Talk:Interplanetary spaceflight

NAUTILUS-X

A NASA multi-center Technology Applications Assessment Team led from the Johnson Spaceflight Center, has as of January 2011 described "Nautilus-X", a concept study for a multi-mission space exploration vehicle useful for missions beyond low earth orbit (LEO), of up to 24 months duration for a crew of up to six. I have put a description into the "Electric propulsion" section, although the overall concept is flexible, and adaptable to various long-duration, low-thrust drive schemes.

This is clearly intended to flesh out some of the possibilities arising out of the change in NASA's direction announced last year, towards developing capabilities for missions beyond LEO. It incorporates various features that will be needed for interplanetary spaceflight in the next few decades: assembly, integration, and checkout in LEO, some kind of centrifuge for artificial gravity, radiation protection refuge against solar flares, long-term environmental control system, etc. It is modular, and clearly intended as a feasibility study for long-term refinement, rather than a detailed design. It strikes me as something some of us might actually live to see.

Suggestions for other good places to locate it might be helpful. We might want to have a new section, "Design concepts", for mission and vehicle designs that have been carried out to some level, as representative of the state of the art. The old Von Braun study "The Mars Project" could even be given as a concrete example from half a century ago. Wwheaton (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the Nautilus-X concept, my jaw dropped as it seemed like one of the few proposals that has some really good merit that has come out of NASA's planning groups for some time. I've been quite impressed with both the depth of thought going into the idea and I'm intrigued by the idea that genuine spaceships (as opposed to spacecraft, like the distinction between a ship and a craft in nautical usage) could be built for interplanetary journeys and be built within my lifetime.

At the moment, I think there is really just one source of information for this concept, with some mention of it in a few space-related blogs and websites based upon that source. I strongly thought of writing an article about the idea, but due to a lack of sources it seems like there isn't sufficient information yet for its inclusion on Wikipedia except as a passing reference. If the idea gains traction and is discussed by Charles Bolden or some other significant sources of information come forward in terms of this idea being more fleshed out and it turning into a serious proposal as opposed to just another paper study, I think it would be worthy of inclusion. I really would like to get something put together about the idea, but it is premature at the moment to do much of anything with the idea. If more good sources of information can be found, I'd be more inclined to put something together and include that information in this article. It also would be an incredible article in its own right too. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also a bit concerned about the shallow available sourcing, and agree that it is premature to give it an article of its own. The NASA site indicates this is a collaboration with representation from all the main NASA centers, not just a web posting by a couple of folks; based on that, I suppose the source is somewhat reliable. I have an email in to Holderman at JSC, asking for further advice either way. Like Robert Horning (talk), I am thrilled at any sign that serious work is being done at NASA about this, as the depth and detail of the presentation clearly indicates. I think we are in far better shape to explore the Solar System between Venus and Mars than we were to land on the Moon in May 1961, when Kennedy issued his famous Apollo challenge. Wwheaton (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been in communication with Holderman at JSC, who seems to have no objection to his .ppt being linked here. He has sent me an updated version, dated March 2011, but I don't have a URL for that. Holderman also tells me they have a paper in work for the AIAA, and he will let me know when that is available. Once that is peer-reviewed and accepted, I think a stub/start stand-alone article might be considered. Wwheaton (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Venus orbiter misleading

The article contains a list showing what are implied to be the first spacecraft placed into orbit around each planet. But for Venus, shouldn't it show Venera 9? (sdsds - talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already corrected this. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120152630/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html to http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D0V5X5Eib5AJ:www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf+space+propulsion+skyhook&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20160427114416/http://www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf on https://www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On-orbit tanker transfers: Presumably a composition error.

"SpaceX is currently developing a new spacecraft design that will, on all Earth-away launches, utilize the long-duration spacecraft (tanker or spaceship) to play a role briefly as the second stage of the launch vehicle to provide acceleration to orbital velocity. This approach is an unusual design approach launch vehicles designed prior to the 2010s."

My guess the second sentence was intended to be 'This approach is an unusual design compared to launch vehicles conceived prior to the 2010s.' or similar.

In light of the previous "Staging propellants" section which already describes the basic concept, may I suggest the following replacement for both sentences?:

'SpaceX is currently developing a system in which a reusable first stage vehicle would transport a manned interplanetary spacecraft to earth orbit, detach, return to its launch pad where a tanker spacecraft would be mounted atop it, then both fueled, then launched again to rendezvous with the waiting manned spacecraft. The tanker would then transfer its fuel to the manned spacecraft for use on its interplanetary voyage.'

I omitted the comment about this SpaceX system being relatively novel in part because I don't know how the concept evolved, and thus how much original inventiveness is attributable to SpaceX as opposed to others. And my sense is that it's not an appropriate subject to try to parse in the context of the Interplanetary spaceflight article anyway.

Comments and refinements eagerly welcome of course. If none after a few days I'll invoke the change. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no objections appeared I edited the article as described. But comments and refinements remain eagerly welcome of course. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223030553/http://ssi.org/?page_id=2 to http://ssi.org/?page_id=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311000832/http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/cgi/search.cgi?solar+sail to http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/cgi/search.cgi?solar+sail
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211195430/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=1 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814163410/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=6 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040328165528/http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Board=sciastro to http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Board=sciastro&Number=44199

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Another "Economical Travel Technique": the Interplanetary Transport Network

The Interplanetary Transport Network could have use in robotic/AI satellite exploration and for shipping supplies to human colonies on the planets. It may even have some use for human exploration/settlement with "sleeper ships."

I'll leave it to folks who know more than I to add it to the main article. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Interplanetary mission into Interplanetary spaceflight

Obvious overlap with two concepts. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: The article Interplanetary mission has no references at all and would be WP:OR and without valid sources for claims made in the Interplanetary mission article it should probably be deleted and made a redirect. Interplanetary spaceflight already mentions multiple of the missions while figures appear to be "close" and imprecise in the Interplanetary mission article. Example: for the Mariner 2 mission it claims: "in December 1962 when it collected data within 35,000 km (22,000 mi) of Venus." whereas the actual values are: "its closest distance of 34,773 km at 19:59:28 UT 14 December 1962." Terasail^[Talk] 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment:. I concur. A redirect of interplanetary mission to interplanetary spaceflight is the correct option. I am going to redirect the article now. I don't plan on merging any of the information. I wouldn't object to other editors adding in information, but only selectively - not a block copy. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended the lead

I will remove the 'lead too short' template in a week or so if nobody objects. Redwidgeon (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since there have been no objections, I removed the lead-too-short template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwidgeon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"SpaceX Mars propellant plant" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SpaceX Mars propellant plant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § SpaceX Mars propellant plant until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy in "Reasons for interplanetary travel" section

The "Reasons for interplanetary travel" section reads like it was written by an enthusiast from a space colonization organization. It does not sound like a dispassionate overview of the relevant controversies. Specifics:

1) Where mention is made of the controversy "about whether human-crewed missions make a useful scientific contribution" to exploration of the Solar System, (a) a reference is given only for the pro-human-spaceflight view and (b) the controversy itself is presented in a straw-man form; the actual debate is not around whether humans can be "useful" in space (of course they can), but whether they are cost-effective in space.

2) The section cites science fiction as if it were an indicator of what is possible or desirable in actual space activities. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and the argument, such as it is, is poorly grounded: the author claims that SF has a "fairly good track record in predicting future technologies" but this is debatable given that many (perhaps most) SF speculations have not predicted actual technologies, e.g. telepathy, weather control, faster-than-light travel, time travel, force fields, antigravity, tractor beams, matter transporters, cities located aloft (or underground or undersea or in orbit), etc.

3) The public view of space priorities is mischaracterized: "Those who pay for such missions (primarily in the public sector) are more likely to be interested in benefits for themselves or for the human race as a whole [than in scientific knowledge]." No source is cited for this claim about public opinion. Looking into the question, I immediately see counterevidence: e.g., a 2023 Pew survey in 2023 finds that Americans' highest priorities for NASA are, in descending order, (1) asteroid monitoring, (2) climate change monitoring, and (3) "basic scientific research." Sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars is at the bottom of the list (each garnering about 1/4 as much support as "basic scientific research to increase knowledge of space"). Thus the US public, at least, is _not_ "more likely to be interested in [tangible] benefits" like spinoffs, or in human spaceflight, than in scientific knowledge return: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/

I have not deleted any significant chunks of the existing text, but I have added some balancing text and references on the cost-effectiveness debate and the state of public opinion. The text could still use improvement. Right now it still emits a strong whiff of human spaceflight advocacy.

Specifically, I move that we delete the two science-fiction paragraphs, i.e. the text from "Other practical motives" to "peak oil." They lack references for their claims, e.g. that "some point out" (who?) that asteroid mining "may be the only way to provide rising standards of living" on Earth, and arguing from fantasy to reality doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in any case.

I also suggest deleting the last paragraph of the section, about the "vast majority" of humans perhaps someday living in space and "benefit[ing] from doing so." It is both vague (how would they "benefit"?) and one-sided; only a pro view is mentioned or referenced.

Sincere regards,

Larry Lgilman909 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)