Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Stephen Hawking Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 15:37:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')It is also a fact, that humans had newer tried to live in alien planetary system.
Even if not constructed or evolved to live there, they may ADAPT easily should conditions there sufficiently remain ours.
Look on rabbits in Australia for precedence.


Your ignorance of basic biology is showing, I am afraid.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby Zardoz » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 15:48:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', 'A')hh...space. The ultimate techno-fix fantasy...To think that we can manage critical resources on some space station light years away is just ludicrous when we can't even manage the abundant resources we have here on earth...Hawking is just expressing the ancient and primordial urge to expand carrying capacity through the conquest of new habitat when population pressure increases. He's trying to address the problem of overpopulation, but never mentioning it.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SpringCreekFarm', 'U')nbelievable. If we had a planet to go to that was anything like the one we are destroying now, we would have something to look forward to. Somewhere to go. We already have a planet that so far still supports life. Where the hell could we possibly go to that would harbour life, agriculture, atmosphere that is friendly to humans and earth-like life.

Hawking is probably trying to get funding for space programs or something like that.


This thread should've ended after these two posts. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

Some of you people must take "Star Trek" seriously or something...
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 15:54:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'W')ould you send even one person to alpha centauri not knowing if it is habitable, and knowing there is no return?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'W')ould you send even one person to alpha centauri not knowing if it is habitable, and knowing there is no return?


To consider such an adventure you would have to be reasonable confident that there is a good chance of finding habitable planet at destination (unless you have warp drive at disposal - but even I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THAT).

Therefore structurised effort is necessary to achieve that goal.
This would look as below:

1. Use Eath bound technology to identify Earth-like planets orbiting nearby stars. Current methods are only sensitive enough to identify Jupiter size objects, however this area of research is progressing fast and within few years we should be able to find Earth size planets.
This planet should also be in so called habitable zone around alien star and planetary system should be as much as possible similar to ours.

2. Once you identify promising stellar system you send unmanned space mission to SOLAR FOCAL REGION in such a way that your probe, Sun, and alien stellar system will be alligned.

NB. Solar focal region is a sphere around our Sun, of radius ca 70 light HOURS, Sun in the centre. This is a distance about 7 times greater than distance from Earth to Pluto.
In focal region light coming from distant objects is focused due to gravitational lensing effected by Sun.
Shortly, if you go there, you get for free a huge telescope SIZE OF OUR SUN for your disposal.

Once your robotic probe reached destination (solar focal region) you will OBSERVE your alien planet selected earlier for evaluation.
You will be able to SEE some features of the surface of this planet and features like lands, seas etc would NOT escape your attention if present.
You will make SPECTRAL MEASUREMENTS and this will allow you to find about accurate composition of atmosphere (say is there about 20% of oxygen? how much nitrogen? some toxic gases? etc).
You will also learn about PRESSURE there (say 1 at or 100 at) and about themperatures on the surface.
If all collected data looks promissing go to 3.

3. Send unmanned mission to promissing alien planetary system identified in initial stages 1 & 2.
This will allow to complete evaluation of new world.
You will learn about existance of life there, is that life similar to ours (say is it based on DNA etc), learn about resources there to identify what is essential for people to take there to maximise their survival chance etc.
All this info will be obviously passed back to you by means of radio communication.

4. Should detailed evaluation gained in 3 suggest good chance of survival - SEND MANNED MISSION AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.

NB. Poor volunteeres. You will say to the PUBLIC that they are heroes, pioneers of humanity, space conquerers etc but for YOURSELF you will know, that they are idiots, who agreed to sit in metal box for best half of their life to face uncertain future in far away place, which you do not really care about.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'I')t will never be voted in and you don't have enough money for it.


Something like above might well be voted for and governments are spending money freely with or without voting anyway.

I do not tell that something like this will be done, but I say that it may be reasonably anticipated.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 15:59:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')Any scientific evidence for that?



God help us. :lol: Biology 101.


Lets hope that God will help you with evidence.
But what if he dont exist?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby lateStarter » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 16:55:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', 'A')hh...space. The ultimate techno-fix fantasy...To think that we can manage critical resources on some space station light years away is just ludicrous when we can't even manage the abundant resources we have here on earth...Hawking is just expressing the ancient and primordial urge to expand carrying capacity through the conquest of new habitat when population pressure increases. He's trying to address the problem of overpopulation, but never mentioning it.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SpringCreekFarm', 'U')nbelievable. If we had a planet to go to that was anything like the one we are destroying now, we would have something to look forward to. Somewhere to go. We already have a planet that so far still supports life. Where the hell could we possibly go to that would harbour life, agriculture, atmosphere that is friendly to humans and earth-like life.

Hawking is probably trying to get funding for space programs or something like that.


This thread should've ended after these two posts. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

Some of you people must take "Star Trek" seriously or something...


I agree. You left out one other important response though:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t bores and angers me that people think that the only way for a civilisation to advance of course will be to use more and more energy and resources, to advance to other planets, stars, to build space bases, jump dimensions, travel around in the time bla bla. Why the hell should evolution go naturally into such a direction? Its the same nonsense as to say, that every advanced civilisation will someday invent the american way of living.

If there are civilisations much older than ours, their society and state of mind may be beyond our imagination. And honestly, some civilisations of the earth were in some way advanced beyond todays peoples imagination! China, Japan, India, Greece, Egypt, The Inkas, we know merely the names. Can you fathom the writings of shakespeare? Nothing more to learn from them? So lets look around for the big mothercivilisation that is fostering us secretly? They may even be already here? Come on.

People (humans) that grow wise, usually grow more silent. Only a fool would waste its entire time playing with technical gimmics or running for showy positions like the president of the united states. To quote Stansilaw Lem, an idiot would immediately accepte becoming president, a more intelligent man would hesitate and think a lot about it and a really wise man would prefer to throw himself out of the window.

Why the heck do these authors imagine should some super advanced beings bore themselves to death in the vastness of space or guard planets of apes. Fulfillment lies definitely more in the exploration and expansion of the own mind, soul, sought of god, if you will. This deems me more an universal rule. And this being set as a goal of a religion, society, school of philosophers etc. requires most of the time and resoures of a being. And it might be "wiser" and more "advanced" to seek extinction rather than pestering other planets as some sort of space gypsies.

Our "technological" civilisation may well be much overestimated and we will maybe soon sit again around campfires and then for good. There may be other and better ways to advance ourselves than we think actually. (i am an atheist but acknowledge that some basic questions can not be avoided)


Please read between the lines. Even though 'English' is not his Native language, Anthrobus has hit the nail on the head...
We have been brought into the present condition in which we are unable neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them. - Livy
User avatar
lateStarter
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Wed 06 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 38 km west of Warsaw, Poland
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 17:09:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')Any scientific evidence for that?



God help us. :lol: Biology 101.


Lets hope that God will help you with evidence.
But what if he dont exist?


As an ecologist, I have tons of evidence and I am wasting my time even replying. Go do some basic biology research.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby mercury121 » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 18:48:07

I believe humanity will make it into space but most definitely not in our lifetimes. The energy to get into space will have to come from renewable energy resources like wind and solar. Colonizing space will be done by ordinary people not elites. The ticket into space will be very expensive -- maybe about 10 years of saved up energy to hitch a ride in a cramped spaceship that is laser propelled from the ground. Then from there a person will link up with a spaceship that is propelled by the sun using sails that catch the solar wind. Forget rockets, they are way too inefficient because less than 5% of the mass of the rocket is payload.

I believe the world will make a transition to renewable power sources. And because renewable energy sources are well spread out, society will be decentralized and democractic. While experts say that renewable energy will not meet our energy needs -- it will only provide a fraction, but that is because they only count the most economic solutions. Sure there are relatively few places where wind blows strongly, but wind does blow nearly everywhere and that power can be harvested. So it will the ordinary people who for example homebuild their own windmills that will fill in the gaps.
User avatar
mercury121
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun 07 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 20:22:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mercury121', 'I') believe the world will make a transition to renewable power sources. And because renewable energy sources are well spread out, society will be decentralized and democractic. While experts say that renewable energy will not meet our energy needs -- it will only provide a fraction, but that is because they only count the most economic solutions. Sure there are relatively few places where wind blows strongly, but wind does blow nearly everywhere and that power can be harvested. So it will the ordinary people who for example homebuild their own windmills that will fill in the gaps.


Not at this level of population and not at this level of afluence we won't. Wind brings up dispatchability. You can only count on it 20% of the time to fill the gap. There are some places where it is not economical even at the small scale to tap the wind. Look it up, you will see the charted areas across the country.

It will only provide a fraction because of it's diffusion. That, and we are going from a stock to a intermittant flow of energy. The sun doesn' t always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

It will take 50 years before we see any significant energy production from solar/wind due to scalability. By 2010 they hope for 1% from wind.

Look at the Hirsch Report. Do you think it is only coincidence that neither wind or solar are considered mitigation wedges to fill the peak oil gap?

Homegrown energy will keep the lights on, nothing more, unless you invest the $20, 000 to $40,000 now for photovoltaics. Today.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby eric_b » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 20:56:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'W')ould you send even one person to alpha centauri not knowing if it is habitable, and knowing there is no return?


To consider such an adventure you would have to be reasonable confident that there is a good chance of finding habitable planet at destination (unless you have warp drive at disposal - but even I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THAT).

Therefore structurised effort is necessary to achieve that goal.
This would look as below:

1.
(SNIP)


Hawking's doesn't know what he's talking about in
this case.

All this talk about colonising space as things now
stand amounts to the delirious babbling of an
energy junky with a fat stash. It's a holdover
from the scientism in the US during the 1960's
when few things seemed impossible.

I see we're on the same page as far as the warp
drive... good.

First you should realize that fusion may be a pipe
dream. In fact, it may be impossible from a technical
point of view to build a working fusion reactor -
something to keep in mind. As far as getting more
energy out then in. As things stand the only fusion
devices on earth that get more energy out than
in are thermonuclear weapons, and they require a
fission bomb to start the reaction. Not a very
controlled reaction. If true then stars are the only
viable fusion reactors, and fission is the most
energy dense stuff for 'sapient beings'

Keep this in mind, as without a working fusion
reactor it may simply not be possible to ever develop
a propulsion system that would allow one to reach
the stars in a reasonable time frame.

Interstellar distances are so vast they are hard
to imagine. The nearest start, proxima centuri,
is around 4 light years away. The fastest manmade
object currently out there is the voyager 1 probe,
which is travelling around 39,000 mph. At this
speed it would take this probe over 70,000 years
to reach this star -- our closest neighbor!

In order to reach any star within a reasonable
time propulsion systems that currently don't exist
would have to be built.

An ideal manned craft, or 'space ark', would have
the ability to accelerate at 1G for long periods
of time. People need some sort of artificial gravity
to survive long periods in space. They fall apart
physically without it. It would take enormous amounts
of energy to sustain a 1G acceleration for any length
of time, but it would create the necessary gravity.

But let's assume such a craft could be built. In
this case it would be possible to reach the nearest
star to us, centauri, in about 5.5 years time. You'd
accelerate at 1G to the midpoint, then decelerate at
1G to the star. If the crew made it it would take
another 4.2 years for them to radio back success.

A more reasonable assumption would be a craft that
would travel around 15% the speed of light. In this
case it would take around ~40-50 years to reach just
the very nearest stars.

In theory if you could accelerate at 1G for about
a year you would reach relativistic speeds which would
allow you to cross the galaxy in a few years (from
the crews point of view)... but back on Earth thousands
of years would have past. Such are the paradoxes involved
with relativistic travel. In essence it would mean
anyone on such a voyage would be forever isolated
from Earth.

But there are many other problems. Once you reach these
incredible velocities you don't want to hit anything
much larger than a hydrogen atom. Hitting a grain of
sand near the speed of light would probably destroy
the ship - it would impact with the kinetic energy
of an atomic bomb. You'd need mad shielding from the radiation
of space, and from anything you might hit.

We have no idea how to go about creating an enclosed
ecosystem that lasts. You'd need something like this
for any long (or permanent) voyages into space in
your spaceark (see quote below).

Fact is, any colonisation of space would be an
evolutionary process. It would likely start with
a (real) space station, or a colony on the moon or
mars. We are no where even close to this.

Look at our priorities. There's no vision to do this.
In the US most of our money is squandered on 'defense'
and the military (actually at this point we are squadering
other peoples money on our 'defense' :) ). If we were to
spend this money on space exploration we might be able
to do something, but it's not going to happen. We are on
the cusp of implosion, not explosion into space.

Bottom line is unless we can get our ducks in a row
here on Earth, and not destroy our 'home world', no
splinter of humanity is ever going to make to another
star. It's a complete pipe-dream

Below is a quote from one of my earlier posts trying
to show how difficult, costly, and expensive it was
for us to reach the moon. Reaching the stars would
be orders and orders of magnitude more complex than
this... it's not going to happen, sorry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Sigh. OK, I'll bite. I'll attempt to educate you.

I'm assuming we're talking about colonizing space. Now. With
our current technology. And I'm assuming whatever space
colony we establish will be self-sufficient. If it weren't,
what's the point? If things were to fall apart on Earth, the
colony would not survive either. Are we on the same page?
Good.

First, we have no idea how to go about creating an enclosed
environment which is sustainable. Remember Biosphere 2?
If not, check out this link:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/305/1
They attempted to design an enclosed environment with
plants, animals and people to see if it was possible. As
a precurser to space exploration. A small group of people locked
themselves into what was essentially a large sealed greenhouse.
The experiment was a complete failure. Read the above page.

We have no heavy lift capability (at least in the US). The Saturn
V rocket used for the Apollo space program was a marvel:
over 350 feet tall, it weighed well over 6 million pounds fully
fueled and could launch over a quarter million pounds into Earth
orbit. One man, Wernher von Braun, was the mad scientist (though
he was a genius) and glue behind the entire development of this
rocket. At this point the US couldn't build another rocket this
size if it wanted, at least not without starting the project from
scratch. Why? The original plans and blueprints for this extraordinarily
complex craft have been largely lost, as well as the engineering
expertise. In todays dollars it would cost several billion dollars
for each launch of a rocket this size, not including the payload.
Where do you think the money is going to come from? And how
many launches would be required to get the necessary material
into space to construct the first colony/space station?

What part of space are you going to colonize first? It would
probably have to be some sort of craft in Earth orbit. Outside
of the Earth's orbit and magnetosphere you need protection
from the suns particulate radiation -- solar flares (common) are lethal
without heavy shielding. This was a concern during some of the
Apollo missions, because while on the way to the Moon there was
a chance the crew could have been killed by such an event. The
only other option is the moon. Not too likely for a first colony step.

Also, you'd need some sort of artificial gravity. It's become clear
the human body does not hold up well without gravity. Some of
the early cosmonauts whom spent months to years in space
(mir?) had their bodies waste away, and could hardly stand on
returning to Earth. This despite excersising vigorously while
in space. They experienced psychological and nervous problems
too:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/ ... space.html

So this means they would have to build a very large rotating
space station of some sort to create artificial gravity. Something
which, while possible in theory has never been done before.

And how much do you think this would all cost? Hmm? With
an exploding population and declining resources on Earth
do you think this is going to happen anytime soon? Hell, there
have been increasing shortages of basic raw materials (cement,
steel) this last year, partially due to demand from China.

The Apollo space program took years of effort, enormous cost,
and the blessing of the entire US to succeed. It was deemed
necessary to win the space race against Russia. The country
was not as divided then. Everyone pulled very hard. And
for all that time and effort they managed to get a few people to
the moon, briefly. Imagine how much more difficult it would
be to establish any kind of permanent colony in space.

Is space colonization within the realm of possibility? Of course.
Is it likely to happen anytime soon? No way.

I was born in 1968. It was not long ago, but it was a different era.
Scientism was at its height. Scientists and engineers were held
in much higher regard than they are now. Right after WWII the US
was the undisputed king of the world. We'd developed atomic weapons,
split the atom. We created the first jet airplanes. We were sending
unmaned rockets into space. Computers and computer science were
just getting started. There seemed to be few horizons, few things
we couldn't do. People were talking about creating computers more
intelligent than people within a decade. Some people thought everyone
would be flying around jetson's style by the new millennia. There
were plans to create a colony on the moon. I grew up reading science
fiction and watching the original startrek. I lapped that stuff up.
But none of it came to pass. Most of those ideas remain the realm of
Science Fiction.

Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Assuming that somehow a space colony
were to be built, would you want to live the rest of your life in
a glorified tin-can? Never to feel the wind in your hair? Never to
smell another spring day again? Never to walk barefoot on the
beach again? Never to listen to thunder again? To damn any of your
possible descendants to life in such a sterile environment?

Think about the aesthetic costs.

Space colonization anytime soon? Get real.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 00:34:47

Well there it is then.nice wrapup.

BUT
:)
Fusion is not sufficient EVEN IF WE HAD a MR.FUSION to go to the closest star.

Fusion requires throwing mass out the back for three years. No MSB\scss contained space ship has enough mass to throw out the back for three years.

We also dont have enough ethanol to run all the cars in the US even though it is a nice Idea. - had to throw that in)

A selfcontained spaceship with cows and chickens probably cannot accelerates at 1 G for any length of time without running out of cow waste products and you would have to chop up furniture to feed the rockets... Eventually just the motor would arrive. Not enough chicken poo to feed the fusion rocket.

Even lower acceleration like 1/2 G or 1/10 g or 1/111 G or 1/3,333 G or whatever NOT ENOUGH ROCKET FUEL (toothpicks sand gravel whatever to throw out the back) Using a LIGHT TORCH still not enough mass...

you run out of mass before you hit a star.

this is the problem with fusions rocket, not enough base product for conversion to mass ejection.

Same problem with ethanol, not enough biomass to make ethanol and not enougnh electricity.

Now if you could capture a black holw and tie it to the back, and through in matter, the hawking radiation would be 50% efficient and nearly as good as antimatter, and if it were fed from the back, the maass ejection would also push the black hole in the opposite direction.
then all you need is a mass/annuler to take the weight off the black hole and we are set to go!
Probably won't happen while Bush is in office.

Yes I grew up with all that heinlen stuff, and thought it could be done and would be very soon. I saw 2001: A space Odessey. And you know what?
It is 2006, The top of the peak, and looking over the cliff, hold your breath.

No jetsons, no Dick tracy mganetic flying buckets.

And then I realized. We gave up real science to a hallucinatory pipe-dream. We don't have the tehcnology, or power to build a second earth in space, and I realized mankind is not going to space in my lifetime, why waste time with this, live your life, go hiking, get a bike be with the family, space is a no-brainer snake oil gimmick. We were fed a bunch of hokey so that the technology could be developed to put up GPS and spy sattelites, and to make it possible to attack anyone anything and any city in under thirty minutes. Nice going. My tax dollars at work again.
Thats what they really wanted, power and my money..
sheesh.

So why thesudden PUSH FOR THE MOON?
well you need a space station good excuse.(no reasoon to go there exept take pictures of aldrins footy prints.
well, Inachay is going to space and who knows WHAT theya re doing, they need to get up there, cloak the satellite, open it up and evaluate their technolgy and disable them secretly so when they are needed they wont work.

Spcae is our achillies heel, Russia has told us already WE CAN NEUTRALIZE YOUR COUNTRY IN 30 MINUTES!
HIGH PULSE EMP. everything goes down incuding our rediculous digitized medical systema nd banking system. all kaput.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:12:41

Don't fall for this going to the moon hot air. Call your congressman and tell him if he votes for a moon project you will never vote for him again, it is stupidity tospend another dollar on it.
Its all for military and thats it. The nail in our coffins when peak oil ticks everyone off.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:16:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '
')Fusion requires throwing mass out the back for three years. No MSB\scss contained space ship has enough mass to throw out the back for three years.


False.
Only direct fusion products (say alpha particles) would te "thrown away"
However their energy in enormous (in range of 10 MeV) and their speed approaches speed of light itself.

Even LOW MASS of of ejected particles would impart great driving force to increase speed of rocket travelling in oposite direction.
Achieving speed in range of 10-20% of c would be possible without running out of mass to "throw avay".
Only "combustion products" of thermonuclear fuel would be "thrown away". That would do.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:20:58

I guess you missed my statement that even a "light torch" would not make it

a light torch fusion rocket is the kind you descripbe above.

for three years of fusion "LIGHT TORCH"
not enough mass again. go calculate it out.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:27:28

Ok I'll do it for you for a antimatter rocket wihich is 20 times MORE POWERFUL than any fusion torch motor.

In an antimatter rocket, a dose of antihydrogen would mix with an equal amount of hydrogen in a combustion chamber. The mutual annihilation of a half pound of each, for instance, would unleash more energy than a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb, along with a shower of subatomic particles called pions and muons. These particles, confined within a magnetic nozzle similar to the type necessary for a fission rocket, would fly out the back at one-third of the speed of light. That fast exhaust would translate to a top speed of 66 percent of the speed of light.
"This is by far the most powerful rocket we can make," Frisbee says.
A two-stage antimatter rocket to Alpha Centauri would need some 900,000 tons of fuel and would arrive in about 41 years. A four-stage version (two to speed up, two to slow down) on a longer voyage would show the advantages of antimatter to better effect. According to Frisbee's calculations, it would need 38 million tons of antimatter fuel, but it would cut the trip to 55 Cancri, 41 light-years away, to an almost manageable 130 Earth years. The same trip would take 400 years using a fusion engine.

Ok we dont have 38 million tons of antimatter,

but since the FUSION TORCH ENGINE is about 20 times less efficient than antimatter.
The same motor in a fusion rocket with ONE PERSON ON BOARD reaching 10% C
woudl take 760 million tons of hydrogen deuterium tritium.

YOU
DONT
HAVE
ENOUGH
MASS
TO
THROW
OUT
THE BACK
even for a light torch rocket.

IT IS NOT GOING TO EVER HAPPEN ahny more than 85%ethanol is ever going to replace gasoline in Amrica.

alos the cost of 38 million tons of antimatter at 1 billion dollars a gram is only. 34,504,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

34.5 septillion dollars. putting them end to end
That twood be 17,252,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 inches
That twood be 14,376,666,666,666,667,000,000,000
feet of dollar bills laid end to end.

That twood be 272,285,353,535,353,550,000 miles
of dollar bills laid end to end.

Now, it is only
70,541,997,720,000 miles to alpha ceti
(12 light years away)

the dollar bills used to buy the antimatter would stretch, if laid end to end 3859904 times farther than alpha ceti.

so you couls use 4 million dollar bills laid end to end one every six inches to alpha ceti and that would be your cost to fly antimatter.

THE COST OF ANTIMATTER FLIGH TODAY IS
4 million dollars every six inches travelled..

Captain Kirk was a wealthy man!



TPIOOS TPIOOS TPIOOS
THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF SCALE - TPIOOS.
It can't be done in the real world, only in fantasy.
Last edited by grabby on Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:06:55, edited 4 times in total.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:35:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')Any scientific evidence for that?



God help us. :lol: Biology 101.


Lets hope that God will help you with evidence.
But what if he dont exist?


As an ecologist, I have tons of evidence and I am wasting my time even replying. Go do some basic biology research.


Did you study ecology of extraterresterial planets?
How can you be sure that "earthly" plants cannot grow on extraterresterial planet if composition of atmosphere (and rock) would be closely remaining ours?

On the Earth we had produced GM microorganisms capable to decompose TEFLON. Surely similar technology could allow living organisms co colonize alien (but somewhat similar to our) world.
And they could even become to be a food source...
In fact this genetic technology would not be needed at all if alien environment sufficiently remains our.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby Jogger » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:46:49

I wonder what Carl Sagan would say about our future if he were alive today. He mentioned in his book Cosmos that the nearest space civilization might be about 200 light years from Earth, and if their spaceships were headed towards Earth, they would be arriving in our solar system now. Maybe a spaceship and Peak Oil will arrive at the same time. Now that would make life interesting.

Most people probably don't realize that if our solar system had evolved in a different way we would not be here. Without our moon the Earth would be too unstable for intelligent life. Without Jupiter and the other gas planets the Earth would have been bombarded with so many comets that intelligent life probably would not have evolved. So finding a stable planet similar to Earth orbiting another star is going to be challenging.
User avatar
Jogger
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 01:56:02

Oh by the way a stack of dollar bills 4 million bills thick is about the sizze of a redwood tree diameter of 40 feet diameter by six inches thich.

so you could glue all the dollar bills together and make a redood tree 40 feet in diameter that stretches from earth to ALPHA CETI

this would be a TWO LANE BRIDGE stong enough FOR A CAR TO DRIVE ON that reaches from earth to alpha ceti cheaper than flying there with an antimatter powered rocket.
IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Last edited by grabby on Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:17:24, edited 1 time in total.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:01:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jogger', 'I') wonder what Carl Sagan would say about our future if he were alive today. He mentioned in his book Cosmos that the nearest space civilization might be about 200 light years from Earth, and if their spaceships were headed towards Earth, they would be arriving in our solar system now. Maybe a spaceship and Peak Oil will arrive at the same time. Now that would make life interesting.

Most people probably don't realize that if our solar system had evolved in a different way we would not be here. Without our moon the Earth would be too unstable for intelligent life. Without Jupiter and the other gas planets the Earth would have been bombarded with so many comets that intelligent life probably would not have evolved. So finding a stable planet similar to Earth orbiting another star is going to be challenging.


There are no spaceships arriving.
antimatter is the primo fuel and it takes too much of it to get to any star. They can't fly spaceships either.
Last edited by grabby on Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:27:24, edited 1 time in total.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:03:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
') we had produced GM microorganisms capable to decompose TEFLON. .


Oh well, that is something to be proud of. :( lets invent GMO bacteria that will ultimately destroy the earth.

I think scientists have lost their collective minds.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby grabby » Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:12:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jogger', ' ')

Most people probably don't realize that if our solar system had evolved in a different way we would not be here. Without our moon the Earth would be too unstable for intelligent life. Without Jupiter and the other gas planets the Earth would have been bombarded with so many comets that intelligent life probably would not have evolved. So finding a stable planet similar to Earth orbiting another star is going to be challenging.


That is somewhat correct. It was all planned that way, and we aren't leaving it in any rocket. The experiment is almost over, and we were found too selfish. We are going to drive ourselves to death, and whoda thunk that Henry Ford's idea (industrialization and mass production) destroyed the earth :(
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron