|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 18:55:32 GMT -5
www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2007/04/24/645530.html&cvqh=itn_planetThese guys are in a constant state of arousal and ejaculate at the slightest information at all that would show evidence of another habitable planet. What are the main themes that the MSM and powers that be are constantly harping on? 1. Everything can kill us, including the planet now. 2. We must find another planet and that planet will be the solution to all of are problems. I am not one to believe that the moon landing was a hoax but the motivation of these people and the apparent importance that they place on stuff like this makes me wonder.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 18:58:51 GMT -5
www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2007/04/24/645530.html&cvqh=itn_planetThese guys are in a constant state of arousal and ejaculate at the slightest information at all that would show evidence of another habitable planet. What are the main themes that the MSM and powers that be are constantly harping on? 1. Everything can kill us, including the planet now. 2. We must find another planet and that planet will be the solution to all of are problems. I am not one to believe that the moon landing was a hoax but the motivation of these people and the apparent importance that they place on stuff like this makes me wonder. I love this sort of stuff but I'm pretty sure they made this same discovery a few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 19:18:52 GMT -5
hmm, we may agree on something here.
I personally think it is a form of of slight psychosis where these people put so much freakin time, sweat and tears into something that if nothing is produced, they would tip over the edge. There of course is the funding aspect.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 25, 2007 19:38:47 GMT -5
What's different about this particular planet is that it resides in its star's "sweet spot", meaning that it robits its star at a distance which would provide roughly earth-like temperature variations (the range they mentioned was a daily average of some 32 to 104 degrees F). That might well mean this particular planet has a better chance of having liquid water present and water, of course, is necessary for life (at least as we know it).
I'm not sure how many of these non-gas giant planets orbiting their stars at just the right fifference we've found, but the implications are that the chances of discovering other life out there somewhere just became (marginally) greater.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 20:58:34 GMT -5
....The new planet's star system is a mere 20.5 light years away.
So, unless somebody builds a U.S.S. Enterprise, how is anybody, going to get there? It's 20.5 LIGHT YEARS AWAY.
It is a freakin MOOT point. You can't prove there is life there because we can't get to it. We can't get to it to colonize it as well.
That's why this whole "life" or colonization crap is a complete waste of time and resources.
Explore the damn ocean if you really want to gain something practical.
I really don't understand how a person of your intelligence sees anything out of this type of governmental waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 25, 2007 21:37:21 GMT -5
Hmm... 20 light years away would be a challenge... But using existing technology from the 1960's, an Orion type rocket could cover the distance in about 200 years. And the ship could be anywhere from 2,000 to 8,000,000 tons in size... And a ship using matter-antimatter pulse engines could make the trip in 40 to as little as 25 years... What a ride... (and if traveling at say, .8 the speed of light, the people on the trip would only age 5 years during the flight...)
I'd bet a lot of people would sign up for that trip.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 1:10:33 GMT -5
40 to 25 years? Your smoking pot. Straight from the trekkies..... www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/intrst.htmlLook how much it would cost for anti-matter...even if they could do it. $600 BILLION dollars for one ounce....let's at least triple that amount, since the government is involved. Sorry dude, unless there is a communicato from Spock on that planet....it is not worth that kind of money to explore "possibilities", even if....even if....one more time...even if....we could get there. P.S., would like to see your link on the orion rocket with the 40 to 20 year timeline in order to go 20.5 light years one way or 41 light years for a round trip...because those dudes are on crack.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 26, 2007 10:07:49 GMT -5
We could build one of those contraptions like in "Contact" and drop that ball thing into the worm hole.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 26, 2007 10:24:13 GMT -5
If we did do that Brandon the only people we would find there would be our fathers. What a stupid movie.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 26, 2007 10:46:42 GMT -5
Amen...it was a total piece of crap.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 12:40:56 GMT -5
You can't judge future capabilities by present capabilities.
Scientists circa 1900 knew about atoms and they theorized that splitting one could release tremendous amounts of energy....but they had really no idea how to go about splitting one nor controlling the split- a kinda important part of the process- once the splitting had begun.
Leap forward a mere 45 years and not only had those obstacles been surmounted but many more of which even the prescient scientists of 1900 could not imagine.
No, we can't feasibly travel to a planet outside our solar system now.
But by 2050? Maybe. By 2100? Almost certainly. Provided the will (and, secondarily, need) to do so is there, I doubt that there is very much that mankind cannot do.
The space program has been running in lowest gear- if not neutral- since the early 1970s. The books I've read by astronauts and mission control people who worked on Apollo, Skylab and the Shuttle are of the singular opinion that, had we not reduced the NASA budget so drastically- never mind actually keeping funding at Apollo levels- we could have had a permanent base on the moon by the early to mid 1980s and a presence on Mars by the mid-'90s. We had the plans, we had the brainpower...we just lacked the will (and, secondarily, the need).
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 13:02:37 GMT -5
"You can't judge future capabilities by present capabilities."
True, but you should judge future capabilities in realistic terms. (See above link)
Current capabilities:
"Manned spacecraft have only gone as far as the Moon. The unmanned Voyager probe is now on its way to the planet Neptune, 10,000 times as farther away from the Earth than the Moon. It will take Voyager about ten years to complete this journey. The nearest star, however, is 10,000 times farther away than Neptune. At now-achievable speeds it would take 80,000 years to get there. We must therefore find ways to increase the speed of our space vehicles."
Realistic capabilities:
"Dr. Cassenti suggested that such a rate of increase in the maximum speeds attainable by man-made vehicles is not untypical. He presented a graph extrapolating the rate at which vehicle speeds have been increasing and using sailing ships as a base. The graph implies that it should be possible to send missions out a distance of 10 light years by the year 2200."
So, it will take at least he year 2200 before we can send out a mission that would get 1/2 the way to the planet.
So, if you think spending trillions or quadtrillions of American tax dollars to go to a planet that may or may not have some life forms on it, then that's your opinion.
I have yet to hear any evidence that will persuade me it is an efficient or productive use of resources.
Once THIS planet reaches a state of peaceful harmony, then it would make sense but until then, it would serve no purpose to take our show on the road, due to the fact the same result would occur. I just don't accept the SciFi fantasy of a colonized utopia or the need for one.
Edit: I realize I am giving info from only one source but I doubt it that the info is any different. You of course could find info that would substantiate a more realistic goal out of a currently unrealistic one.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 26, 2007 14:26:21 GMT -5
If we did do that Brandon the only people we would find there would be our fathers. What a stupid movie. It wasn't really her father. Her father was dead. It was an alien being disguised as her father so that she would not be frightened. Although wierd, I thought it was a cool movie.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 15:26:10 GMT -5
phin-
You know that I enjoy so-called "Alternative History"- or "What If?"- books.
Well, let's engage in a bit of "What If?" here.
What if the progression of travel by ship had gone straight from sail to nuclear power?
A sailing ship that might weigh all of 10 tons would be doing well to have made, what, 10 knots?
A nuclear powered ship that weighs some 80,000 tons can approach nearly 40 knots, while smaller nuclear powered ships far exceed that.
I'm not saying that such a fourfold advance in capability is, in the short term at least, imminent or even likely. But all it takes is a single unforeseen breakthrough and the timeframe we're talking about becomes reduced by a factor of four- in the example you cite, the date moves from 2200 to 2050.
Did Robert Goddard actually envision the Saturn V in the mid 1930s?
I think I divine the primary objection you have- government involvement and the resultant handcuffing of the effort.
A valid concern.
Yet if you look at the (relatively) free hand that the government gave NASA during the 1960s, there is precedent for hope.
Add in the nascent but expanding private concerns that are furthering space flight (albeit on a very limited scale) and there's serious reason for hope.
And there is a capitalistic profit motive to be had if you look far enough down the road.
It is believed that our moon has so-called "rare earth" elements in far greater amounts than we do here on earth because the moon's lack of an atmosphere allowed the constant bombardment of meteroids which are believed to be the primary source of such elements.
Taken a (big) step further, the asteroid belts are believed to contain vast amounts of gold, silver and other valuable elements. Pioneers here on earth braved incredible hardship during the California and Alaska Gold Rushes in order to get their share of the 'mother loads' and there's no reason to believe that they won't be willing to do so again provided the return on investment is sufficient (and there's much reason to conclude that it is).
If we leave space flight up entirely to the government, I share your pessimism- not because we can't do it but because government seems always to throw up enough roadblocks to prevent things from being done.
However, if private concerns shoulder much or most of the burden and they are (generally) free of government over-regulation (one can hope), then I have great faith in the capability of us humans.
I mean, if you doubt that humans are capable of rising above their limitations, just look at Dennis Kucinich's smokin' hot wife....
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 16:41:22 GMT -5
Somebody correct my math if I am wrong. Which I could be, because it boggled my mind thinking of the distance and facts it presents.
Speed of light in empty space is 670,616,629 miles per earth hour. Which means it travels 9,500,000,000,000 miles in a earth year.
That planet in question is 20.5 light years from earth. That means if we travelled at half the speed of light, it would take 40.5 light years. If we travelled at 1/4th the speed of light it would take 80.5 light years to get there. Long story short, if we travelled at 1/1024th the speed of light it would be a spacecraft travelling at 654,899 MPH, which for argument sake I decided to break the barrier of less than a million miles an hour. So, at 654,899 miles an hour compared with the below current speed.
On December 7, 1995, a small probe released by the Galileo spacecraft began a descent into the atmosphere of the planet Jupiter. The probe reached a speed of 170,000 km/h (106,000 mph).
You know how long it would take for this spaceship to reach the planet in question which is 20.5 light years away? 20,992 earth years.
That is why it is moot and a waste of time and resources.
Again, my math may be wrong, so I am prepared to admit I am wrong and correct the calculations and eat a humble pie.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 17:07:34 GMT -5
looks like I made a mistake...I used kilometers instead of miles for the distance light travels in a earth year. End result was still the same, so I must have converted it at some point. Here is an interesting fact. The most distant space probe, Voyager 1, was about 13 light-hours away from Earth in September 2004. It took Voyager 27 years to cover that distance. Voyager 1 is going 39,000 MPH Care to even reach the closest star at only 4 light years away? www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/answers/space/sp3.htmlI like how they word it....like it's just down the block. At only 120 trillion miles away, the red dwarf star that this planet circles, is one of the 100 closest to Earth. and The new planet's star system is a mere 20.5 light years away, making Gliese 581 one of the 100 closest stars to Earth. abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5242406
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 18:52:01 GMT -5
In astronomical terms, 20 or so light years >IS< basically 'right across the (interstellar) street'.
Look back a mere 100 years and consider the forms of transportation available to human beings. I'd guess that airplanes that topped out at roughly 100mph- assuming they stayed intact reaching that speed- was about the fastest method of human locomotion.
Some 80 years later, speeds of 17,500mph were routinely reached by the Shuttle- sadly, with comparable safety to those early airplanes. Apollo had travelled even faster when it escaped earth's gravitational field.
Could we expect a 175 fold increase in speed over the next 80 years? Or even more?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 22:40:04 GMT -5
"In astronomical terms, 20 or so light years >IS< basically 'right across the (interstellar) street'." Yeah, if you happen to consist of light. W.O.M.I. I really don't think you are appreciating the distances an difficulty we are talking here, based on your response. I put this up on my website for you to take a gander. The 175 fold increase you speak of is nothing, it would have to be at least a 9,550 fold increase, which would take, based on the current track record, over 4,000 years. That being said....look at my website because you have to ask yourself, can humans travel at a sustained thrust of over 167 million mph? I don't think so. I did point out on the website that the space shuttle would take over 785,000 years to get there and that the Voyager 1 would take over 350,000 years to get there. In order to get to that planet, within 81 years, it would require a sustained speed of 25% of the speed of light, which would be 167,654,157 mph. In comparison, Voyager is at 0.005% of the speed of light. It CAN'T be done via a spaceship. period. Stop encouraging NASA and Universities in spending tax payer money on such an obvious waste. Spend the money looking for a worm hole first. Hey, we have to disagree on something. www.shakysoapbox.com
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 26, 2007 23:40:39 GMT -5
Ok, guys. This almost looks like it's shaping into an argument. Both of you are right. It's completely insane to suggest that we could travel to this planet at this time (phinehas) but it's not impossible to think that someone will stumble onto a way for us to do so at some point in the not too distant future (W.O.M.I.). Does that work for both of you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 0:58:36 GMT -5
Hey, I have to find something to debate w.o.m.i. on. This is the only thing we disagree with each other so far. LOL.
I didn't say it was impossible, just that it can't be done in a convential spaceship sort of way. It will require a worm hole or something else of that nature not found yet.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 1:21:22 GMT -5
Einstein said that to travel at the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy. That, of course, is more than all the energy in the universe. At gas prices these days, that's a lot of dough.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 12:39:44 GMT -5
Even setting aside the possibilty that we won't master interstellar travel in the near future, we know that we currently have the capability to return to the moon and beyond to Mars, the asteroids and elsewhere within our solar system.
Hell, we had that technology available almost 40 years ago.
We simply lost the will to build upon the success of Apollo, keep the team together that took us from a very short suborbital flight aboard an ICBM to several flights to the moon on rockets 363 feet tall......in less than EIGHT YEARS.
And need I point out that that was an almost wholly government effort (or, at least, one conducted by various private firms based on government specifications)?
I'd much rather see us spend billions on space exploration and recovery of mineral assets than on 'global warming', if for no other reason that the solution to global warming is to turn the thermostat down on our sun. Tough endeavor, that.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 12:57:35 GMT -5
True enough, I would rather government spend money on NASA, which helps private industry and the economy then have the economy tank due to restrictions in relation to Human Caused Global Warming. As far as the mineral asset recover...you run into the problem of weight versus the value of what is recovered. Example, the Space Shuttle costs on average $450 million per mission. We would have to be able to recover at least that amount in the value of minerals. That causes issues with the size needed of the vehicle that leaves orbit. Of course we could put together a container in space that would be used to fill up and drop it back into the atmosphere...put it would have to be able to be positioned, etc. and couldn't just be a canister or it would burn up on re-entry. There are a lot of what if's. Like I had stated before, I think the money would be much more wisely spent exploring the ocean.
Is there an equivalent of NASA for underwater exploration? Maybe they need a better PR program...They need something of their own, "We found life" or "We found water" bullshit to get people excited about what they are doing and not look at the dollar bills flying out of the non-existent government savings account.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 19:20:46 GMT -5
I think the breakthrough that would make mineral recovery much more profitable would be the building of construction facilities in low earth orbit.
One of the reasons that the Shuttle's costs per launch is so high is that it has to be built strong enough to withstand re-entry pressures.
A craft that had to deal only with the moon's or an asteroid's almost nonexistant gravity could be built much more lightly- sort of like the lunar module in Apollo. Toss in the fact that we have much stronger alloys and compounds to build the next generation of spacecraft and we're talking stronger craft, just as light, and for a comparable cost.
As far as their being an ocean-going version of NASA, I think NASA does some underwater exploration activities. But I'm pretty sure that private firms handle most of the tasks.
And there's very little doubt that there are potentially huge mineral deposits on or below the sea floor.
The problem is that we'd have the exact opposite problem we'd face in mineral recovery in outer space, namely that craft going to the depths of the oceans must be built incredibly strong to withstand the water pressure. We could go with robotic craft and that's a definitely viable alternative in the not so distant future.
Of course, all that is assuming that the environMENTALists will allow us to 'despoil' the oceans....
|
|