Skip to comments.
Reaching for Interstellar Flight
space.com ^
| 12/17/03
| Leonard David
Posted on 12/18/2003 8:37:33 AM PST by KevinDavis
When Star Trek's U.S.S. Enterprise hit the television screen in 1966, the science fiction series had trouble finding its own space and time slot.
Decades later, a similar visionary zeal to seek new worlds and new civilizations is a factual enterprise for a new generation of galactic explorers. They are taking on spacetime and hoping to boldly go where no spacecraft has gone before -- out to far-flung stars and the planets that circle them.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; nasa; space; spaceexploration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-218 next last
To: staytrue
I'm harboring a (no-fact-based, irrational) hunch that the practical solution for leaving point A and arriving at point B without having to travel for a great deal of time at high sublight velocity will depend on finding a way to exit this sidereal universe and reenter it at the desired destination.
181
posted on
12/22/2003 10:02:15 AM PST
by
King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
To: Junior
yes, but is that not exactly what we all do to our progeny anyway?
182
posted on
12/22/2003 10:06:14 AM PST
by
King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
To: Junior
Aliens are not people in rubber suits. They are going to have their own (alien) motivations which we may never fathom.A recurring theme of Greg Benford's novels. "The thing about aliens is, they're alien!"
Indeed, if they are alien enough we may not be able to determine whether the critter in question is truly intelligent or simply a very sophisticated non-sentient animal.
That debate already rages with respect to human beings, and (preemptively) to A.I. systems.
To: Junior
It's either going to be FTL or we're going to have to develop some sort of suspended animation to get people to explore the stars.Actually, there is a form of near-suspended animation that's within our science, if not necessarily our present technology: It's called going very close to the speed of light. The energy demand would be a tad high, especially for the transgalactic trips, but you could theoretically have the trip take just a few years for the crew, but still last thousands of years from the perspective of everyone else. Still not my idea of an adventure, but some people might want to do it.
184
posted on
12/22/2003 11:48:00 AM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: King Prout
Not really. If your kid wanted to be a sailor or an archaeologist he could do that. If you're on an interstellar voyage, there isn't a lot of call for sailors or archaeologists. Your kid would have to be part of the crew whether he liked it or not. He'd never have the opportunity to do what he liked. Albeit, he may like being part of the crew, but there is no guarrantee that will be the case, in which case your kid will lead a miserable, unfulfilled existence and it will all be your fault.
185
posted on
12/22/2003 11:55:03 AM PST
by
Junior
(To sweep, perchance to clean... Aye, there's the scrub.)
To: Junior
your kid will lead a miserable, unfulfilled existence and it will all be your fault. You're making us feel guilt as parents for kids we haven't had for dragging them on a trip we haven't decided to make into the country that we don't know if we want to see anyway. What if the kid also wants to play trumpet and all we have aboard is violins? Double angst: get started now to eat out your own heart.
186
posted on
12/22/2003 12:02:35 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: RightWhale
"We will gradually expand outward in all directions as economic opportunity presents itself. Assuming we can get our ships to move at .1 c and that the population will increase to fill the volume, we will cross the galaxy in 1 million years and occupy every niche suitable for ourselves. Jumping to the next galaxy, M31 I suppose, will never happen. The techniques would be just engineering problems." You're still not answering me. At 0.1 c it would take over 40 years (a big chunk of a human lifetime) to reach Alpha Centauri. If the nearest solar system with an earth-like planet is 1000 LY away, that is 10,000 years at 0.1 c.
Humans cannot make the trip. Who or what will?
I gave you generation ships (evidently nope), sending frozen sperm and ova for reconstitution at destination (evidently nope too). So by what mechanism do you foresee humans filling the galaxy in one million years at 0.1 c, given the distances and reasonable estimates of human lifetimes? Hibernation? Dubious. So HOW, dammit?
--Boris
187
posted on
12/22/2003 12:07:17 PM PST
by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: boris
So HOW, dammit? Use any tech you want. Use all the tech if you want. Build entanglement transporter gates everywhere you go and then don't worry about trip time. So what if you don't survive a trip to Alpha Cent? You won't survive if you don't go either. I'll let somebody else dig out the list of possible techs from whichever symposium ran it out last time.
188
posted on
12/22/2003 12:14:03 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: RightWhale
Bubba, I just don't see multi-generational ships being feasible -- mostly for the human reasons I mentioned above (I'm not the only one who would raise such objections). However, there is also the difficulty of building a spacecraft that will have to operate away from homeport for centuries without so much as a comprehensive overhaul. And woe betide the crew that runs out of crucial spares...
189
posted on
12/22/2003 12:16:49 PM PST
by
Junior
(To sweep, perchance to clean... Aye, there's the scrub.)
To: inquest
"Actually, there is a form of near-suspended animation that's within our science, if not necessarily our present technology: It's called going very close to the speed of light. The energy demand would be a tad high, especially for the transgalactic trips, but you could theoretically have the trip take just a few years for the crew, but still last thousands of years from the perspective of everyone else. Still not my idea of an adventure, but some people might want to do it." Let us neglect relativistic effects for a moment.
It turns out that one "gee" (32.2 ft/s/s) is 1.032 light years/year/year. So if you accelerate at one "gee" for one year, you are pushing "c" and have traveled about half a light year. Consider one kilogram of mass so accelerated.
Its kinetic energy (neglecting relativistic effects!) is 4.89x1017 joules. A year is roughly pi times 107 seconds, so you need about 1500 megawatts, running full-tilt for a year to push your kilogram. To account for losses, let's call it 2000 MW.
The problem is now: I have a kilogram. I plan that some of it should be payload. So my power plant--assuming I am going to take it with me--must weigh much less than a kilogram and occupy a small volume. I'll say 100 grams and a few cubic centimeters.
This is equivalent to taking two 1000 megawatt nuclear generating stations and compressing them into the mass and volume of a few sugar cubes.
Or perhaps shoving the Sun into the Rose Bowl.
Scale your kilogram/sugar cubes up until you hit "Enterprise."
So. At present, and for the foreseeable future, human beings are too puny/ignorant/whatever--to perform such an engineering feat. Indeed, the mind dispairs when trying to imagine how it might be done. At least mine does.
190
posted on
12/22/2003 12:17:44 PM PST
by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: RightWhale
"Use any tech you want. Use all the tech if you want. Build entanglement transporter gates everywhere you go and then don't worry about trip time. So what if you don't survive a trip to Alpha Cent? You won't survive if you don't go either. I'll let somebody else dig out the list of possible techs from whichever symposium ran it out last time." This strikes me a circular reasoning/begging the question. You blithely assume some magical technology will make it happen and then "the rest is left as an exercise for the student."
Makes me recall that cartoon: "...then a miracle occurs..."
--Boris
191
posted on
12/22/2003 12:20:05 PM PST
by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: Junior
Right. I don't see it happening that way. First, there is no hotel with fresh sheets waiting at the destination. Second, the undertaking would be so huge that it would take the entire world product for several years to assemble the expedition. Third, the planet would have to certifiable to believe there could be any positive result from this, not to mention ever hearing from the expedition again.
We'll reach the nearest stars okay, and possibly get deep into the galaxy. Most likely it will be by a process of economic expansion, moving outward stone by stone until the stones are so distant they aren't from the solar system, but from the next star system, then we'll work our way in toward that star.
192
posted on
12/22/2003 12:23:13 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: inquest
The energy demand would be a tad high, especially for the transgalactic trips, but you could theoretically have the trip take just a few years for the crew, but still last thousands of years from the perspective of everyone else. Still not my idea of an adventure, but some people might want to do it. Assuming the engineering problems can get worked out, that's the way it will be done. From the passengers' viewpoint, so what if the trip takes a few years? Captain Cook's voyages took that long, and the English navy always had people willing to go (well, some seamen had to be coerced). The only problem then -- the biggest problem -- is economics. Who would pay the enormous cost for what is essentially a one-way voyage on a one-time-only starship? If it were a round-trip, then how does it work out for you economically if you come "home" several centuries after you left?
193
posted on
12/22/2003 12:25:08 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: boris
Right. I don't see the need to travel to the next star. So I am not going to worry about the tech that makes it possible, nor am I going to worry about the psychic health of those intrepid settlers. The moon is enough for now, although I would, as I mentioned, volunteer to go to Deimos to set up the base for eventual Mars settlers.
194
posted on
12/22/2003 12:25:45 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: PatrickHenry
If it were a round-trip One thing about space exploration. We have to get past the concept of round-trip. If we're going into space, we're going and not coming back. No more of this Apollo kiss and run.
195
posted on
12/22/2003 12:28:02 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: RightWhale
The moon is enough for now ... Speak for yourself. For me: The moon is not enough!
196
posted on
12/22/2003 12:29:05 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: PatrickHenry
The moon is not enough! Santa might bring the moon. Santa might even bring Mars. Won't hurt to ask for some stars while we are on the subject, although where are you going to store them?
197
posted on
12/22/2003 12:41:16 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: PatrickHenry
"Assuming the engineering problems can get worked out, that's the way it will be done." See my response at #190. For fun, add relativistic effects and see how truly awful those 'engineering problems' become.
--Boris
198
posted on
12/22/2003 12:52:15 PM PST
by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: KevinDavis
Put me on the space ping list, please.
199
posted on
12/22/2003 12:56:17 PM PST
by
citizen
(Write-in Tom Tancredo President 2004!)
To: boris; PatrickHenry
In addition to his main point, boris also brought up a valid point that I hadn't thought of: Gravity.
As he pointed out, 1g= ~1 ly/yr/yr. If I'm not mistaken, to get to a speed where it appears for the crew that they're going 1000c (1000 ly/yr), the energy requirement would be roughly the same as for going that apparent speed using Newtonian calculations. In addition to the fact that finding such an energy source would be quite a challenge (perhaps if there's some way to convert interstellar hydrogen to antimatter and then let 'er rip?), the acceleration from the crew's perspective would either have to be 1g for 1000 years, or 1000g for one year, or something in between. So some form of artificial gravity would have to be discovered in order to compensate for that - which of course our science has yet to give us any clue as to how to do.
200
posted on
12/22/2003 2:04:56 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-218 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson