posted
Yes I know, There are no Vulcans to come to us and help improve our technology, but we have a bunch of information, why don't we use it? We don't need to wait for WW3 to come to use..
I just want to see a human made spaceship going at warp3 in my life time,
[ February 23, 2002, 16:43: Message edited by: The Apocalypse ]
-------------------- "Tragedy is when I cut my finger, Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."-Mel Brooks
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Reasons why there will be no warpship in our life times;
1) no SIF - Human Soup anyone? ; 2) no IDF (can't remember what these do - too tired); 3) no deflector shields - see the "Enterprise in wind tunnel" thread; 4) no matter; 5) no anti-matter; 6) while we may have the resources, no government will be willing to use so much on such a project; 7) no money; 8) warp drive is still a theory; 9) we lack the technology - I mean come on! We've only managed to get a space station in orbit and; 10) it doesn't even have artificial gravity 11) the crew would die/become infertile from radiation exposure and/or weakening of bones due to lack of gravity 12) no phasers - only an idiot would venture past our solar system without a means of defence.
Wow, a dozen reasons . . . not bad for 1:30 in the morning! Sorry The Apocalypse, as much as I'd also like to see a warpship in my lifetime - sadly it ain't gonna happen.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
SIF- Sructural Integrity Field: fields that hold a vessel together against the stresses of sublight/FTL travel. IDF- Inertial Dampening Fields: Counteractive fields that cancel out propulsive momentum and gravitational forces exerted on a vessel during spaceflight. Matter- Hydrogen: We have tons of this fuel and it is replenishable!
-------------------- Fry- How will we get out of this? George Takei's head- Maybe we can use some kind of auto-destruct code like one-A, two-B, three-C... (Bender's head blows up) Bender- Now everybody knows! -Futurama's obligatory Star Trek episode
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: Ponders the issue for a while . . .
Reasons why there will be no warpship in our life times;
1) no SIF - Human Soup anyone? ; 2) no IDF (can't remember what these do - too tired); 3) no deflector shields - see the "Enterprise in wind tunnel" thread; 4) no matter; 5) no anti-matter; 6) while we may have the resources, no government will be willing to use so much on such a project; 7) no money; 8) warp drive is still a theory; 9) we lack the technology - I mean come on! We've only managed to get a space station in orbit and; 10) it doesn't even have artificial gravity 11) the crew would die/become infertile from radiation exposure and/or weakening of bones due to lack of gravity 12) no phasers - only an idiot would venture past our solar system without a means of defence.
Wow, a dozen reasons . . . not bad for 1:30 in the morning! Sorry The Apocalypse, as much as I'd also like to see a warpship in my lifetime - sadly it ain't gonna happen.
1. Well, if FTL would actually work like that. Which it wouldn't. 2. Ditto. 3. Ditto. 4. Actually, it's all over the place. 5. Not 'no'. Too few, and whether M/AM is a viable power source is still up in the air. 6. Yup. 7. Yup. 8. Less than a theory. There are quite a few theories out there about FTL travel, and even the most similar has some rather noticable differences. 9. We have managed to get to the moon. And we've been putting space stations in orbit for over thirty years now. There's nothing technologically keeping us from Mars, or even further in the solar system. But yes, FTL is still beyond our technology. 10. Again, not for technological reasons. When you think artificial gravity, don't think "Star Trek"; think "2001: A Space Odyssey". Spin the mother and you got AG. Not impossible. 11. No infertility from zero g. From radiation? Not really. Proper shielding isn't that hard. And we already talked about AG. 12. By the time we got out there, we would have a pretty good idea about the population of the immediate vicinity. We already know about the immediate neighborhood, since none of the nearby stars can support Earth like planets. And besides, space is big. Like really fucking big. No, bigger than that.
But hey, it's not even 12 yet here. It won't happen in our lifetimes, unless we live to be 200 or so (not out of the realm of possibility). But it will be because we still lack the sufficient understanding of physics and wield the proper engineering skill.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Um I was reading cnn.com's space section and there was an article saying that NASA or someone found that antimatter mihgt save hundreds of dollars for spacetravel. So I guess, um, the use of antimatter for spacetravel is near?
posted
Well, there are some problems with using AM.
First, with our current level of technology, we can't even generate a gram of that stuff if we just left the particle accelerators on 24/7, much less enough of it for space travel at a economical price.
Second, how would we go about using AM? We could use the steam turbine technique which we currently employ with nuclear reactor for power generation, which seems a waste. We could throw bits of AM behind a spaceship like with an Orion engine for propulsion, but I don't think that'd be very safe or cost effective.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well until A/M becomes plausable, how about plasma rockets as the October 2000 edition of Astronomy Now outlines?
Quote: " . . . whereas a chemically-powered Space Shuttle main engine typically develops an exhaust speed of about 5 kilometres per second, a plasma rocket can muster up to 30 kilometres per second. This means that a spacecraft powered by a plasma engine needs to carry much less fuel, leaving more room for payload."
So:
Earth to Mars would take;
Using chemical-based drive - 6 months, 3 weeks, 7 hours and 30 minutes (assuming speed is constant) Using plasma rockets - 1 month, 2 days and 5 hours (again assuming speed is constant).
If the government officials get their fingers out, we might just see this happen within the next 30 years that have been predicted.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ummm.... no. For NASA it costs them $40 per kg to lift something off the ground with conventional means of space travel. Rockets are just localized explosions beneath the ship, very inefficient and expensive to do.
Nuclear Propulsion? No, again it would be by a means of a localized explosion behind the ship. If we find a efficient way of propelling the ship, then it is still no. While Nuclear Propulsion seems to be practically unlimited on Earth's Oceans, we are talking about about a million miles range. Which is impressive on the ocean but not space. To Mars which is about 260 million miles away, the space ship with Nuclear Propulsion would need to refuel b(if you are good with math) 260 times give or take a few million miles. So no, Nuclear Propulsion is out.
Yes it is very hard to effectively protect a ship from Radiation without being impossibly expensive. (A alloy would have to be a mix of lead and the Space shuttle exterior plus other exotic materials). Remember radiation is culmative, so if we manage to shield the ship from 99.99% of the radiation, that .01% will start to add up from 200+ days travel to Mars.
FTL? The current and most accepted theory is that conventional means of FTL is impossible. What do I mean by coventional? Conventional by a means of a engine setup and a type of fuel. To travel past speed of light we have to be greater than light itself to achieve this and light is at the very end of energy. Thats only if we ignore the time travel theory.
Gravity very easy, because if you spin a a tire and keeps something inside it, that object will stay there. Star Trek type gravity is far from our technology but not impossible. We will see something like that within a few decades.
There is a way of opening a wormhole, by todays technology. All you need to do is heat a specific area trillions and trillions of degrees and produce a massive gravitational spot in that exact spot. And there you go, a wormhole, to where no clue but it is a wormhole. No one has done it yet though.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
DS1's Ion propulsion system seems to have a great deal of promise. Starts slow, but constant acceleration lets you get going really fast eventually.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: DS1's Ion propulsion system seems to have a great deal of promise. Starts slow, but constant acceleration lets you get going really fast eventually.
Unforunately, the rate of acceleration is so slow that it's only meaningful for really long trips.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
;
Printer-friendly view of this topic
