119 réponses à ce sujet

[SpatFieya]

WoodWizzard87 wrote...

What would be the point of colonizing the moon or Mars? there is nothing there, so we'd rather just spend billions of dollars to send someone there just to explore it. If we were to colonize the moon or Mars, it would be the most non-economical thing to do. Yeah we'd get rid of a few hundred thousand people, but the costs to ship them there and set up camps big enough to hold them all would be astronomical.

Theres all this talk about FTL drives and reaching the speed of light, which as of now and probably the next 1000 years will not be possible. I know you physics majors in here most likely know that the cost of fuel to get a ship up to the speed of light is rediculous.

How about slowing the ship down at the destination? You get to the latest star and coming at the speed of light, how much energy and fuel would you need to slow that ship down again to orbit that sun. Unimaginable amount to speed up and slow down.

Next thousand years? I wouldn't think so. It's all about unwraveling the seceretes of the universe. I know I stated previously that FTL will more than likely be discovered past our life times, but who knows, we could discover it sooner than we could expect.

And slowing the ship down? ...Let the physicists worry about that. If we can break the speed of light, we'll know how to slow our asses down.

Modifié par SpatFieya, 01 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[gkillerrin]

Sorry if this has been asked, but what makes it impossible to just take some water and make the soil moist like on say mars or the moon, and plant a tree on that planet, and since the temp on the planet can go above 20 deg wouldn't that allow it to grow?.

if its a lack of CO2, cant you find some way to put CO2 in the air for the plant, and just have some sort of machine/person water the plant. cause if we could do that then wouldn't we technically be able to live on mars, or the moon because there would be vegetation to make oxygen with.

And about water I read somewhere (there are a bunch of sources here http://www.google.ca...lient=firefox-a) that the moon can make its own water because of the hydrogen particles being shot off by the sun hitting the moon combining with its oxidized soil making water that just goes to the poles?(it was awhile since I read it so i might of missed something)

so if someone could tell me what the implications would be so I could get that answered, because if it is possible then couldn't we then be able to colonize our own planets?

Modifié par gkillerrin, 01 mars 2010 - 04:34 .

[AdamBoozer]

WoodWizzard87 wrote...

What would be the point of colonizing the moon or Mars? there is nothing there, so we'd rather just spend billions of dollars to send someone there just to explore it. If we were to colonize the moon or Mars, it would be the most non-economical thing to do. Yeah we'd get rid of a few hundred thousand people, but the costs to ship them there and set up camps big enough to hold them all would be astronomical.

Theres all this talk about FTL drives and reaching the speed of light, which as of now and probably the next 1000 years will not be possible. I know you physics majors in here most likely know that the cost of fuel to get a ship up to the speed of light is rediculous.

How about slowing the ship down at the destination? You get to the latest star and coming at the speed of light, how much energy and fuel would you need to slow that ship down again to orbit that sun. Unimaginable amount to speed up and slow down.

You go for what you can reach my friend. We have been enfatuated with mars for years. We now know that a few million years ago it was like earth then it's atmospher started escaping so it would be enteresting to terraform it or the moon. That way you wouldn't need FTL and spend trillions not billions on that. Actually we could mine H3 from our moon and idk what mars would have.

Not in the future, it will be much cheaper prob about what it cost to use a plane now. Actually it dosen't cost that much for FTL using certin fuel types. we could literally mine anti protons from our van allen belts. Theres many things too much to get into on a game forum. lol

[SpatFieya]

gkillerrin wrote...

Sorry if this has been asked, but what makes it impossible to just take some water and make the soil moist like on say mars or the moon, and plant a tree on that planet, and since the temp on the planet can go above 20 deg wouldn't that allow it to grow?.

if its a lack of CO2, cant you find some way to put CO2 in the air for the plant, and just have some sort of machine/person water the plant.

cause if we could do that then wouldn't we technically be able to live on mars, or the moon because there would be vegetation to make oxygen with.

And about water I read somewhere (there are a bunch of sources here http://www.google.ca...lient=firefox-a) that the moon can make its own water because of the hydrogen particles being shot off by the sun hitting the moon combining with its oxidized soil making water that just goes to the poles?(it was awhile since I read it so i might of missed something)

so if someone could tell me what the implications would be so I could get that answered, because if it is possible then couldn't we then be able to colonize our own planets?

Mars doesn't have a strong enough magnetic field to withhold an atmospher. We assume it's because the core eventually cooled down and the sun just beat the living hell out of the atmospher. Tree's would die due to the harsh evironment. Maybe some sort of hardy plant life could live, but I'm not so sure. The soil isn't the problem, it's the climate.

But water has been seen escaping out of the surface and freezing. So the core might not be completely frozen yet.

It's hard to look at something on the outside and guess what's going on the inside. Going to Mars would be more useful for research. Like was there life? Intelligent life? Are their artfifacts? Colonizing it... well, just watch total recall. It would be a total **** storm.

Modifié par SpatFieya, 01 mars 2010 - 04:35 .

[AdamBoozer]

gkillerrin wrote...

Sorry if this has been asked, but what makes it impossible to just take some water and make the soil moist like on say mars or the moon, and plant a tree on that planet, and since the temp on the planet can go above 20 deg wouldn't that allow it to grow?.
if its a lack of CO2, cant you find some way to put CO2 in the air for the plant, and just have some sort of machine/person water the plant.
cause if we could do that then wouldn't we technically be able to live on mars, or the moon because there would be vegetation to make oxygen with.
And about water I read somewhere (there are a bunch of sources here http://www.google.ca...lient=firefox-a) that the moon can make its own water because of the hydrogen particles being shot off by the sun hitting the moon combining with its oxidized soil making water that just goes to the poles?(it was awhile since I read it so i might of missed something)
so if someone could tell me what the implications would be so I could get that answered, because if it is possible then couldn't we then be able to colonize our own planets?

There is no atomospher on the moon you could do it if it was under a dome. We need oxygen and plants can only withstand so much radiation. They also need nitrogen. Humans breath out co2 so that wouldn't be a problem just the oxogen. 

It has more to do with the cost actually we are trying to make processes that are much cheaper. Like building a ship entirely in space. One day if we can develop space elevators it will get rid of a lot of the cost. That and space mining then we will see some serius terraforming and sub terraforming. I just hope im alive to see it.

[gkillerrin]

AdamBoozer wrote...
 I just hope im alive to see it.

I think were all on that same boat here :happy:... Anyways I think this is a pretty good Discussion topic you have to start small with our own system, before you move out to others

Modifié par gkillerrin, 01 mars 2010 - 05:28 .

[adam_grif]

Lmaoboat wrote...

I don't get this part. How does you moving at normal speeds through the wormhole affect "Somebody, somewhere in the universe"? If you're looking at someone both 20 LY away and right near you through the wormhole, what the difference between that and looking at someone right next to you and at a mirror 10 LY away? If you make a wormhole to a distant star, wouldn't you just be effectively moving that star closer to you?

I'll explain why the paradox happens with wormholes, even without the instant hit weapons.



This diagram illustrates 2 orion type battleships that have met in the middle, turned and headed towards the two ends of the same wormhole, with a relative velocity of 0.866 C (again). They are armed with lasers, which are idealized to not bloom over distance.

A hit's zero, due to time dilation B is at 4 seconds, it fires through the wormhole and takes approximately 2 seconds to strike, landing somewhere around second 6. Blammo. Shabams. Blamo.

Wormholes force distant frames to interact when they should not be able to.

[Godeshus]

Mass Relays: Impossible.



Nothing can travel faster than light, with the sole exception of space itself. So we need loopholes.



The best lead so far is the Alcubierre Drive, Which warps space time in a bubble between point A and point b, contracting it in front of you and expanding it behind you. Like Space surfing. It's got a couple of flaws, though, not the least being the black hole you create where your space ship used to be before you hit the "ludicrous speed" button.



The good news is, though, that this black hole wouldn't have the mass to devour anything else. It would dissipate the instant it was created, so at least we could safely test it without dooming our stellar cluster.



This brings us to the next problem. The only way to create the amount of energy needed is by forcing a reaction between matter and anti-matter. Sounds cool, but how do you contain anti-matter, if it explodes with the energy of a supernova the instant it comes into contact with matter (ie. the test tube you're trying to hold it in)?



-godeshus

[Computron2000]

People underestimate the human race

Stephen hawking said in an interview that we would be safe as a race in 200 years as we would be colonizing other planets then.

Our current technology is very high compared to 200 years ago and getting higher at increasing speeds. The older folks might remember the times of no handphones/etc then moving to pagers that showed just the phone number to alphanumeric ones to large sized phones to the current crop of phones. This took about 30 years from no portable communications to cheap global (almost) communications

Our knowledge base is also much much bigger. Example, atoms as the smallest unit, bleh, nope sorry. Development of quantum mechanics, nanotech, nuclear reactions all happened within 100 years

The next big advance will be the technological singularity when we go even faster than now and we don't need to do much after that as computers will do all research 24 hours 7 days a week. The only danger would be for people to accept being stupid is good and not bother to advance their own brainpower.

For FTL, current physics limits the possibilities. However access to unknown dimensions might be 1 way to solve this (commonly referred to as hyperspace, subspace, etc and postulated by string theory). Stabilization of a wormhole might also be a method. Right now the knowledge base for FTL are too weak to say with certainty what will be the solution. However getting FTL within 500 years would be extremely likely

Alternatively we just use entanglement for instananeous teleportation

Modifié par Computron2000, 01 mars 2010 - 09:45 .

[Godeshus]

Computron2000 wrote...

People underestimate the human race

Stephen hawking said in an interview that we would be safe as a race in 200 years as we would be colonizing other planets then.

Our current technology is very high compared to 200 years ago and getting higher at increasing speeds. The older folks might remember the times of no handphones/etc then moving to pagers that showed just the phone number to alphanumeric ones to large sized phones to the current crop of phones. This took about 30 years from no portable communications to cheap global (almost) communications

Our knowledge base is also much much bigger. Example, atoms as the smallest unit, bleh, nope sorry. Development of quantum mechanics, nanotech, nuclear reactions all happened within 100 years

The next big advance will be the technological singularity when we go even faster than now and we don't need to do much after that as computers will do all research 24 hours 7 days a week. The only danger would be for people to accept being stupid is good and not bother to advance their own brainpower.

While what you say is true from one angle, you have to understand that our technology isn't accelerating in a linear fashion. Sure, we've accomplished more in the past 100 years than we have in the entire history of the human race, but we've been at a saturation point for 20 - 30 years now. There haven't been any monumental discoveries. We've managed to refine what we know to be ridiculously efficient, but we haven't made big steps forward. 

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity spawned an era of mass discoveries, including the ability to harness nuclear power, and its demon child, Quantum Physics, gave us insight into the very nature of the stuff of the universe. Without a Unifying Theory of everything, though, we're kinda out on a limb. We've squeezed out almost as much as we can from the greatest scientific advances in human history, so we need a new brain on the scene to say "what if..."

I'd like to say String Theory has a chance at it, but I've got issues with a theory where you have to invent dimensions that you have absolutely no evidence for in order for your equations to sum up.

-Godeshus

[Lmaoboat]

adam_grif wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

I don't get this part. How does you moving at normal speeds through the wormhole affect "Somebody, somewhere in the universe"? If you're looking at someone both 20 LY away and right near you through the wormhole, what the difference between that and looking at someone right next to you and at a mirror 10 LY away? If you make a wormhole to a distant star, wouldn't you just be effectively moving that star closer to you?

I'll explain why the paradox happens with wormholes, even without the instant hit weapons.



This diagram illustrates 2 orion type battleships that have met in the middle, turned and headed towards the two ends of the same wormhole, with a relative velocity of 0.866 C (again). They are armed with lasers, which are idealized to not bloom over distance.

A hit's zero, due to time dilation B is at 4 seconds, it fires through the wormhole and takes approximately 2 seconds to strike, landing somewhere around second 6. Blammo. Shabams. Blamo.

Wormholes force distant frames to interact when they should not be able to.

Gah, this is beyond me. I have absolutely zero ability to visualize things. I couldn't even tell you what my mother looks like.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 01 mars 2010 - 10:06 .

[Computron2000]

Godeshus wrote...
While what you say is true from one angle, you have to understand that our technology isn't accelerating in a linear fashion. Sure, we've accomplished more in the past 100 years than we have in the entire history of the human race, but we've been at a saturation point for 20 - 30 years now. There haven't been any monumental discoveries. We've managed to refine what we know to be ridiculously efficient, but we haven't made big steps forward. 

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity spawned an era of mass discoveries, including the ability to harness nuclear power, and its demon child, Quantum Physics, gave us insight into the very nature of the stuff of the universe. Without a Unifying Theory of everything, though, we're kinda out on a limb. We've squeezed out almost as much as we can from the greatest scientific advances in human history, so we need a new brain on the scene to say "what if..."

I'd like to say String Theory has a chance at it, but I've got issues with a theory where you have to invent dimensions that you have absolutely no evidence for in order for your equations to sum up.

-Godeshus

I get your point but the big discoveries are still coming but like any big discovery takes a lot of time as peer review attempts to trash each one. The Human Genome project was a big one. Not a theortical discovery but a practical one yet one that had no prior example.

There are others but they are all still waiting for verification of whether they are false. For example there's at least 3 theories of time that they are trying to create experiments to prove false. The successor to the big bang theory has at least 2 competing ones of which i know. There is also wait for the LHC to show more particles to advance the fundamental science. Then of course theories on dark energy and at least 2 competing theories that dark energy is not needed. We can also do fusion now, not just fission but we cannot get the output to be more than the input

On the astro fields, the search is expanding for planets that could sustain life as our idea of what is a habitable zone is changed and often enlarged. On the bio fields, our definition of life took a big change with the discovery of vent bacteria.

Many fields, many advances. Its just not as popularised as Einstein and the general perception of science being too difficult and not rewarding monetary compared to being a banker.

[SpatFieya]

Godeshus wrote...

Mass Relays: Impossible.

Nothing can travel faster than light, with the sole exception of space itself. So we need loopholes.

The best lead so far is the Alcubierre Drive, Which warps space time in a bubble between point A and point b, contracting it in front of you and expanding it behind you. Like Space surfing. It's got a couple of flaws, though, not the least being the black hole you create where your space ship used to be before you hit the "ludicrous speed" button.

The good news is, though, that this black hole wouldn't have the mass to devour anything else. It would dissipate the instant it was created, so at least we could safely test it without dooming our stellar cluster.

This brings us to the next problem. The only way to create the amount of energy needed is by forcing a reaction between matter and anti-matter. Sounds cool, but how do you contain anti-matter, if it explodes with the energy of a supernova the instant it comes into contact with matter (ie. the test tube you're trying to hold it in)?

-godeshus

If FTL is impossible, than the universe in it's self is impossible.

[Godeshus]

SpatFieya wrote...

Godeshus wrote...

Mass Relays: Impossible.

Nothing can travel faster than light, with the sole exception of space itself. So we need loopholes.

The best lead so far is the Alcubierre Drive, Which warps space time in a bubble between point A and point b, contracting it in front of you and expanding it behind you. Like Space surfing. It's got a couple of flaws, though, not the least being the black hole you create where your space ship used to be before you hit the "ludicrous speed" button.

The good news is, though, that this black hole wouldn't have the mass to devour anything else. It would dissipate the instant it was created, so at least we could safely test it without dooming our stellar cluster.

This brings us to the next problem. The only way to create the amount of energy needed is by forcing a reaction between matter and anti-matter. Sounds cool, but how do you contain anti-matter, if it explodes with the energy of a supernova the instant it comes into contact with matter (ie. the test tube you're trying to hold it in)?

-godeshus

If FTL is impossible, than the universe in it's self is impossible.

This statement is wrong. Please explain?

-godeshus

[Fromyou]

if we find it when they did in ME universe then we'd be old or dead by the time that happens. and if we do find them i'd ****** myself and join the space navy or move to the citidel

[AdamBoozer]

Ah intersteller space travel. My favorite question. I was googleing something about an totally un related field when this thread caught my eye.



You see redo is just a slang for element zero or netronium a hypothetical matter thought to be created by neutron stars they have been using it in science fiction for ages. Mass effect had a unique perspective on it though. Running an eletrical current through it negative or positive will effect an objects mass. Is it possible? Yes, anything is of cource. Though it probably isn't going to be redo that does this given time us or some other intelegent life form will develop this in our reality or another.



Now how can we achieve this and live to see it? Well there are surprisingly a number of ways. Turns out most of what mass effect has, is based on our tech in a minor fashion. We have fusion, last year we successfully tested an quantum entanglement, most of it that is.



We could download a persons consciousness into a computer, then put this computer into a ship have self repairing robots with many redundancies you could travel the universe for all eternity. Much like the dealers except the dealers are many many souls.



Warp technology- not a fantasy but about 200 years off. We can mine antimatter from jupiters radiation belt after we figured out how to do that. Then we just take an equal amount of matter making controled explosions that could honestly destroy our moon several times over. Would work much like a car. Except on aastronomical scale with a good chance of your death..... that would handle power getting there you make a puncture in subspace activate the sunlight shoot through it make another puncture to exit. This is possible with enough power and a big enough magnetic field generator with inertial dampeners and such. This all might be over your head, that's okay this is the work of our worlds greatest minds don't feel bat. It is a culmination of hundreds of years of science.



Basically that last one was over kill. Traveling near speed of light then into subspace you actually would go faster then light. Which honestly people disagree on what will galen but the theory of relativity

[marshalleck]

 Puncturing space-time is a bad idea. Haven't you ever watched Event Horizon? 

[Naughty Bear]

Kill yourself and hope to respawn as human in the year 2500. Respawn as a tree? Tough ****.

[Talthanar]

reading this thread reminds me of the book Forever War. War starts in the late 70's ends in 3000 something due to time dilation and the like using various worm hole based space travel. one thing that still needs to be overcome (and didn't appear to be gone over in this thread) is while I'm traveling at speed X everyone else is still moving in real time. Sure I can traverse a huge distance in next to no time for me but for everyone else how many days/weeks/years have passed?

[StarGateGod]

Rodriguer2000 wrote...

 seems crazy but its the only way i see us traveling to distant planets lol real life mass relays

stargates are also possible good sir, and super gates for ships