Raven... out of respect, I'll give you one last chance to salvage this thread. But I think it's too far off the rails for even you, and will soon have a new address.
Gimme a "U"
Gimme a "U"
- Status
GravityKey":c3y8a9zh said:
If you want to make unsubstantiated speculations and ignore science and logic that is fine. But a hard science forum is not the place for it. Science requires imagination, lots of it, but it demands that imagination be consistent with what is actually known.
So if you wan to pretued that you are some sort of advanced alien, that is ok, it is your delusion. But it is not OK in the hard science arenas.
Well to the OP as per stated above if it is not known it is pointless to state it here. I will give the simple answer to the question: Star Trek Exploration, possible? No, not in your lifetime.
GravityKey.
Wow, what a contrast. Your last post seems to be in direct conflict to the one before.
Oh well....there's no accounting for how extraterrestrial aliens express themselves.
Wow, what a contrast. Your last post seems to be in direct conflict to the one before.
Oh well....there's no accounting for how extraterrestrial aliens express themselves.
Okay MeteorWayne, I will give one last shot at resurrecting this topic from being tossed into the bowels of The Unexplained, lol.
I believe we have the science already to make an engine that would not require fuel for a really long time. A radiation absorption engine is possible. Radiation naturally exists in space, we just need a means of collecting it and utilizing it for a power source. Collector plates along certain point of the haul of a craft would do the trick. I saw a show once on how radioactive could be collected onto panels to power an engine once, though it was not shown for use in outer space. Though I cannot remember how it worked, I'm sure it would be the same concept. Now to exceed light-speed... well we are still a long way off for that. Repairs to a craft could be possible IF modules could be launched. Say if you wanted a manned craft to go to Saturn, you ensure the module is pre-placed in the same orbital path prior to the expedition. I'd say such a module could also have an emergency return craft as well. If you wanted to move the module to another destination, it'd utilize the same technique many deep space satellites do.
For a more sufficient power source, a new technology is on the horizon to make cars, planes, and even space vehicles more power efficient. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/direct-conversion-of-radiation-into.html
I believe this technology is a short fall away from being able to be utilized as a power source to allow a manned space craft sufficient fuel to travel within the inner solar system at least. If this technology was geared to recieve radiation via ceramic panels on the body of the craft then we have a continuous fuel source. There is no shortage a space radiation. In actuality, the radiation in space would be greater then on earth thus providing a purer source.
I believe we have the science already to make an engine that would not require fuel for a really long time. A radiation absorption engine is possible. Radiation naturally exists in space, we just need a means of collecting it and utilizing it for a power source. Collector plates along certain point of the haul of a craft would do the trick. I saw a show once on how radioactive could be collected onto panels to power an engine once, though it was not shown for use in outer space. Though I cannot remember how it worked, I'm sure it would be the same concept. Now to exceed light-speed... well we are still a long way off for that. Repairs to a craft could be possible IF modules could be launched. Say if you wanted a manned craft to go to Saturn, you ensure the module is pre-placed in the same orbital path prior to the expedition. I'd say such a module could also have an emergency return craft as well. If you wanted to move the module to another destination, it'd utilize the same technique many deep space satellites do.
For a more sufficient power source, a new technology is on the horizon to make cars, planes, and even space vehicles more power efficient. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/direct-conversion-of-radiation-into.html
Pseudo-Capacitor Structure for Direct Nuclear Energy Conversion. ":dtlse7rw said:
I believe this technology is a short fall away from being able to be utilized as a power source to allow a manned space craft sufficient fuel to travel within the inner solar system at least. If this technology was geared to recieve radiation via ceramic panels on the body of the craft then we have a continuous fuel source. There is no shortage a space radiation. In actuality, the radiation in space would be greater then on earth thus providing a purer source.
Interstellar Travel: Just a Hyperdrive Away
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=542 (I really wish I could figure out how to edit/shorten these damned links)
The theories of Burkhard Heim may very well lead to the Hyperdrive/FTL Drive that many are looking for. There is of course the equal possibility that they are a dead end. Practical experiments need to be conducted before we'll ever really know. At any rate, this should save the thread from the oblivion of "U" territory.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=542 (I really wish I could figure out how to edit/shorten these damned links)
The theories of Burkhard Heim may very well lead to the Hyperdrive/FTL Drive that many are looking for. There is of course the equal possibility that they are a dead end. Practical experiments need to be conducted before we'll ever really know. At any rate, this should save the thread from the oblivion of "U" territory.
I would have to argue that we are actually talking about real technological advances that are closing in on making such a trek a possibility rather then fiction. Of course during the course of these advances, there will be certain doors that are closed along with the opening of new ones as experiments are conducted. However, some of the mentioned technology already exists. It merely needs to be applied to a space travel application.
Dyson style Orion nuclear impulse starships could eventually allow humans to colonize the galaxy in some 10 million years or so. Considering for the vast majority of the last 10 million years, humans and their ancestors spent most of their time banging rocks together, is it that inherently difficult to accept that in the next 10 million years we could colonize the galaxy ??
.1C ships are feasible now, we just need a couple of centuries to make the global gross domestic product sufficiently large so as to make the ships cheap.
The challenge is not technology, it is economics.
.1C ships are feasible now, we just need a couple of centuries to make the global gross domestic product sufficiently large so as to make the ships cheap.
The challenge is not technology, it is economics.
Well Vogon, some think that if there are many intelligent life forms out there, and if there are then they all developed at different times. For instance a civilization that formed in an area of the universe say 10 million ly's from us. This would suggest they had a 10 million year jump on us or has already advanced 10 millions years before the light from their star reached us. Since no intelligent radio signals have been picked up as of yet from outer space, I have read topics that utilize that way of thinking to prove that deep space exploration has not been possible for any civilization regardless of it's age in the universe. Many may agree. Myself for one do not agree. I think it may be a matter of time before such a signal is found. Who knows, different type of technology formed different types of signal that currently eludes our detection, maybe. But back on the topic, our technology is developing... it's just taking time. As well, as you said, the economics must be there as well as demand.
Also, show I just watched on NASA technology stated that anti-matter engines are now possible. A small amount of anti-matter could propel a space craft across the solar system. The issue however is if there were ever an accident while launching the vehicle, the explosion could destroy an entire city. That would suck. However, why not just do a launch from a desert? It was also mentioned that the reason a small amount of anti-matter could propel us across the solar system because there is nearly a 100% conversion to energy rate. It doesn't seem like anti-matter engines are fiction anymore. It's more the safety precautions their worried about.
There are two other major logistical issue. One is creating enough antimatter. I would estimate all the antimatter ever created on earth would come to a few micrograms in total.
The second is storing it in a transportable form. We are many decades away from tackling that issue.
The second is storing it in a transportable form. We are many decades away from tackling that issue.
MeteorWayne":1kluhv8z said:
Absolutely, but hardly unexplainable. The means can be accomplished with much of the existing technology, however as you said an increase in the amount of anti-matter must be produced and a viable storage containment for transport is required. It's kind of like saying "We can build the space shuttle, but now we need the necessary amount of fuel and a proper tank to house it." Of course we all know this was accomplished and the issues overcome by existing technologies came together. It's merely requiring a larger scale manufacturing of anti-matter, and I'm sure a storage compartment can be manufactured in much the same way using the technology they apply now for smaller scale storage.
LOL, Raven, I think you VASTLy underestimate the difficulty of constructing a portable antimatter container.
I'd suggest a google search to see what facilities (including weight, cost, power and success of such containment) has been conducted by we puny humans so far.
I suspect it will make a pragmatist out of even you
WayneMan
I'd suggest a google search to see what facilities (including weight, cost, power and success of such containment) has been conducted by we puny humans so far.
I suspect it will make a pragmatist out of even you
WayneMan
Boris_Badenov":2271i1sh said:
Lemme show you.........
Type this: Centauri Dreams(or whatever text you wanna put here)
Except where I put an asterisk, put a colon. And you will see this...
Centauri Dreams
Easy as falling in love, man.
vogon13":1thdqvmz said:
I absolutely agree. We could actually use the same system to "cut our teeth" by exploring our Solar Systems with Orions, and could do so at a relatively lower cost than interstellar missions.
Obviously, the big issue is one of either allowing such ships to irradiate our atmosphere to some degree via Earth-based launches or going the more costly (and I feel risky) route of tons of launches to build an Orion in LEO and then launch the fission (or fusion) bombs up to the completed craft.
I don't specifically remember how many bombs would have to be detonated to boost an Orion to space, but IIRC, the environmental impact was significantly less than all the bomb testing done globally in the 50's and 60's.
The real problem remains to be our current inability to field an SSTO vehicle that is robust enough to not only be "turned around" in a day but also capable of landing on another planet and leaving it. The Shuttle is obviously not a good candidate for that unless the dudes that built the Face on Mars would be kind enough to build us a runway and re-launch facility.
MeteorWayne":wl3e15zz said:LOL, Raven, I think you VASTLy underestimate the difficulty of constructing a portable antimatter container.
I'd suggest a google search to see what facilities (including weight, cost, power and success of such containment) has been conducted by we puny humans so far.
I suspect it will make a pragmatist out of even you
WayneMan
Containment isn't the only or even biggest problem. Holy Cow, it would take about forever (literally) to produce enough antimatter to be useful in terms of spacecraft propulsion given our current technology and capacity.
lol, your funny dragon. Of course an interstellar craft would be very much costly. It would take a lot of investments from multiple companies, governments, and space agencies globally to fund such a project. I think the current brains could in fact build a containment for anti-matter MeteorWayne. I guess I put a little more faith in the brains behind our recent and greatest technological space advances then most. With funding I bet it would result in many more advances. A lot of the reasons we come to a brick wall in research isn't because we don't know how to get around it, it's because we don't have the money to do so. Since NASA is getting out of the LEO orbit and satellite repair business, it forces other companies to be developed and to step up to the plate. I'm betting that you will see other companies developing their own shuttles in the course of the next 20 years. It's from here I think we will see a business like the company building the inflatable modules for individual orbiting stations to companies building orbiting facilities for the developing of other research & space vehicles. Russia already has the remote supply carriers. It really is the very beginning to the space age. Money is the big issue right now. In the 90's hardly anyone was interested in space exploration, now we see an increase with investors such as there ones investing the X-Prize teams as a demonstration of that. I think in probably the next 60 years we will see an explosion of activity going to orbit. Besides the manned mission to Mars, we "could" develop manned vehicles capable of at least exploring the inner solar system. The question was also mentioned about being able to land and take off from other planets. We managed to do it on the moon with a relatively small module, why then couldn't a craft be equipped with one or more of a similar module? Instead these modules would be carried in a cargo bay large enough to house them.
Actually, I'm in favor of building "modular" spacecraft in LEO as we did with the ISS. However, without a propulsion system that's better than nuclear pulse, it's going to be a long time before it happens.
The attraction of an (original) Orion is that we can do it right now. I mean, RIGHT now.
The attraction of an (original) Orion is that we can do it right now. I mean, RIGHT now.
dragon04":3ka2faqz said:
Well, actually there's Bigelow Aerospace already piecing together it's inflatable modules to form independent orbiting stations: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0706/28genesis2/
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram