User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 1:51:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could push it with a laser powered by solar cells somewhere around the orbit of Mercury maybe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soooo Massive solar cells and ion-propulsion? If I recall right the thrust output is very weak at best, but it's steady and constant, soooo with time you would be getting up to serious speeds, at which point you most also ask the question, what about navigation at those speeds to avoid objects? Or small objects, you know say the size of a pebble, striking the ship at those speeds would be worse than a bullet wouldn't it? You could push it with a laser powered by solar cells somewhere around the orbit of Mercury maybe. dust, especially from Ort cloud will deminish the output. interstellar winds will push it significantly and unpredictably off course. particle physics research, finding and manipulating the particle responsible for gravity is the key. without breaking the chain of gravity brute force attempts will be futile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 1:58:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could push it with a laser powered by solar cells somewhere around the orbit of Mercury maybe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Soooo Massive solar cells and ion-propulsion? If I recall right the thrust output is very weak at best, but it's steady and constant, soooo with time you would be getting up to serious speeds, at which point you most also ask the question, what about navigation at those speeds to avoid objects? Or small objects, you know say the size of a pebble, striking the ship at those speeds would be worse than a bullet wouldn't it? You could push it with a laser powered by solar cells somewhere around the orbit of Mercury maybe. And solar cells don't produce much energy per unit mass. To impart initial booster velocity, lasers would be useful, but you need something to add velocity along the way and to slow you down when you get there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:40:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, can't wait to learn more. But as a species, we are not yet mature enough to expand into other solar systems. Maybe in a hundred years, but I doubt it. Hopefully by the time we can get there, we'll be mature enough to no longer be fighting one another over piddly shit. Because as it stands, if we start to colonize other worlds, there will be all sorts of stupid, pointless wars. Lol. 100 years? Humans have been fighting violent wars for what? 6,000 years? It will never end. It is human nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#4]
It is a dumb planet anyway. But VERY cool that they detected around an M Class Dwarf.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:44:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would love for us to find out, but I suspect we would not find anything. I believe earth is a bit of a anomaly in its habitability. More likely to find a Mars or a Venus or a gas giant. I am a big believer that our space program needs a giant kick in the ass though to get us the know how to get us off this rock. Would love to see 20 percent of the military budget allocated towards that goal. Do you have any idea how many planets are out there? Earth being the only habitable one would be one HELL of a statistical anomaly. I mean, Hubble focused on a black "empty" part of the sky for a few weeks, and discovered what? 10,000 GALAXIES? Not solar systems. Galaxies. As in Milky Way, which has 100-400 BILLION stars? I don't think people can comprehend how small Earth really is. And how far other stars really are. Which is why we will NEVER be able to reach another solar system, let along another galaxy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:50:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know there are those in the science fields who will disagree with me, but I feel as if we have been "on hold" with regards to exploration. I'm not talking probes and robots. I'm talking humans going and exploring and seeing what's "out there". Frustrating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When do we go? I got nothing better to do, send me to take a look and report back. You would need to engineer a ship that could sustain around 1G of acceleration and eventually reach a fraction of the speed of light. I know. Still volunteering. But I'll probably be dead before they get around to it, so it's a moot point regardless. We've had the technology to get there in a human lifespan since the 60's but making muslims feel good about themselves was more important. I know there are those in the science fields who will disagree with me, but I feel as if we have been "on hold" with regards to exploration. I'm not talking probes and robots. I'm talking humans going and exploring and seeing what's "out there". Frustrating. Go where though? There is nothing on the moon worth going back for and before we can send folk to mars the problem of protecting a crew from solar radiation needs to be solved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:51:54 PM EDT
[#7]
sweet! when do we leave?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:52:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's go kill them. That's the only reasonable course of action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:01:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Does that mean 11 days is a year there?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:36:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Go where though? There is nothing on the moon worth going back for and before we can send folk to mars the problem of protecting a crew from solar radiation needs to be solved. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snippages> We've had the technology to get there in a human lifespan since the 60's but making muslims feel good about themselves was more important. I know there are those in the science fields who will disagree with me, but I feel as if we have been "on hold" with regards to exploration. I'm not talking probes and robots. I'm talking humans going and exploring and seeing what's "out there". Frustrating. Go where though? There is nothing on the moon worth going back for and before we can send folk to mars the problem of protecting a crew from solar radiation needs to be solved. I'm not up-to-date on radiation protection, so I won't comment on that. Where? Out there. The moon. The asteroid belt. Mars. The outer solar system. Humans need to be exploring. Even if there is risk involved. Nothing on the moon worth going back for? Just a few off the top of my head... Getting our eggs out of one basket. Helium 3. Abundant on the moon, not so much here. If we reach nuclear fusion, He-3 will be in high demand. Sooner than that, it is increasingly being looked at for medical applications, and right now is not so easy to manufacture and use on Earth. Research on the moon could advance its application in medicine and possibly other fields. Practical experience in design and construction of structures and mining in low-g conditions with extremes of heat/ cold and near vacuum/ minimal atmosphere. Living and working in those same conditions. Knowledge and skills necessary for long-term habitation of Mars and asteroids. Learn it on the moon before going to Mars or the asteroids. Research and development of manufacturing techniques to use lunar materials for the construction of ship parts. Materials produced wholly or in part on the moon or in lunar orbit would require significantly less fuel compared to boosting off Earth. Research. Lower-gravity experiments, radio and optical observatories free of the clutter of Earth's atmosphere, etc... IMHO and YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:44:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Why would we send humans anywhere. Soon, you won't even be able to find any humans making burgers at a fast food restaurant - just robots. Robots don't need sleep, atmosphere, food, poop and pee reclimation, entertainment, gravity, and can be put to sleep for years or decades at a time.
We couldn't send a rat to Mars and bring it back without terminal cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:06:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We started out in the center of the universe.....Now we are an inconsequential grain of sand in the universe. Science consistently points to us being not special or unique? I guess it is kinda telling how silent the universe is though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny how someone can "conclude' that a planet or star may possibly be "inhabitable" when they can't really see it. You know, being that it is so fucking far away. Explain to me how they see a star with such clarity from thousands of miles away, let alone lightyears? Second, by "possibly habitable" it means it is within the habitable zone of the star. In our own solar system mars and Venus would be considered "Possibly habitable" planets if they were discovered by this means. Not because anyone would know what their surface conditions are like, but because they are about the right distance from the sun. That's all the words "possibly habitable" mean. Said another way: "Possibly habitable" means that it is possible that the planets are not hellish nightmares instantly deadly to complex like as we know it.
We started out in the center of the universe.....Now we are an inconsequential grain of sand in the universe. Science consistently points to us being not special or unique? I guess it is kinda telling how silent the universe is though. Not it isn't. Not even in the slightest. SNR > all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:22:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying we can all get along, peace-love-happiness hippie bullshit. There will always be competition. But we could stand to settle territorial disputes a hell of a lot easier with much less mess than we do right now. Thousands of soldiers dying, billions spent in munitions... It's huge waste. As I stated earlier, fighting is expensive. Even when you offset that cost by gaining new resources, we've been rebuilding the fucking nations we spent billions of dollars destroying. And if you don't take the resources, why the hell fight over them? It's fucking stupid. People keep missing what I've said; I was very clear. Fighting is expensive. Long, drawn-out war is very, very costly. Not just in the lives and the money, but in the loss of military strength and economic power. Simply destroying an enemy is far faster, and cheaper. Especially if we don't spend ten years helping them rebuild. If we ever have to fight, we should gut them, take everything they have, and stop trying to take the moral "high road" on the world stage. Let me make this very fucking clear; Killing is easy. Fighting is hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you miss he point doesn't mean the other guy does. That's true enough, but I suppose I should clarify my point. I don't believe in waging war; fighting is expensive. If we are attacked, we should not fight our enemy, we should destroy them with extreme prejudice, and do so in the cheapest, fastest, most efficient way possible. ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban? We should have fucking nuked all of them, not dropped boots on the ground to look for them. We were not, and are not equipped to fight a guerrilla war in a foreign country. If it were up to me, I would've left Iran and Iraq with a very simple ultimatum; shut the hell up, stop fighting each other, and keep the extremists in line, or I will turn Tehran, Baghdad, and every military base you have into fucking glass. But, I'm an asshole. 
But gaining priority access to resources is profitable. That is frequently done through wars. If we take the utopian unicorn golden path, our adversaries will be the ones waging, winning and gaining priority access. This is basic human nature, proven time and again throughout millenia. You sound naive, with all due respect. I'm not saying we can all get along, peace-love-happiness hippie bullshit. There will always be competition. But we could stand to settle territorial disputes a hell of a lot easier with much less mess than we do right now. Thousands of soldiers dying, billions spent in munitions... It's huge waste. As I stated earlier, fighting is expensive. Even when you offset that cost by gaining new resources, we've been rebuilding the fucking nations we spent billions of dollars destroying. And if you don't take the resources, why the hell fight over them? It's fucking stupid. People keep missing what I've said; I was very clear. Fighting is expensive. Long, drawn-out war is very, very costly. Not just in the lives and the money, but in the loss of military strength and economic power. Simply destroying an enemy is far faster, and cheaper. Especially if we don't spend ten years helping them rebuild. If we ever have to fight, we should gut them, take everything they have, and stop trying to take the moral "high road" on the world stage. Let me make this very fucking clear; Killing is easy. Fighting is hard. All of the greatest leaps in technology, across all aspects and sciences, have always come from conflict. It is simply survival of the fittest at a grand scale. If there is no need for war, there is no need to rapidly develop technology across the board; as lives aren't on the line. War is needed to keep us developing and progressing as a species. The Shadows had it right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:25:24 PM EDT
[#14]
What I've heard about nukes is that they aren't that effective... .m.ore effective as deterrent than practical from a military perspective... As far as aliens, meh they arent gonna find any cause we were created... I won't rule it out b ut I doubt highly we gonna find alien life before the second coming...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:27:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I've heard about nukes is that they aren't that effective... .m.ore effective as deterrent than practical from a military perspective... As far as aliens, meh they arent gonna find any cause we were created... I won't rule it out b ut I doubt highly we gonna find alien life before the second coming... Maybe. But it seems a little overkill to me to create so many hundreds of millions of galaxies and uncountable billions of stars for just us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:31:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I've heard about nukes is that they aren't that effective... .m.ore effective as deterrent than practical from a military perspective... As far as aliens, meh they arent gonna find any cause we were created... I won't rule it out b ut I doubt highly we gonna find alien life before the second coming... There is absolutely no reason to go around the universe looking for fights.....Looking for friends sure. The resources needed to go out looking for a fist fight are stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:42:47 PM EDT
[#17]
We should give nasa a billion dollars to research this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:47:30 PM EDT
[#18]
LDS believe there are inhabited worlds without number, so we are way ahead of you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:57:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, can't wait to learn more. But as a species, we are not yet mature enough to expand into other solar systems. Maybe in a hundred years, but I doubt it. Hopefully by the time we can get there, we'll be mature enough to no longer be fighting one another over piddly shit. Because as it stands, if we start to colonize other worlds, there will be all sorts of stupid, pointless wars. The human race isn't going to change in 100 years. That's one lifetime these days. Environment and necessity are the only reason you'll see people change for good or bad. If we HAD to leave the planet to save ourselves I think we would then become who we had to for survival. It's our strongest instinct and I'm sure we've done some amazing things in our ancient history on our trip from the primordial ooze. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 5:01:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LDS believe there are inhabited worlds without number, so we are way ahead of you. i really appreciated that LDS planetary stuff was a key structural point in the sci-fi show/novels 'the expanse'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 5:05:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then it would be coasting to a star 4.2 light years away. And solar cells don't produce much energy per unit mass. To impart initial booster velocity, lasers would be useful, but you need something to add velocity along the way and to slow you down when you get there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soooo Massive solar cells and ion-propulsion? If I recall right the thrust output is very weak at best, but it's steady and constant, soooo with time you would be getting up to serious speeds, at which point you most also ask the question, what about navigation at those speeds to avoid objects? Or small objects, you know say the size of a pebble, striking the ship at those speeds would be worse than a bullet wouldn't it? You could push it with a laser powered by solar cells somewhere around the orbit of Mercury maybe. And solar cells don't produce much energy per unit mass. To impart initial booster velocity, lasers would be useful, but you need something to add velocity along the way and to slow you down when you get there. There are designs out that would allow it to decelerate using the same laser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 5:21:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The highlighted part doesn't make sense. It's a planet, not a county. Imagine the Earth with no people on it and somebody lands there to colonize it. Another group of people also want to colonize it. The first group wants North America. No problem, enjoy it. We'll take Asia. Send over a nuclear space buggy when you're ready. We'll trade you some egg rolls for some cheeseburgers. Suppose that humanity ignores your severely flawed reasoning (Both world wars started for reasons that go back several decades.) The Chinese colony in North America attacks the U.S. colony in Asia. You also forget that China and the United States are on the same home planet and, "What are you going to do about it?" has many different answers. Not trying to make a perfect metaphor. My point is that in the beginning like that, said colonies would be vulnerable; and it would take quite some time for us on earth to even find out if it was attacked. By the time we learn of it, for all we know, it was a freak accident or aliens. By the time we can get another ship out there, the enemy's new colony has had time to set up and dig in, since they would likely expect retaliation. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time someone screwed with us simply because they thought they could get away with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:13:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe. But it seems a little overkill to me to create so many hundreds of millions of galaxies and uncountable billions of stars for just us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I've heard about nukes is that they aren't that effective... .m.ore effective as deterrent than practical from a military perspective... As far as aliens, meh they arent gonna find any cause we were created... I won't rule it out b ut I doubt highly we gonna find alien life before the second coming... Maybe. But it seems a little overkill to me to create so many hundreds of millions of galaxies and uncountable billions of stars for just us. That's the point. Human s are u unique. We are uniquely positioned to see everything an d given brain that comprehends all this stuff... Fermi paradox etc.... While I dont feel aliens and Christianity are mutually exclusive I just don't see aliens being "Discovered"... Also, I feel current science is way too aethistic... Like how can they be objective if they v vehemently deny any possibility? Prob an old question but I dont know the answer |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:26:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because soldiers go off to die on the orders of politicians, who have no skin in the game. America colonizes a new world; China bombs our colonies and starts their own. Why? Because they want to own the new world themselves, and they believe they can get away with it. We can't project our entire military might all the way out there, nor can we learn of it fast enough to react and save them. Many wars have been fought over pointless bullshit. Hitler started WW2; Japan bombed Pearl Harbor; Serbian assassins murdered the Archduke of Austria and kicked off the Great War. I don't place the blame on those who fought back. I blame the assholes who provoked others. War is inefficient. It is the worst possible diplomatic tool at our disposal, and has historically been the choice of short-sighted fools. None of that is pointless bullshit. Options for getting what you want are talk or war. When talk doesn't work, then you decide on going to war or not. Japan's mistake at Pearl Harbor was in starting a war they couldn't win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:30:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not trying to make a perfect metaphor. My point is that in the beginning like that, said colonies would be vulnerable; and it would take quite some time for us on earth to even find out if it was attacked. By the time we learn of it, for all we know, it was a freak accident or aliens. By the time we can get another ship out there, the enemy's new colony has had time to set up and dig in, since they would likely expect retaliation. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time someone screwed with us simply because they thought they could get away with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The highlighted part doesn't make sense. It's a planet, not a county. Imagine the Earth with no people on it and somebody lands there to colonize it. Another group of people also want to colonize it. The first group wants North America. No problem, enjoy it. We'll take Asia. Send over a nuclear space buggy when you're ready. We'll trade you some egg rolls for some cheeseburgers. Suppose that humanity ignores your severely flawed reasoning (Both world wars started for reasons that go back several decades.) The Chinese colony in North America attacks the U.S. colony in Asia. You also forget that China and the United States are on the same home planet and, "What are you going to do about it?" has many different answers. Not trying to make a perfect metaphor. My point is that in the beginning like that, said colonies would be vulnerable; and it would take quite some time for us on earth to even find out if it was attacked. By the time we learn of it, for all we know, it was a freak accident or aliens. By the time we can get another ship out there, the enemy's new colony has had time to set up and dig in, since they would likely expect retaliation. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time someone screwed with us simply because they thought they could get away with it. The earliest English colony in North America was lost, and all the early colonies were under Spanish threat. That said, the US has a tech advantage that it could exploit. There is an advantage to getting there first. I think the US should take full advantage of its tech lead in space . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 7:43:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Double
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 7:45:02 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of that is pointless bullshit. Options for getting what you want are talk or war. When talk doesn't work, then you decide on going to war or not. Japan's mistake at Pearl Harbor was in starting a war they couldn't win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because soldiers go off to die on the orders of politicians, who have no skin in the game. America colonizes a new world; China bombs our colonies and starts their own. Why? Because they want to own the new world themselves, and they believe they can get away with it. We can't project our entire military might all the way out there, nor can we learn of it fast enough to react and save them. Many wars have been fought over pointless bullshit. Hitler started WW2; Japan bombed Pearl Harbor; Serbian assassins murdered the Archduke of Austria and kicked off the Great War. I don't place the blame on those who fought back. I blame the assholes who provoked others. War is inefficient. It is the worst possible diplomatic tool at our disposal, and has historically been the choice of short-sighted fools. None of that is pointless bullshit. Options for getting what you want are talk or war. When talk doesn't work, then you decide on going to war or not. Japan's mistake at Pearl Harbor was in starting a war they couldn't win. Japan was not sure if they could win, but they also believed we would eventually go to war due to their expansion and our competing interests.if they destroyed the whole of the pacific fleet it would have sent us back years. They saw the attack as a necessity.. Imo they would have been better off letting us have most of the important islands in the pacific and become allies (prob would have also needed to halt/reverse their expansion into southern China and India due to British interests. But without Pearl Harbor to polarize the public we may not have gone to war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 7:45:58 AM EDT
[#28]
So what info was released about this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 7:54:40 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First we must send a probe. We should call it Friendship 1. Or V'ger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 9:25:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 9:46:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 10:24:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the point. Human s are u unique. We are uniquely positioned to see everything an d given brain that comprehends all this stuff... Fermi paradox etc.... While I dont feel aliens and Christianity are mutually exclusive I just don't see aliens being "Discovered"... Also, I feel current science is way too aethistic... Like how can they be objective if they v vehemently deny any possibility? Prob an old question but I dont know the answer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I've heard about nukes is that they aren't that effective... .m.ore effective as deterrent than practical from a military perspective... As far as aliens, meh they arent gonna find any cause we were created... I won't rule it out b ut I doubt highly we gonna find alien life before the second coming... Maybe. But it seems a little overkill to me to create so many hundreds of millions of galaxies and uncountable billions of stars for just us. That's the point. Human s are u unique. We are uniquely positioned to see everything an d given brain that comprehends all this stuff... Fermi paradox etc.... While I dont feel aliens and Christianity are mutually exclusive I just don't see aliens being "Discovered"... Also, I feel current science is way too aethistic... Like how can they be objective if they v vehemently deny any possibility? Prob an old question but I dont know the answer There is no Fermi "Paradox." It's only a paradox to people that don't understand SNR or orders of magnitude. Nothing but schlock pseudo-science. Science is atheistic...wtf? Theism vs Atheism has literally zero to do with the scientific process or science et all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 11:01:18 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... Well, both Venus and Mars are potentially terraformable, so maybe this planet will be too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 11:02:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, both Venus and Mars are potentially terraformable, so maybe this planet will be too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... Well, both Venus and Mars are potentially terraformable, so maybe this planet will be too. We just need a GECK and someone willing to pay the shipping... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 11:06:06 AM EDT
[#35]
We could always resurrect the Project Daedalus idea
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 11:10:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not answering for Molotov, but Project Orion wasn't the only nuclear propulsion tech proposed. We actually tested nuclear powered rockets in the 60s. Project NERVA. This is a 24 minute video.  http://youtu.be/vs3zNwXhzSA
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What technology is that? I imagine he's talking about Project Orion I was thinking about the same thing, but sending a probe instead of a crew. ETA This isn't pie in the sky, this is actually doable if the political will was there. International effort to help defray costs. Not answering for Molotov, but Project Orion wasn't the only nuclear propulsion tech proposed. We actually tested nuclear powered rockets in the 60s. Project NERVA. This is a 24 minute video. http://youtu.be/vs3zNwXhzSA
Wasn't some of the problems with this technology that fact that you could potentially kill every life form you met along the way with Gamma radiation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 11:51:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't some of the problems with this technology that fact that you could potentially kill every life form you met along the way with Gamma radiation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What technology is that? I imagine he's talking about Project Orion I was thinking about the same thing, but sending a probe instead of a crew. ETA This isn't pie in the sky, this is actually doable if the political will was there. International effort to help defray costs. Not answering for Molotov, but Project Orion wasn't the only nuclear propulsion tech proposed. We actually tested nuclear powered rockets in the 60s. Project NERVA. This is a 24 minute video. http://youtu.be/vs3zNwXhzSA
Wasn't some of the problems with this technology that fact that you could potentially kill every life form you met along the way with Gamma radiation? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 5:18:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the problem; if/when Humanity gets off this rock and starts sending people to other worlds, then who gets to go? Do we go find John Glenns and Alan Shepards or do we pick a diverse group of affirmative action candidates, feminazis, gays, muslim outreach candidates, econuts and sissy boys? Are we going to spread our strength by choosing our best, brightest, strongest winners, or are we going to spread our feels? If it is the former then I say go for it. If it is the later, then I hope the Chinese and Russkies beat us to it. America needs to nut the fuck up before we start trying to spread out. We should do what Mexico does with illegals and send the "best and brightest" into space as fast as we can. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 5:20:30 PM EDT
[#39]
JWST should be able to see planets, up close and personal, when it's launched.
So maybe, we could get a good look at this planet in a few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 8:02:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. Thus, it isn't a stretch to say that. "Possibly habitable" is very different from "most likely instantly deadly to life as we know it". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 12:40:09 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They said "possibly habitable". Thus, it isn't a stretch to say that. "Possibly habitable" is very different from "most likely instantly deadly to life as we know it". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. Thus, it isn't a stretch to say that. "Possibly habitable" is very different from "most likely instantly deadly to life as we know it". Though the latter is probably more probable, the former is indeed possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:09:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what info was released about this? They confirmed an earth mass planet in the habitable zone around Proxima. No information beyond that is known at this point. Typically they release more data than that. I don't recall even seeing a link on it here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:11:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. 100 years? Humans have been fighting violent wars for what? 6,000 years? It will never end. It is human nature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting, can't wait to learn more. But as a species, we are not yet mature enough to expand into other solar systems. Maybe in a hundred years, but I doubt it. Hopefully by the time we can get there, we'll be mature enough to no longer be fighting one another over piddly shit. Because as it stands, if we start to colonize other worlds, there will be all sorts of stupid, pointless wars. Lol. 100 years? Humans have been fighting violent wars for what? 6,000 years? It will never end. It is human nature. Exactly how I feel. Mankind isn't advanced enough or mature enough and will never leave this rock |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:15:55 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly how I feel. Mankind isn't advanced enough or mature enough and will never leave this rock I don't share your pessimism. We have a lot of problems, but they're not insurmountable. Taking that next step into space as a civilization may actually act as a galvanizing moment for us. Growing into the role basically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:19:44 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any idea how many planets are out there? Earth being the only habitable one would be one HELL of a statistical anomaly. I mean, Hubble focused on a black "empty" part of the sky for a few weeks, and discovered what? 10,000 GALAXIES? Not solar systems. Galaxies. As in Milky Way, which has 100-400 BILLION stars? I don't think people can comprehend how small Earth really is. And how far other stars really are. Which is why we will NEVER be able to reach another solar system, let along another galaxy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Would love for us to find out, but I suspect we would not find anything. I believe earth is a bit of a anomaly in its habitability. More likely to find a Mars or a Venus or a gas giant. I am a big believer that our space program needs a giant kick in the ass though to get us the know how to get us off this rock. Would love to see 20 percent of the military budget allocated towards that goal. Do you have any idea how many planets are out there? Earth being the only habitable one would be one HELL of a statistical anomaly. I mean, Hubble focused on a black "empty" part of the sky for a few weeks, and discovered what? 10,000 GALAXIES? Not solar systems. Galaxies. As in Milky Way, which has 100-400 BILLION stars? I don't think people can comprehend how small Earth really is. And how far other stars really are. Which is why we will NEVER be able to reach another solar system, let along another galaxy. The biggest piece of evidence that faster than light travel is impossible is the lack of anyone showing up and the lack of intelligent noise in the universe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:48:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest piece of evidence that faster than light travel is impossible is the lack of anyone showing up and the lack of intelligent noise in the universe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would love for us to find out, but I suspect we would not find anything. I believe earth is a bit of a anomaly in its habitability. More likely to find a Mars or a Venus or a gas giant. I am a big believer that our space program needs a giant kick in the ass though to get us the know how to get us off this rock. Would love to see 20 percent of the military budget allocated towards that goal. Do you have any idea how many planets are out there? Earth being the only habitable one would be one HELL of a statistical anomaly. I mean, Hubble focused on a black "empty" part of the sky for a few weeks, and discovered what? 10,000 GALAXIES? Not solar systems. Galaxies. As in Milky Way, which has 100-400 BILLION stars? I don't think people can comprehend how small Earth really is. And how far other stars really are. Which is why we will NEVER be able to reach another solar system, let along another galaxy. The biggest piece of evidence that faster than light travel is impossible is the lack of anyone showing up and the lack of intelligent noise in the universe. Given the immensity of the universe, it'd be a miracle if they found us (or that they exist as a spacefaring species during the cosmic eyeblink of time in which we have been even vaguely interesting... and that assumes that practical interstellar travel is even possible). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 1:57:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't wait to oppress them. [/whitey]  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 7:12:16 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Though the latter is probably more probable, the former is indeed possible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Still a long stretch to say "habitable"... From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. Thus, it isn't a stretch to say that. "Possibly habitable" is very different from "most likely instantly deadly to life as we know it". Though the latter is probably more probable, the former is indeed possible. In our own solar system, the former is true of 2 of 3 planets in the habitable zone. There are some places on mars that we could send simple earth life, and while it wouldn't survive long term (in terms of finding energy and continuing to metabolize, grow, and reproduce), also would not die right away. Slight changes in conditions might even enable it to survive. Also, there was a time in Mars' past where there was more water on the surface and they would have had a better chance of not dying. No one is saying this place is probably habitable. Just possibly habitable. Even if it were a place like mars and few, if any earth organisms could survive there, that would be a hell of a lot closer to an earth like planet than if it were a place like Jupiter or Mercury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2016 7:44:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In our own solar system, the former is true of 2 of 3 planets in the habitable zone. There are some places on mars that we could send simple earth life, and while it wouldn't survive long term (in terms of finding energy and continuing to metabolize, grow, and reproduce), also would not die right away. Slight changes in conditions might even enable it to survive. Also, there was a time in Mars' past where there was more water on the surface and they would have had a better chance of not dying. No one is saying this place is probably habitable. Just possibly habitable. Even if it were a place like mars and few, if any earth organisms could survive there, that would be a hell of a lot closer to an earth like planet than if it were a place like Jupiter or Mercury. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still a long stretch to say "habitable"...
From Proxima Centauri, both Venus and Mars would fit the criteria and neither is much of a vacation spot. What we (probably, maybe) know: - rocky - not supermassive - maybe in the right temperature range And that's about it. Thus, it isn't a stretch to say that. "Possibly habitable" is very different from "most likely instantly deadly to life as we know it". Though the latter is probably more probable, the former is indeed possible. In our own solar system, the former is true of 2 of 3 planets in the habitable zone. There are some places on mars that we could send simple earth life, and while it wouldn't survive long term (in terms of finding energy and continuing to metabolize, grow, and reproduce), also would not die right away. Slight changes in conditions might even enable it to survive. Also, there was a time in Mars' past where there was more water on the surface and they would have had a better chance of not dying. No one is saying this place is probably habitable. Just possibly habitable. Even if it were a place like mars and few, if any earth organisms could survive there, that would be a hell of a lot closer to an earth like planet than if it were a place like Jupiter or Mercury. From what I recall there is a theory and some atmospheric evidence that Venus had water oceans on its surface in the distant past and a friendlier climate. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
