Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
Why does there have to be a return trip?


Interstellar travel is only practical on a colonization basis.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 11:10 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
Hello. Moon base launch. Anyone? Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
24-02-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(24-02-2013 10:39 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(24-02-2013 10:05 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Alpha Centauri is possible within 40 years subjective.
Maybe. But a return trip still requires breeding of astronauts.
When the ship is huge and weighs in at 3,000,000 tonnes (excluding fuel) I don't see that as an issue.

It would be silly to go to the nearest star though. We already know it has nothing to offer us.


By the time we have the capability to build that we will have a large telescope array in space. We might be able to get some images of distant planets if we observe long enough.

I wonder if super orion could make a journey 600-3000 light years distant? It might need to be super mega orion... With fusion power and manufacturing/recycling facilities and the ability mine from asteroids and debris.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 11:20 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(24-02-2013 11:10 PM)kim Wrote:  Hello. Moon base launch. Anyone? Drinking Beverage
Might be better to build it in space. The moon is another gravity well to get trapped in. There are lots of useful asteroids in space to provide the material needed.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(24-02-2013 11:03 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Why does there have to be a return trip?


Interstellar travel is only practical on a colonization basis.
Because humans want to see the fruits of their labor. No one wants to dedicate a potential life of pussy and beer to 50 years in a tin can. The few and far between that are cool will it aren't qualified by NASA or the federal government to be space explorers.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(24-02-2013 11:20 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(24-02-2013 11:10 PM)kim Wrote:  Hello. Moon base launch. Anyone? Drinking Beverage
Might be better to build it in space. The moon is another gravity well to get trapped in. There are lots of useful asteroids in space to provide the material needed.

You mean, make the launch from an asteroid? Consider Kind of unstable, isn't it?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(24-02-2013 11:19 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  It would be silly to go to the nearest star though. We already know it has nothing to offer us.
A great point. The only sensible trip is 10s of generations away in terms of travel time. I'd leave my wife and child behind for such an undertaking but most wouldn't.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:00 AM
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(22-02-2013 05:06 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  This thread is about "Is it possible to travel to another star system" or "Do we have the technology"


Earmuffs goes all twitchy and neurotic when he sees anything space related and turns it into an economics rant - explaining to us how it's stupid and a massive waste of money - though we weren't even talking about that.

Also it's evident he didn't read anything about project orion. With nuclear propulsion it's definitely possible to reach 10% c. The capabilities of nuclear pulse propulsion surpass chemical systems by far!


Phaedrus: How much damage would launching from earth really do?
These bombs are in the kiloton range so they are tiny compared to bombs that destroy cities.
Detonating nuclear weapons isn't the same as having a faulty nuclear power plant where radio-isotopes linger around for centuries contaminating that site.
You can stand at hiroshima, ground zero with a radiation detector and radiation levels will not be greater than normal background levels.
With nukes - when they detonate the isotopes are immediately vaporised and dispersed into the atmosphere. If it was done in a remote place the damage might be minimal. Is that right?
I'm not denying we can't do it. I have full faith that man is capable of building a space ship and fying around our closests stars in an attempt to find a non-existant human friendly place to land.

I'm denying that it will ever happen. You might disregard my economic comments but money is the difference between this actually happening and this getting thrown in the bin.

It is extremely unrealistic because it would be unimaginably expensive and money is what makes the world go around.


Governments cannot justify the expense to the public and private investors would want a return which they wont get because even at 10% c they'll be long dead before any form of profit even is considered.

The only hope, ONLY hope it has is people leaving in their will or people making small donations etc.. and that'd take fucking AGES to build up. Nobody is going to donate to something that requires 10's if not 100's of years worth of donations to even get started, the risk of nothing happening would be through the roof and noone would donate.



When you explain to me how this is ECONOMICLLY viable, then I'll reconsider my opinion.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:08 AM
Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(25-02-2013 02:00 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(22-02-2013 05:06 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  This thread is about "Is it possible to travel to another star system" or "Do we have the technology"


Earmuffs goes all twitchy and neurotic when he sees anything space related and turns it into an economics rant - explaining to us how it's stupid and a massive waste of money - though we weren't even talking about that.

Also it's evident he didn't read anything about project orion. With nuclear propulsion it's definitely possible to reach 10% c. The capabilities of nuclear pulse propulsion surpass chemical systems by far!


Phaedrus: How much damage would launching from earth really do?
These bombs are in the kiloton range so they are tiny compared to bombs that destroy cities.
Detonating nuclear weapons isn't the same as having a faulty nuclear power plant where radio-isotopes linger around for centuries contaminating that site.
You can stand at hiroshima, ground zero with a radiation detector and radiation levels will not be greater than normal background levels.
With nukes - when they detonate the isotopes are immediately vaporised and dispersed into the atmosphere. If it was done in a remote place the damage might be minimal. Is that right?
I'm not denying we can't do it. I have full faith that man is capable of building a space ship and fying around our closests stars in an attempt to find a non-existant human friendly place to land.

I'm denying that it will ever happen. You might disregard my economic comments but money is the difference between this actually happening and this getting thrown in the bin.

It is extremely unrealistic because it would be unimaginably expensive and money is what makes the world go around.


Governments cannot justify the expense to the public and private investors would want a return which they wont get because even at 10% c they'll be long dead before any form of profit even is considered.

The only hope, ONLY hope it has is people leaving in their will or people making small donations etc.. and that'd take fucking AGES to build up. Nobody is going to donate to something that requires 10's if not 100's of years worth of donations to even get started, the risk of nothing happening would be through the roof and noone would donate.



When you explain to me how this is ECONOMICLLY viable, then I'll reconsider my opinion.

It's only economically unviable now. We aren't talking about a project for now. This is decades into the future.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 03:36 AM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2013 03:43 AM by Sceptical Prophet.)
RE: Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?
(06-02-2013 11:28 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  I've always wondered if, with what we've got on our planet for raw materials, could we make a ship to get to another star system? I do hope human differences are settled so the goal can be reached to travel in space and colonize other worlds, but my fear lies within not knowing if we indeed have the right "stuff" to do so. I hope we do. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
No, we cannot.

I thought I wrote an article on this already but apparently not.

Basically, NASA has admitted that with current chemical rocket technology, there's not enough mass in the universe to provide the fuel to explore into deep space. Even if we managed to create fission or fusion rockets (fusion technology still eludes us), the amount of fuel would be ridiculous. The crux of the matter is that any fuel-based technology will always be insufficient. Then there's the problem that light speed is a universal limiter on physical travel and most star systems are so far away that we'd never live long enough to get anywhere near them. The only possible way to explore and colonise deep space is if a new type of engine is created. The Alcubierre drive is the favourite concept - bending spacetime to travel also circumvents the light-speed cap.

Unfortunately, bending spacetime isn't easy. I don't foresee any technology in the near future allowing us to travel deep space. I foresee the extinction (or at the very least, regression) of humankind long before any sort of breakthrough in this field.

If you're interested, I'll do a full article on this some time and link it.

Re: Science expensive

http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/20...o-society/

Tl;dr - "It costs $1 billion more than NASA’s budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan." + NASA's contributions alone to technology and the economy dwarfs any other organisation. The success of the USA was primarily due to the economic boom spurred by technology created by NASA due to the Cold War, and the amount of scientific genius the program attracted from around the world.

NDT: In the last few decades, the scientific contributions made by America were all by immigrants (who came due to the scientific prowess established due to America's once great science). Now these people are going to Europe because the scientific strength of America is falling (i.e. LHC at CERN c.f. the cancelled plans for a supercollider in America + the cutting of NASA's already tiny budget).

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: