NASA has a nice image by Herman Potočnik (aka: Hermann Noordung), who created the first technical drawings of space stations (of which a small segment is shown here), which were published in 1929.
More info on Herman Potočnik can be found at this memorial centre web page.
Yes. As the title brilliantly puts it, there have been developments in the area of protecting astronauts from deadly solar radiation. This radiation has been seen as one of the big obstacles to transporting astronauts over interplanetary distances:
Large numbers of these energetic particles occur intermittently as “storms” with little warning and are already known to pose the greatest threat to man. Nature helps protect the Earth by having a giant “magnetic bubble” around the planet called the magnetosphere.
…
Space craft visiting the Moon or Mars could maintain some of this protection by taking along their very own portable “mini”-magnetosphere. The idea has been around since the 1960’s but it was thought impractical because it was believed that only a very large (more than 100km wide) magnetic bubble could possibly work.
…
Computer simulations done by a team in Lisbon with scientists at Rutherford Appleton last year showed that theoretically a very much smaller “magnetic bubble” of only several hundred meters across would be enough to protect a spacecraft.
Now this has been confirmed in the laboratory in the UK using apparatus originally built to work on fusion. By recreating in miniature a tiny piece of the Solar Wind, scientists working in the laboratory were able to confirm that a small “hole” in the Solar Wind is all that would be needed to keep the astronauts safe on their journey to our nearest neighbours.
All in all good news – and since our Glorious Leaders were able to drop five huge into our bust financial system at short notice I am no longer concerned over the cost of long range manned space exploration.
The Phoenix lander aimed a laser at the clouds and found ice crystals about two miles above the surface. Mission scientists hope to see snow actually fall to the ground. NASA says the snow is water-based. Mars is too warm to support frozen carbon dioxide. “Scientists are able to determine that the snow is water-based and not carbon-dioxide snow, since temperatures on Mars are currently too warm to support the latter,” NASA adds.–Setting-the-record-straight-Tom
There’s also geological evidence of past liquid water on the planet.
Bonus cool thing:
Peter Smith, the lead scientist for the mission from the University of Arizona, said the team is going to try something new in the last weeks of Phoenix’s life.
The lander carried a microphone, which was designed to listen to the roar of the descent engines as the craft settled onto the Martian surface. The microphone was not used then. Now, Smith said, the scientific team intends to turn on the microphone “and listen to Mars for the first time.”
[Lidar chart: NASA, JPL-Caltech, U of Arizona, Canadian Space Agency]
Well, if not impossible, then extremely difficult, expensive and time-consuming. Rocket boffins at the 44th Joint Propulsion Conference in Hartford, Connecticut believe that it would be nearly impossible to reach the stars within a human lifetime, as reported in Wired:
The major problem is that propulsion — shooting mass backwards to go forwards — requires large amounts of both time and fuel
…
Even the most theoretically efficient type of propulsion, an imaginary engine powered by antimatter, would still require decades to reach Alpha Centauri, according to Robert Frisbee, group leader in the Advanced Propulsion Technology Group within NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
And then there’s the issue of fuel. It would take at least the current energy output of the entire world to send a probe to the nearest star, according to Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. That’s a generous figure: More likely, Cassenti says, it would be as much as 100 times that.
It’s tempting to cite Clarke’s First Law and point out the number of times in history when esteemed scientists have claimed that something is impossible until it is actually accomplished.
However what is really being said by Professors Cassenti et al is that travelling to nearby stars is merely massively expensive in terms of time and energy, to the point of being infeasible.
There are a couple of points I can think of that might be relevant to the discussion of the possibility of interstellar space travel:
1: Increased longevity – if people live longer they may change their perceptions as to what constitutes a worthwhile scientific endeavour. Waiting several decades before we receive any useful scientific information about other solar systems may be unacceptable now, but if engineered negligible senescence is achieved then that perspective might change.
2: Increased wealth – as the global economy increases in size and people (hopefully) become richer the vast amounts of investment needed to travel between the stars will become less of a barrier.
3: As Professor Cassenti says: “We just can’t extract the resources from the Earth … They just don’t exist. We would need to mine the outer planets.” Presumably after exploring and developing the solar system we would be in a better position to launch an interstellar mission – a case of learning to walk before we run.
4: If you were aiming for a one-way unmanned interstellar mission then it is likely that the ongoing miniaturisation of space technology, as exemplified by developments in micro-spacecraft described here, might help reduce the mass of any interstellar probe to the point that it becomes a cheaper prospect.
Dr Robert Frisbee describes what might be entailed by an interstellar spacecraft:
Frisbee’s design calls for a long, needle-like spaceship with each component stacked in line to keep radiation from the engines from harming sensitive equipment or people.
At the rocket end, a large superconducting magnet would direct the stream of particles created by annihilating hydrogen and antihydrogen. A regular nozzle could not be used, even if made of exotic materials, because it could not withstand exposure to the high-energy particles, Frisbee said. A heavy shield would protect the rest of the ship from the radiation produced by the reaction.
So the general conclusion seems to be that interstellar travel is hideously expensive, time-consuming and technically challenging, but hopefully just short of being impossible, as Dr Frisbee points out:
“It’s always science fiction until someone goes out and does it”
Check out the Soyuz capsule replacement and conceptual artwork here.
One of the most unusual features about the capsule appear to be the thrusters and landing gear on its underside. Mr Zak said it would use these engines to soften its landing on Earth after the fiery re-entry through our atmosphere.
It’s interesting how the national space agencies seem to see the future in rockets, rather than space planes, for space exploration.
What with the Space Shuttle being retired in 2010, and with a possible alternative European plan for a manned version of the ATV called Jules Verne, as well as the American Ares V rockets planned for use in Project Constellation, it seems it’s no longer de rigueur to build spaceplanes unless you’re a private space tourism company.
[story from BBC News]