Star Trek Exploration, possible?

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I thought in leu of the latest movie, it would make the perfect time to bring up the subject. Just about every one of us that visit this site are fascinated with space, and the exploration of it. Years ago David Suzuki did a show on how humans would need to grow their own food, and even a breeding sequence that would have to be maintained for years of deep space exploration. As minor groups are formed to overcome budget costs for space project (ie. Europian Space Agency & NASA), what would happen if a much larger organization was formed more globally. Would we then be able to afford the enormous cost to build a star ship? If so, how long could we maintain deep space travel as human beings? With the advancements to technologies, new designs for space station modules are being developed, etc... but really at this stage in the game should we be focusing on a craft that could take humans to the far reaches of our solar system? But of course exploring the entire galaxy is still decades away from being possible... or is it? Could we in fact grow our own food, protect ourselves from radiation, fuel a vessel from resources either grown or processed in deep space, teach & educate new crew as they reach adolecents, and more importantly survive. I personally don't think this is too far off of being possible. What are your thoughts and ideas to about the possibiliy of such human deep space exploration?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Pragmatically, we haven't even been back to the moon for 37 years, so I think we're far longer than decades away from traveling the galaxy...more like centuries.

 

[DrRocket]

I thought in leu of the latest movie, it would make the perfect time to bring up the subject. Just about every one of us that visit this site are fascinated with space, and the exploration of it. Years ago David Suzuki did a show on how humans would need to grow their own food, and even a breeding sequence that would have to be maintained for years of deep space exploration. As minor groups are formed to overcome budget costs for space project (ie. Europian Space Agency & NASA), what would happen if a much larger organization was formed more globally. Would we then be able to afford the enormous cost to build a star ship? If so, how long could we maintain deep space travel as human beings? With the advancements to technologies, new designs for space station modules are being developed, etc... but really at this stage in the game should we be focusing on a craft that could take humans to the far reaches of our solar system? But of course exploring the entire galaxy is still decades away from being possible... or is it? Could we in fact grow our own food, protect ourselves from radiation, fuel a vessel from resources either grown or processed in deep space, teach & educate new crew as they reach adolecents, and more importantly survive. I personally don't think this is too far off of being possible. What are your thoughts and ideas to about the possibiliy of such human deep space exploration?

MeteorWayne has understated the problem.

We don't have any science, let alone technology, that would enable practical transportation across anything like the distances required for interstellar, let along intragalactic travel. I once made a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to how long it would take to reach the nearest star with even an optimistic assessment of rocket technology for the near-future, and came up with a figure of 30,000 years (one way). There is no practical means to mount an expedition that would last longer than the entire span of recorded history. Congress cannot get beyond a funding horizon of 5 years. Thirty-thousand years is rather out of the question.

Would you be willing to be t your life on the ability of a spacecraft to function and sustain life for 30,000 years ? Try to get a car warranty that goes longer than 3 years or 100,000 miles. It is pretty cold in deep space, and if the furnace goes out you have a serious problem We don't have any energy source likely to last that long, even nuclear reactors..

What would people on such an expedition do when they reached their destination ? That 30,000 years was to reach proxima centari, and there is nothing there that we know of except a star. To reach other stars could take much longer.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

But really, why haven't we been back to the moon? Cost? Reason? If cost is an issue, then we could only benefit from a more globally structured space program budget. Under reasoning, part of the reason we haven't gone back to the moon is because more funding has been put into exploration programs throughout the solar system, and the study of the universe then focusing on one specific project. Which is quite right, because we now have a better understanding of our solar system & the universe rather then just having focused on the moon. To maintain a craft in space, the gravitational pull of the planets could be utilized much like satillites use them to increase velocity to save on fuel while exploring the solar system. Radiation can already be harnessed as a source of energy. Just "food for thought" Since radiation exists naturally in space, could it not be harnessed to fuel a type of propulsion engine? In some instances, technology for utilizing solar energy could be also equipped. But I am certain that if humanity had worked more "hand-in-hand" with each other, we would have already been back to the moon as well.

Of course I understand your reasoning too Dr. Rocket. We would need to find a way to not only fix, but reuse materials in space. 30,000 years IS a long time. So we would require a material that can undergo years of deep cold, stress of space pressure, and movement with very little wear and tear. Is that not nano tube-technology? Of course, we are not ready to build an entire space craft with it, but the technology is slowly developing. (ie. the idea utilizing nano tubes for a space elevator). We are talking about a craft not far off of the size of the USS Enterprise. The reason I say this is not because of any fasination with it, but because we would need so many resources to maintain the craft & crew for such a journey. I think it's possible IF all the science and resource guru's can work together, and a global organization could be formed we'd be well within the right direction. Maybe reaching the closest star may be still out of our reach, but most certainly I believe it's well within our reach with today's technology for us travel throughout our solar system.

 

[tampaDreamer]

The interstallar thing is just way way out of reach for many of the technology reasons that have been stated. I don't think there's a single part of the ship that could be expected to live that long. In other words, not one single system of the dozens required is up to the task. Not structure, not life support, not power, nothing.

Then you consider the human side of the equasion. At this point it looks like we'll be lucky if civilisation survives 30k years ON the planet. I think that much off the planet is unrealistic. The longest lasting government on earth was probably the roman empire, and to consider that a single government is probably stretching the truth substantially. Add it all up and you get less than 1500 years. There's no way you can expect a group of people stuck inside a spacecraft to beat that record. So you'd have to plan for violent revolutions to occur on the spacecraft without endangering the mission.

I think we'd better stick to sending three man crews to frozen rocks for now.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

You have an absolute valid point TampaDreamer. I cannot argue with you there. In the movie, earth civilization had advanced to the point to put their differences aside for the sake of science & space exploration. We may still be far away from that ever happening... IF it happens before they kill each other.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I was just thinking about something. Do we actually know what causes space to expand? If we learned what physical property causes the expansion, then could a specific area of space also be manipulated to contract. Not fiction, just a thought. I am along the means of thinking that if it were possible to control a specific area of space to contract towards the front on a space craft, then expand back out behind it, then it will carry the craft along with it's expansion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

LOL, which expansion?
The original Big Bang expansion, inflation, or the newly suspected increase in the rate of expansion caused by dark energy, whatever it is?

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Expansion of space in general. Does space not continue to expand even today at a steady rate? Other then of course the newly suspected increase. Not sure either what may be causing it. A property of dark energy? Beats me.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I'll try to explain this better. I understand that the expansion of the universe is a metric expansion, and that the matter in the universe is still separating because it was separating in the past. But even though the expansion is more noticed on larger scales, and at smaller scales matter clumps together under the influence of gravitational attraction, while it continues to recede from one another... would there still be a way to determine a smaller scale expansion of a smaller area of space is my question.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Have to get back to you later...

Paying attention to the Hubble capture right now

 

[BenS1985]

Long time reader, short time poster, but:

I think the reason we haven't done as much in space as many of us hope we would is of mere financial reasons: Governments spend very small amounts of their federal budgets on space. The US spends a paltry $18.7b/yr under FY2009, ESA with a $13b USD budget in FY2009, RFSA with $2.2b ($10b over 5 years), JAXA with $2.15b in 05, China's budget is under $17b, and so on. We spend little, so we get little. For example the US Video Game and Movie (theater sales only, not including DVDs) has more money spent on it than every worldwide government does on space travel.

Ultimately, we can make great strides in space travel, but it's going to take 1 of 3 things happening:

1) A major visionary leader or government combine to usher in a new 'golden age' of space funding by government entities
2) New industry demands require space-based solutions (power generation, HE3 mining, ect) which allow major earth-bound corporations to go into space (A company like Exxon Mobil has the funds to easily surpass governmental spending) and exploit resources
3) A horrific disaster threatens the earth, requiring massive resources to be invested into space travel to either ensure humanities survival in space, or deflect a earth-shattering thing (such as an asteroid).

What it comes down to is practicality: What reason do we have, other than our desires (and I mean those of us that know why space is so critical) to go into space? As of today, most public interest is enamored in space tourism, and like the idea, but don't really think that it's a critical issue to vote on, or bring up to their politicians, as they are more worried about gas prices and the wars in the middle east.

But we should not despair: We've learned from history that necessity is the mother of invention. America wasn't colonized by the Europeans because of some grand, benevolent scheme. Spaniards wanted Aztec plunder, and Columbus was funded by the crown to find a quicker/more efficient way to India and China. Eventually, we'll find a need for space-based materials, and fund the development of space. Eventually, that will give rise to furhter mineral/resource acquisition in the outer planets, which will eventually lead the way to bigger & better propulsion systems, reducing the time it takes to travel from one planet to another, thereby making travel to the stars quicker. It may not be in our lifetime, but I hope to see my children at least get the shot at space travel to the inner planets.

I am trying to think of the name of a book that was recently published by a for-hire intelligence company, describing the 21st century in detail using solid analysis. The conclusion was that we'll eventually need space-based resources by the mid point of the century, ushering in a space boom. Great read, but I can't find the name of the book.

 

[kg]

There are alot of people who think that the problems here on earth should be delt with before a penney is spent on space. I remember there was a popular song back during the missions to the moon... "Rats done bit my sister Nell and whitey be on the moon".

 

[Boris_Badenov]

There are alot of people who think that the problems here on earth should be delt with before a penney is spent on space. I remember there was a popular song back during the missions to the moon... "Rats done bit my sister Nell and whitey be on the moon".

Have you ever asked one of the people that say we should solve all the problems on Earth before we expand outward, "who gets to decide when all problems have been solved?" I can assure you, you won't get a coherent answer.
Whitey on the moon - gil scott-heron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG ... re=related

 

[GravityKey]

Before any interstellar travel can happen the human race must find that its future in propulsion with rocketry and chemical fuels will only come to and has already reached its dead end, its great on Earth but not much use elsewhere. The future in propulsion lies in the manipulation of gravity.

Gravity is a force in a matter of its not a particle or thing like that, its simply a type of balancing act. Just as in an atmosphere a high pressure system will move to a low pressure area not because of particles or any unknown radiation but because its simply a balancing act. In the space-time foam(think of a foam mattress) an object moving through the foam is subject to any pivots or wells in said foam, the simple action of the object moving towards this pivot or well is what you call gravity.

That being said the key to limitless interstellar travel is manipulating your space-time foam to your liking. Imagine this. You have a very tiny toy car on a 25 foot long foam mattress. Now lets say you want to reach the other side of this mattress with the small car, on the car's own internal power supply being chemical fuel, that moves at a very slow pace maybe 1 inch a year. Very long time of travel plus carrying your own non-renewable fuel right?

Now take this same car instead of having it use its own internal non-renewable fuel you go with a different alternative. You take something heavy about the same size of the car and press it deep down in the foam forward of the car, and as the car approaches this pressed down area you keep the object ahead of the car the same distance so that the car never catches the object being pressed down in front of it. This is gravity propulsion and its limitless and can provide speeds capable of providing interstellar travel. Basically riding on a gravity wave. Another point I'd like to add inertia is defeated in this manner because the occupants of the craft move towards the gravitational force just as fast as the ship they're in.

On a further note this very same method is what is/will be used in tractor beams (smaller scale of same thing stated above, creating a gravitational force ahead of an object you are looking to push or pull), and to a much much more refined degree cloaking or light-bending as light is subject to gravity because light itself is part of the space-time foam and must obey the space-time foam rules, manipulating gravity in points around an area with strong gravity wells can effectively bend light around an object.

 

[neilsox]

Gravity propulsion will likely be helpful when and if we send interstellar probes. At present it is hypothesis rather than theory, and may not work much like gravitykey suggests. It is very improbable that gravity propulsion will greatly reduce the energy needed to make trips to Centaurii in centuries, instead of the present million years or so.
About the best we can hope for in this century, is a craft that can cruse about our solar system, without refueling and repairs at each stop = Sort of like an air plane can stop briefly at several consecutive cities before it needs a major overhaul. Humans aboard are a distinct disadvantage, so we may have to wait until an android almost as sophisticated as Data is available.
Both attempts = Earth one and Earth two were disapointing as far as producing food and recycled air by biology for more than two years. Two years is about the limit for nuclear submarines also.
In theory we can lift off with a several years supply of food, water, and air, but this puts the craft in the trillion dollar range even for one human. Neil

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I guess the idea of riding a gravity wave would be as possible as my idea of being able to control the expansion and contraction of space itself ahead & behind a craft. Both seem highly impossible to achieve. I don't really think it would be too much of an issue to supply a craft with enough supplies & food for a manned mission around the solar system. What you do in that case in manually launch the craft to an orbit say near the ISS. As you have current ongoing missions to the ISS, you take a few supplies at a time to the other craft saving on launch costs by launching less weight into orbit at once, mission costs by merging two or more missions (ie work required in the ISS, and delivering a few supplies to the other craft.) I think an ION or nuclear fission engines would be the way to go for fuel costs. i know there is new technology being developed within the field. Unless we can create a engine that can convert the natural occuring cosmic radiation from space into energy to power the engine as it's required. This type of technology would most definately reduce a crafts weight, and overall mission capability. (ie. not as limited by fuel). Perhaps prelaunched repair modules could be places in certain places around the solar system. Either that or the craft carry a smaller module capable of returning the humans to earth. I think if we do see a large craft be built to carry humans throughout the solar system, it will be built in space, and work on it will be coupled with other missions to space. We will have no doubt in my mind the need to leave the old rocket engines behind. There is still room for vast improvements to propellant & engine capabilities in space. It's just the cost to initiate the technology, and the requirement to do so beyond our own desire.

 

[GravityKey]

The method you will find for gravity manipulation, will be concentrating large amounts of energy (think radiation) in a confined area using electromagnetism to hold it there so more and more energy can be added but magnetic fields won't allow its escape. Concentrating energy in an area is the same as concentrating mass (though the proportions are different) in an area you start to bend the space-time foam. Mass is one form of energy. All energy, radiation included bends the space-time foam, which is called gravity.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I guess the question is then, how do you concentrate the energy? That takes energy, i.e. propellant, so you're right back where you started having to carry huge amounts of propellant to create the EM field (even assuming it were possible, which currently understood physics suggests is not the case.)

 

[DrRocket]

Before any interstellar travel can happen the human race must find that its future in propulsion with rocketry and chemical fuels will only come to and has already reached its dead end, its great on Earth but not much use elsewhere. The future in propulsion lies in the manipulation of gravity.

Gravity is a force in a matter of its not a particle or thing like that, its simply a type of balancing act. Just as in an atmosphere a high pressure system will move to a low pressure area not because of particles or any unknown radiation but because its simply a balancing act. In the space-time foam(think of a foam mattress) an object moving through the foam is subject to any pivots or wells in said foam, the simple action of the object moving towards this pivot or well is what you call gravity.

That being said the key to limitless interstellar travel is manipulating your space-time foam to your liking. Imagine this. You have a very tiny toy car on a 25 foot long foam mattress. Now lets say you want to reach the other side of this mattress with the small car, on the car's own internal power supply being chemical fuel, that moves at a very slow pace maybe 1 inch a year. Very long time of travel plus carrying your own non-renewable fuel right?

Now take this same car instead of having it use its own internal non-renewable fuel you go with a different alternative. You take something heavy about the same size of the car and press it deep down in the foam forward of the car, and as the car approaches this pressed down area you keep the object ahead of the car the same distance so that the car never catches the object being pressed down in front of it. This is gravity propulsion and its limitless and can provide speeds capable of providing interstellar travel. Basically riding on a gravity wave. Another point I'd like to add inertia is defeated in this manner because the occupants of the craft move towards the gravitational force just as fast as the ship they're in.

On a further note this very same method is what is/will be used in tractor beams (smaller scale of same thing stated above, creating a gravitational force ahead of an object you are looking to push or pull), and to a much much more refined degree cloaking or light-bending as light is subject to gravity because light itself is part of the space-time foam and must obey the space-time foam rules, manipulating gravity in points around an area with strong gravity wells can effectively bend light around an object.

This is pure speculation with no real foundation. There is no established theory that supports your notin of "foam" only some very speculative research ideas. Manipulation of a foam that may not exist is not very sound engineering. There is ZERO scientific basis for "manipulating" gravit in any meaningful way. The only means for affecting gravity that is consistent with general relativity is to control the concentration of mass-energy on very large scales. There is no technology for accomplishing that.

What you are describing is not science. It is nothing but weak science fiction.

 

[DrRocket]

The method you will find for gravity manipulation, will be concentrating large amounts of energy (think radiation) in a confined area using electromagnetism to hold it there so more and more energy can be added but magnetic fields won't allow its escape. Concentrating energy in an area is the same as concentrating mass (though the proportions are different) in an area you start to bend the space-time foam. Mass is one form of energy. All energy, radiation included bends the space-time foam, which is called gravity.

There is no such thing as space-time foam in established physical theories, only some speculation in possible revisions of the future. So there is no sensible means of discussing space-time foam at this point in time.

It is however, well-known that space-time curvature can be affected by energy. Mass and energy are the same thing and the stress-energy tensor of general relativity, which is essentially the curvature tensor (modulo a constant multiple) includes terms for mass and energy. It is even theoretically possible to form stable gravitational structures from energy alone -- John Archibald Wheeler studied such objects and called them geons.

But geons require HUGE amounts of energy. This stands to reason, because the governing E=mc^2 shows that only a little matter provides a lot of energy. Conversely it requires a lot of energy to provide a little bit of mass. When you re talking about gravitational effects over large distances the issue is not so much the ability to concentrate energy in a small volume (unless you are trying to create a black hole) but rather involves the difficulty in simply getting together a LOT of mass.

There are some far out schemes for manipulating space-time but they appear to be completely impractical if not theoretically impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

 

[eburacum45]

Recent analysis of the light from distant galaxies has ruled out some of the 'foamy space-time' models; light would not be affected very much by such tiny space-time fluctuations, but over billions of light years the effect would be noticable.
No such effect has been seen.

The observations do not rule out the much less 'foamy' models predicted by the so-called holographic principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

[kristina3313]

"...Thus, it may be best for us to view warp travel in Star Trek like this: Subspace is a field which defines a particular frame of reference at all points in known space. When you enter warp, you are using subspace such that you keep its frame of reference regardless of your speed. Not only does this mean that normal warp travel cannot be used to produce unsolvable paradoxes, but since in warp your frame of reference would no longer depend on your speed as it does in relativity, relativistic effects in general do not apply to travelers using warp. Since relativistic effects don't apply, you also have a general explanation as to why you can exceed the speed of light in the first place...."


http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html


"...Also, if the second provision governed normal warp travel, it would require Star Trek ships to be careful as to which frames of reference they were in when they decided to enter warp. After all, they may not want to accidentally meet themselves from a previous trip(in which case the universe may destroy them to protect self consistency)..." :twisted: :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

And this thread drifts closer and closer to the Sci Fi forum.....

 

[GravityKey]

This is pure speculation with no real foundation. There is no established theory that supports your notin of "foam" only some very speculative research ideas. Manipulation of a foam that may not exist is not very sound engineering. There is ZERO scientific basis for "manipulating" gravit in any meaningful way. The only means for affecting gravity that is consistent with general relativity is to control the concentration of mass-energy on very large scales. There is no technology for accomplishing that.

What you are describing is not science. It is nothing but weak science fiction.

When i say foam its a loose term for all the energy and mass and everything around you all together in the same space in this dimension. You could only realize the "foam" if you were outside it observing in.

And the tsk tsk tsk about the theory business so arrogant the human race is, you all seem to believe that if something is there to be discovered it has already been, and that if your science RIGHT NOW can't explain it, it must not be possible, and therefore science FICTION. You have not learned from the mistakes of your ancestors who falsely assumed things that you look back now on in your history studies and laugh at. But you study this history and still you are falling into the same trend as they did. Why do you study this then?
Very bold assumptions for a race that has been technologically enlightened for about the past century (100 years) compared to hmm.... how old are some of these objects you observe out there in space? You aren't even a TENTH (0.1%) of a blink in your own star system's history. Do your own children often figure out the world and everything about it in the first 10 years (10%) of their lives? Even with a guide?

The logic of the human race is comparable to a toddler learning to talk and learn of the world around him, but he is no where near fully understanding. That toddler hasn't yet moved past his tricycle as far as transportation goes so the world outside his house is too large and too far away for him ever to explore, but the ideas of a car to him are so FAR technologically ahead he deems it to be impossible as compared to his simplistic knowledge of his tricycle.