Generations ships is also a neat concept, but it might be very hard to accomplish.
What complex device on Earth lasts longer than few years without maintenance? If at all? Cars and ships we have now require regular maintanence and plenty of spare parts. And we have factories and manufacturers that produce new ones for some time. If you had to load up the spare parts and tools that a car would require to last 50 years without external help...
I think you will find the reason for that is because of capitalism rather than any genuine flaw with the technology. Why sell something that will last when you can resell them a replacement every few years?
No, I think that is not the reason. Look back a bit beyond the standard consumer products. Heck, look at something like the Space Shuttle - that wasn't build to become obsolete quickly. It still required heavy maintenance.
Or look at old mechanism from far before planned obsolescence was a thing. How many steam engines from the 19th century do you think are still working? And which ones of those do it because they got constant maintenance?
Our human body requires constant maintenance. He happens to exist in an environment ideally suited for it. The base materials he needs to conduct his maintenance for regular operation is literally growing on trees.
Space isn't like that at all. Not for humans, nor for anything else.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The Shuttles were supposed to be test platforms for new heavy lifting tech, but remained in service decades beyond any design intent. It was constant budget cuts which required NASA to continue using obsolete equipment that caused trouble.
We are finding commercial, for profit launch systems to be as reliable and much cheaper than NASA. However, one should not ever forget: a rocket is nothing more than a bomb with vectored exhaust. Until we find a way to propell vessels without using explosives, there will always be explosions.
the space shuttle was also designed to be rebuilt after every mission. Some of which could be either reduced or eliminated by redesigning it.
And it wasn't designed that way because people thought it would be awesome rebuilding stuff all the time. It was necessary, because we couldn't build a self-maintaining shuttle that easily starts and lands and do a space mission in between.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
the space shuttle was also designed to be rebuilt after every mission. Some of which could be either reduced or eliminated by redesigning it.
And it wasn't designed that way because people thought it would be awesome rebuilding stuff all the time. It was necessary, because we couldn't build a self-maintaining shuttle that easily starts and lands and do a space mission in between.
It's not a yes/no situation. It's a matter of degree. NASA has the tech to redesign the shuttle to require LESS maintenance. As brian mentioned it was somewhat experimental.
the space shuttle was also designed to be rebuilt after every mission. Some of which could be either reduced or eliminated by redesigning it.
And it wasn't designed that way because people thought it would be awesome rebuilding stuff all the time. It was necessary, because we couldn't build a self-maintaining shuttle that easily starts and lands and do a space mission in between.
It's not a yes/no situation. It's a matter of degree. NASA has the tech to redesign the shuttle to require LESS maintenance. As brian mentioned it was somewhat experimental.
However, NASA does not have the funding to do so. Remember, every project they want to carry out has to be approved by Congress first - and for most of the past decade, one of our political parties has taken as a point of pride the fact that they've prevented the government from doing anything.
And the "space truck" was never that great an idea anyway. The tanks were heavily overengineered - and then thrown away every flight; only the orbiter was ever intended to be reused. And, as Richard Feynman pointed out repeatedly, the solid-rocket design was a disaster waiting to happen, up until the moment it happened. Currently private companies have come up with two to three separate designs (depending on whether you believe Blue Origin's New Shepard to be sufficiently different from SpaceX's Falcon Heavy to constitute a separate system), all of which minimize the throwaway portions (in fact, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has no disposable portions; both SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two are completely reusable).
As to the meat of the argument, however, the Shuttle wasn't built the way it was because of "planned obsolescence"; it was built the way it was because its design was at least as much political as it was scientific, and because the politicians kept insisting on design changes partly because a given tech went obsolete, and partly to spread the ship's construction through as many Congressional districts as humanly possible. Presumably, were we to build an interstellar generation ship, there would be enough different agencies from enough different countries to avoid simple Congressional parochialism. (I mean, as long as I'm indulging in wild scifi fantasies...)
Ahh, I'd love to discuss a lot of this stuff regarding the Space shuttle stuff, its right up my ally, but I've got to get back to writing a report and getting started for uni again.
Silly. That's like saying I hate cheerios becuase I decided to eat cornflakes for breakfast one day instead.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
the space shuttle was also designed to be rebuilt after every mission. Some of which could be either reduced or eliminated by redesigning it.
And it wasn't designed that way because people thought it would be awesome rebuilding stuff all the time. It was necessary, because we couldn't build a self-maintaining shuttle that easily starts and lands and do a space mission in between.
It's not a yes/no situation. It's a matter of degree. NASA has the tech to redesign the shuttle to require LESS maintenance. As brian mentioned it was somewhat experimental.
However, NASA does not have the funding to do so. Remember, every project they want to carry out has to be approved by Congress first - and for most of the past decade, one of our political parties has taken as a point of pride the fact that they've prevented the government from doing anything.
And the "space truck" was never that great an idea anyway. The tanks were heavily overengineered - and then thrown away every flight; only the orbiter was ever intended to be reused. And, as Richard Feynman pointed out repeatedly, the solid-rocket design was a disaster waiting to happen, up until the moment it happened. Currently private companies have come up with two to three separate designs (depending on whether you believe Blue Origin's New Shepard to be sufficiently different from SpaceX's Falcon Heavy to constitute a separate system), all of which minimize the throwaway portions (in fact, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has no disposable portions; both SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two are completely reusable).
As to the meat of the argument, however, the Shuttle wasn't built the way it was because of "planned obsolescence"; it was built the way it was because its design was at least as much political as it was scientific, and because the politicians kept insisting on design changes partly because a given tech went obsolete, and partly to spread the ship's construction through as many Congressional districts as humanly possible. Presumably, were we to build an interstellar generation ship, there would be enough different agencies from enough different countries to avoid simple Congressional parochialism. (I mean, as long as I'm indulging in wild scifi fantasies...)
And replace it with even more complex international parochialism? You can bet that it would happen there, too.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
the space shuttle was also designed to be rebuilt after every mission. Some of which could be either reduced or eliminated by redesigning it.
And it wasn't designed that way because people thought it would be awesome rebuilding stuff all the time. It was necessary, because we couldn't build a self-maintaining shuttle that easily starts and lands and do a space mission in between.
It's not a yes/no situation. It's a matter of degree. NASA has the tech to redesign the shuttle to require LESS maintenance. As brian mentioned it was somewhat experimental.
However, NASA does not have the funding to do so. Remember, every project they want to carry out has to be approved by Congress first - and for most of the past decade, one of our political parties has taken as a point of pride the fact that they've prevented the government from doing anything.
And the "space truck" was never that great an idea anyway. The tanks were heavily overengineered - and then thrown away every flight; only the orbiter was ever intended to be reused. And, as Richard Feynman pointed out repeatedly, the solid-rocket design was a disaster waiting to happen, up until the moment it happened. Currently private companies have come up with two to three separate designs (depending on whether you believe Blue Origin's New Shepard to be sufficiently different from SpaceX's Falcon Heavy to constitute a separate system), all of which minimize the throwaway portions (in fact, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has no disposable portions; both SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two are completely reusable).
As to the meat of the argument, however, the Shuttle wasn't built the way it was because of "planned obsolescence"; it was built the way it was because its design was at least as much political as it was scientific, and because the politicians kept insisting on design changes partly because a given tech went obsolete, and partly to spread the ship's construction through as many Congressional districts as humanly possible. Presumably, were we to build an interstellar generation ship, there would be enough different agencies from enough different countries to avoid simple Congressional parochialism. (I mean, as long as I'm indulging in wild scifi fantasies...)
And replace it with even more complex international parochialism? You can bet that it would happen there, too.
Hey, I said I was indulging in wild sci-fi fantasies!
Comments
Or look at old mechanism from far before planned obsolescence was a thing. How many steam engines from the 19th century do you think are still working? And which ones of those do it because they got constant maintenance?
Our human body requires constant maintenance. He happens to exist in an environment ideally suited for it. The base materials he needs to conduct his maintenance for regular operation is literally growing on trees.
Space isn't like that at all. Not for humans, nor for anything else.
My character Tsin'xing
We are finding commercial, for profit launch systems to be as reliable and much cheaper than NASA. However, one should not ever forget: a rocket is nothing more than a bomb with vectored exhaust. Until we find a way to propell vessels without using explosives, there will always be explosions.
My character Tsin'xing
And the "space truck" was never that great an idea anyway. The tanks were heavily overengineered - and then thrown away every flight; only the orbiter was ever intended to be reused. And, as Richard Feynman pointed out repeatedly, the solid-rocket design was a disaster waiting to happen, up until the moment it happened. Currently private companies have come up with two to three separate designs (depending on whether you believe Blue Origin's New Shepard to be sufficiently different from SpaceX's Falcon Heavy to constitute a separate system), all of which minimize the throwaway portions (in fact, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has no disposable portions; both SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two are completely reusable).
As to the meat of the argument, however, the Shuttle wasn't built the way it was because of "planned obsolescence"; it was built the way it was because its design was at least as much political as it was scientific, and because the politicians kept insisting on design changes partly because a given tech went obsolete, and partly to spread the ship's construction through as many Congressional districts as humanly possible. Presumably, were we to build an interstellar generation ship, there would be enough different agencies from enough different countries to avoid simple Congressional parochialism. (I mean, as long as I'm indulging in wild scifi fantasies...)
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."