and Eifelheim.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/416330.Firestar

[da Doctah]

July 20, 1969 - first people on the moon
December 14, 1972 - last people on the moon

Where were *you* 1243 days ago?

Edit, more interesting coincidence around the time period:
Nixon'sfirst inauguration to first moon landing: 181 days
Watergate breakin to Apollo 17 lunar liftoff: 180 days

[yakkoTDI]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

Just watch out for the probes around Uranus.

[scarletmanuka]

Where were *you* 1243 days ago?

Hmm. Well, it was a Friday, so probably at work, in the very same job that I am currently doing. Though I think I was sitting at a different desk then. I'm not sure exactly when I moved to this desk.

Sorry if that's not very interesting, but you asked, after all.

I like Michael F. Flynn's novel Firestar as a driving a new vehicle science fiction world building.
Big fan of the rest of the series as well. Plus In the Country of the Blind and Eifelheim.

I liked Eifelheim. I have a feeling I picked up another of his at some point, but I don't remember which; I don't recognise the titles you mentioned, though, so I'll have to keep an eye out for them. Thanks!

[ThirdParty]

December 17, 1903 - first human airplane flight

July 20, 1969 - first people on the moon
December 14, 1972 - last people on the moon

So, assuming the decline of human civilization takes place at the same rate as its ascension did, we can expect the last human airplane flight to take place on July 18, 2038.

[Sableagle]

December 17, 1903 - first human airplane flight

July 20, 1969 - first people on the moon
December 14, 1972 - last people on the moon

So, assuming the decline of human civilization takes place at the same rate as its ascension did, we can expect the last human airplane flight to take place on July 18, 2038.

... and the first naturally-occuring case of the smallpox comeback some time around ... 1964. Oh.

[eugen]

The design of modern airliners, based on Boeing's 367-80 prototype,
is older than airplanes were when this prototype flew the first time:

1903...Wrights' first powered flight
1954...Boeing's 367-80 first flight
2018...today

In other words: airliner design has not changed significantly since 1954.

[SuicideJunkie]

...we can expect the last human airplane flight to take place on July 18, 2038.

Also, it looks like we will be done with electric cars around 2056.

That might just mean Jetsons style antigrav hoverscooters have completely saturated both markets?

[Flumble]

Airplanes are useful for moving stuff/people between inhabited places fast. Spacecraft are useful for what? The (still) only viable uses for spacecraft are research and communication satellites (and military use of course). Space is just too expensive and highly regulated. And I guess wartime development also helped making airplanes more useful, like ijuin said.

In other words: airliner design has not changed significantly since 1954.

I'd go even further: most of the significant developments like monoplanes, removing external wires, flight controls, structural skins, autopilot, wind tunnel experiments were done in the first decades. Well, transonic and supersonic research and jet turbines only took off later, but so do reusable launch vehicles.

[Ranbot]

The (still) only viable uses for spacecraft are research and communication satellites...

I would not belittle the importance of communications. Worldwide trade, industry, emergency response, efficiencies, and personal wealth improvements [for technologically-advanced nations, at least] owe a lot to communication and navigation improvements brought by satellite technology... it is infrastructure that touches everyone's lives one way or another, whether they are aware of it or not.

[xtifr]

Research, communication, and manufacturing. Although there's still some (a lot of) bootstrapping required for that last, there are countless industrial tasks that are either only possible or much easier/cheaper in microgravity.

SpaceX just completed the first stage of getting approval to launch over 3,000 LEO satellites for communications. All of which have limited lifespans. That sort of thing is going to help keep launch prices coming down, which is going to make it easier to bootstrap the manufacturing stuff. And China, which is a master of manufacturing, is continuing apace on their space plans...if anyone can push the technology to the point where space manufacturing becomes economically feasible, China can. Or India, which is also continuing to ramp up their space program. A China/India space race could have very interesting repercussions. (SpaceX should be worried. There's a lot of money in space-based communications, and they're going to have a tough time maintaining their lead, assuming they manage to get one in the first place.)

[ThirdParty]

airliner design has not changed significantly since 1954.

Wasn't the Concorde a major development? It seems to me that "we advanced and then fell back" is not the same as "nothing changed".

[Reka]

Despite having now taken three months longer than the airplane people...

Surely it's the spaceship people we've taken three months longer than? The airplane people had all of human history to get to the Wright brothers.

[da Doctah]

Despite having now taken three months longer than the airplane people...

Surely it's the spaceship people we've taken three months longer than? The airplane people had all of human history to get to the Wright brothers.

No, just since someone figured out how to fold a piece of paper into a glider. (See the 1968 version of Planet of the Apes, when Cornelius scoffs at Taylor that flight is impossible.)

[sotanaht]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

So what you are saying is that if we can find a way to put a casino/brothel on <ars, the rest of the space problems will solve themselves? Or does it have really to be Mars AND Venus, because Mars sounds doable but I don't think Venus is at all feasible.

[Soupspoon]

It would be certainly be a gamble.

[rmsgrey]

if anyone can push the technology to the point where space manufacturing becomes economically feasible, China can

And the first major industrial accident in orbit is liable to trigger Kessler syndrome...

[cellocgw]

if anyone can push the technology to the point where space manufacturing becomes economically feasible, China can

And the first major industrial accident in orbit is liable to trigger Kessler Kessel (Run) syndrome...

FTFY

[WriteBrainedJR]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

Just watch out for the probes around Uranus.

This is anachronistic. By the time they install casinos and hookers on Mars, they will have changed the 7th planet's name to "Urectum," thereby eliminating this sort of juvenile humor once and for all.

You're telling "it was the milkman" jokes to a generation that only remembers 9/11 as that thing from history class

[WriteBrainedJR]

Airplanes are useful for moving stuff/people between inhabited places fast. Spacecraft are useful for what? The (still) only viable uses for spacecraft are research and communication satellites (and military use of course). Space is just too expensive and highly regulated.

In 1904, airplanes were only useful for bankrupting eccentric bicycle manufacturers. They became more useful and less expensive as we got better at making them. The reason there's so little viable use for spacecraft is that we still more or less suck at making them.

That's why (some people feel that) this comic is depressing.

[Soupspoon]

Eccentric bicycles? For use on (very specificly regular) bumpy roads, no doubt.

[orthogon]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

Just watch out for the probes around Uranus.

This is anachronistic. By the time they install casinos and hookers on Mars, they will have changed the 7th planet's name to "Urectum," thereby eliminating this sort of juvenile humor once and for all.

On current form, more likely they'll just decide it isn't a planet at all, because of reasons.

[SuicideJunkie]

This is anachronistic. By the time they install casinos and hookers on Mars, they will have changed the 7th planet's name to "Urectum," thereby eliminating this sort of juvenile humor once and for all.

On current form, more likely they'll just decide it isn't a planet at all, because of reasons.

It isn't fair to burden the astronomers with all this.
Since Historians have a pretty solid excuse, perhaps the Biologists should do the redefinition work this time.

[WriteBrainedJR]

There will be passenger spaceships when there are casinos (and hookers) on Mars and Venus.

Just watch out for the probes around Uranus.

This is anachronistic. By the time they install casinos and hookers on Mars, they will have changed the 7th planet's name to "Urectum," thereby eliminating this sort of juvenile humor once and for all.

On current form, more likely they'll just decide it isn't a planet at all, because of reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czFnIvKOJY

[ThirdParty]

On current form, more likely they'll just decide [Uranus] isn't a planet at all, because of reasons.

To spell out those reasons:

1. It's failed to clear its neighborhood of large objects such as Chiron and Chariklo. (Note that these objects are probably dwarf planets in their own right, in the sense of being massive enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium. Contrast with Vesta, the largest object Ceres has failed to clear, which is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.)

2. It's not in orbit around the Sun per se, but rather around the entire Sun-Jupiter system. (Note that this is much more meaningful than it would be to say that "Ceres orbits the entire Sun-Earth system", because the center of mass of the Sun-Earth system is within the radius of the Sun, while the center of mass of the Sun-Jupiter system is not.)

[GalFisk]

if anyone can push the technology to the point where space manufacturing becomes economically feasible, China can

And the first major industrial accident in orbit is liable to trigger Kessler syndrome...

Major industry will likely stay in the gravity wells where their raw materials are. Shipments could be vulnerable though.

[Soupspoon]

Major industry will likely stay in the gravity wells where their raw materials are.

I find it's easier to harvest æther where there's not much else around, though.

[jc]

(When I posted this reply, I got a weird sort of "bouncy" sponse, then nothing happened for about a minute. Then the page refreshed and showed two copies. Now I'm trying to figure out if this forum has a way to delete a message. ;-)

[jc]

On current form, more likely they'll just decide [Uranus] isn't a planet at all, because of reasons.

To spell out those reasons:

1. It's failed to clear its neighborhood of large objects such as Chiron and Chariklo. (Note that these objects are probably dwarf planets in their own right, in the sense of being massive enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium. Contrast with Vesta, the largest object Ceres has failed to clear, which is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.)
...

I've had a bit of fun pointing out in various forums that Earth is, by the current definition, not a proper "planet", since it has failed to clear its orbit of objects like that large rock called "Luna".

This is sorta mirrored by the small number of astronomers who argue that the Terra/Luna pair should be called a "double planet". After all, if either were missing, the other would be classified as a planet in our orbit. They are an interesting pair, since they're also an example of what has been described as two objects in a "hopscotch" orbit, in which they alternate as the leader.

Then there's the majority of astronomers, who merely grin at such silly arguments over classifications, then go back to their research. After all, the planets (or whatever you call them) don't know or care about what we call them, or whether they fit our classification system(s).

[Soupspoon]

(When I posted this reply, I got a weird sort of "bouncy" sponse, then nothing happened for about a minute. Then the page refreshed and showed two copies. Now I'm trying to figure out if this forum has a way to delete a message.

Occasionally happens to me. Once I even got told by the hopeful-submission page that there was a new message posted which was my own.

I don't think it works after another message has posted, for us plebs, but in the same image cluster that includes the Re-Edit button (that you used) there's also a cross-button for deletion (which asks for a reason, maybe more useful for moderators than ourselves, but I tend to say why anyway - e.g. "This joke reply doesn't look as funny, thirty seconds after posting it.").

It wouldn't have been there on the message you edited (there was now a second post from you, blocking it) but it would have been seen on the second one (until someone posted something new, like this one!).

I think that would have been your answer, anyway. Until now, anyway. Now it's just a (potentially wrong) bit of advice for next time. Cancel the second message in a double-post. Quickly, before someone 'locks you in'. (Might not be allowed in Games subforum area?)

Edit: Four icons on this. Pencil (edit), Cross (delete, while applicable), Exclamation Mark (report your own message? Actually, I've done that to ensure mods get an early adjudication on something I was having iffy thoughts about having posted) and Quotes (quoting. Natch.) And the original posting of this message took me some time (whirly-browser time, that is) though in this case I left it rather than tried to reclick Submit.

[CardcaptorRLH85]

I've had a bit of fun pointing out in various forums that Earth is, by the current definition, not a proper "planet", since it has failed to clear its orbit of objects like that large rock called "Luna".

This is sorta mirrored by the small number of astronomers who argue that the Terra/Luna pair should be called a "double planet". After all, if either were missing, the other would be classified as a planet in our orbit. They are an interesting pair, since they're also an example of what has been described as two objects in a "hopscotch" orbit, in which they alternate as the leader.

While the double planet moniker has some merit, the failure to clear one doesn't since the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system is beneath the surface of the Earth making the Moon a satellite of Earth.