Seven Minutes of Terror Mars Landing
Cool video clip about landing the Mars rover.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=146903741
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=146903741
Nice video. We truly do live in interesting times.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
Still, how come its name is "Curiosity"?
How about Ferocity? Fury? Rage? Wrath? Or even Badass?
"How long until Badass lands?"
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
Still, how come its name is "Curiosity"?
How about Ferocity? Fury? Rage? Wrath? Or even Badass?
"How long until Badass lands?"
No matter how cool it is that we can send stuff to Mars, people in a few centuries will be watching live video streams of humans landing on Gliese 876 d (well, hopefully).
A few centuries? It took us one century to get from the first airplane to fuck you I'm in space.
I'm not sure what the current bottlenecks are, but I'm guessing:
-Finding a way to reach near-lightspeed speeds, so that a one-way trip doesn't take several lifetimes.
-Finding materials that can withstand the pressure of escaping orbit at crazy speeds.
Honestly? A matter of years, not centuries. Or even a matter of days, with the proper amount of LSD. Not sure if that's the kind of space you're thinking of.
I'm not sure what the current bottlenecks are, but I'm guessing:
-Finding a way to reach near-lightspeed speeds, so that a one-way trip doesn't take several lifetimes.
-Finding materials that can withstand the pressure of escaping orbit at crazy speeds.
Honestly? A matter of years, not centuries. Or even a matter of days, with the proper amount of LSD. Not sure if that's the kind of space you're thinking of.
Even lightspeed travel wouldn't be fast enough for much. It would get us around, but not too far. And the energy cost of that would be outrageous I'd assume. We need to figure out how to make worm holes large enough to fit some ships into. And figure out how to set them up with predetermined destinations.
| Gaminic wrote: |
|---|
| A few centuries? It took us one century to get from the first airplane to fuck you I'm in space. |
Try roughly 60 years. (actually I think it was a bit less than that, can't remember when the first flight was though)
| Gaminic wrote: |
|---|
| Finding materials that can withstand the pressure of escaping orbit at crazy speeds. |
If we were going to build something for interstellar travel, we're probably going to build it in space. It's been said that the first nation to build a space elevator will dominate space travel right out. (of course we all need to stop laughing first.) (http://xkcd.com/536/)
| ResidentBiscuit wrote: |
|---|
| We need to figure out how to make worm holes large enough to fit some ships into. And figure out how to set them up with predetermined destinations. |
I personally don't think worm holes answer. Rather than punching our way through a 4th spatial dimension to get from point A(x,y,z) to point B(x,y,z) I think we need bend our 3 spatial dimensions so that A and B are closer to each-other. (So basically a warp drive from star trek. Hawking (jokingly) said he was working on it when given a tour of the TNG set)
A worm hole is essentially a bend in space-time that allows to distant points to be closer (slightly or greatly). Worm holes are already possible mathematically, and supposedly exist at very small measurements.
I've read an interesting theory about "shrinking" space-time in front of an object, and "stretching" space-time behind the object, which could lead to faster than light travel at no energy cost. It actually doesn't break any fundamental laws.
Problem with it is the energy to produce a section of space like this would be pretty intense, and I guess getting out of it once it's produced is problematic at best. Sounds cool though.
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MatterOfMatter-revised-final.pdf
I've read an interesting theory about "shrinking" space-time in front of an object, and "stretching" space-time behind the object, which could lead to faster than light travel at no energy cost. It actually doesn't break any fundamental laws.
Problem with it is the energy to produce a section of space like this would be pretty intense, and I guess getting out of it once it's produced is problematic at best. Sounds cool though.
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MatterOfMatter-revised-final.pdf
Going from a few thousand feet (let's say 4,000 metres, about 13,000 feet) to the distance to the moon (which averages at about 382,000,000 metres) is a little different than going from 382,000,000 metres to 15 light years (about 1.42x1017 metres). That's a percentage increase of 9,549,900% (a lot) versus one of about 37,172,774,769% (a lot lot lot lot lot), which is a percentage difference of 389,148% (that's the percentage difference between the two percentage differences). So, if it took 60 years to go from 4,000 to 382,000,000 then it should take 60 * 389,148% = roughly 233,489 years assuming a linear growth in technology. In reality technological growth is roughly exponential, so the real figure is probably more like 483 years.
Last edited on
Looking back in history, the rate at which technology advances seems to be directly correlated to the speed and ease of communication. Considering the last 30 years or so has seen the home computer becoming main stream, internet becoming mainstream, and mobile devices having a connection to the internet becoming mainstream, I'd say our speed of communication is about as fast as it can get with the technology we have now.
If we quantify the rate of technological advancement by counting the number of 'new' and notable2 technologies to be demonstrated by researchers, and the number of new technologies that become mainstream1 in a given time period we have the equation (n1/t) + (n2/t).
1Define becoming mainstream as being released into the consumer market and having multiple industries adopting it as well as multiple individual sources producing it.
2 Define notable as something that is a relative 'game changer'. Something that has either gone down in history or something (baring a better alternative showing up very very quickly, or a massive flaw becoming apparent) that will go down in history.
If we quantify the rate of technological advancement by counting the number of 'new' and notable2 technologies to be demonstrated by researchers, and the number of new technologies that become mainstream1 in a given time period we have the equation (n1/t) + (n2/t).
1Define becoming mainstream as being released into the consumer market and having multiple industries adopting it as well as multiple individual sources producing it.
2 Define notable as something that is a relative 'game changer'. Something that has either gone down in history or something (baring a better alternative showing up very very quickly, or a massive flaw becoming apparent) that will go down in history.
Interstellar travel isn't as unreachable as most people think. the main issue is that the cost would be so enormous that it wouldn't ever get the approval needed in todays world. Plus it would take a long time to get to another star, and would not be practical with known technology to send a live crew. We would need to send robots. They would need to be programed with AI, and be designed to self repair, and self replicate. We would ideally want them to not disturb biological life if they found it, but to just observe, take samples, and send data back to earth. They would need to be built to survive, and hopefully they could continue to send data back for millions of years.
Here is a link to a study from the seventies about the feasibility of a mission to Bernards Star, 5.9 light years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
And a few other studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Icarus_(Interstellar_Probe_Design_Study)
Now days, there are also new ideas, and technologies for propulsion. Some people think that the best propulsion for IS travel would be the magnetic sail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail
Because of the high cost, high risk of failure, and the fact that people alive when the mission had been initiated might be all dead by the time we reap the reward, I think it' unlikely we will explore other solar systems in the near future; unless there are some major breakthroughs.
Here is a link to a study from the seventies about the feasibility of a mission to Bernards Star, 5.9 light years away.
| Concept Daedalus would be constructed in Earth orbit and have an initial mass of 54,000 tonnes, including 50,000 tonnes of fuel and 500 tonnes of scientific payload. Daedalus was to be a two-stage spacecraft. The first stage would operate for two years, taking the spacecraft to 7.1% of light speed (0.071 c), and then after it was jettisoned the second stage would fire for 1.8 years, bringing the spacecraft up to about 12% of light speed (0.12 c) before being shut down for a 46-year cruise period. Due to the extreme temperature range of operation required (from near absolute zero to 1,600 K) the engine bells and support structure would be made of molybdenum TZM alloy, which retains strength even at cryogenic temperatures. A major stimulus for the project was Friedwardt Winterberg's inertial confinement fusion drive concept[2][1] for which he received the Hermann Oberth gold medal award. [3] This velocity is well beyond the capabilities of chemical rockets, or even the type of nuclear pulse propulsion studied during Project Orion. Instead, Daedalus would be propelled by a fusion rocket using pellets of deuterium/helium-3 mix that would be ignited in the reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams. The electron beam system would be powered by a set of induction coils tapping energy from the plasma exhaust stream. 250 pellets would be detonated per second, and the resulting plasma would be directed by a magnetic nozzle. The computed burn-up fraction for the fusion fuels was 0.175 and 0.133 for the First & Second stages, producing exhaust velocities of 10,600 km/s and 9,210 km/s, respectively. Due to the scarcity of helium-3 it was to be mined from the atmosphere of Jupiter via large hot-air balloon supported robotic factories over a 20 year period. The second stage would have two 5-meter optical telescopes and two 20-meter radio telescopes. About 25 years after launch these telescopes would begin examining the area around Barnard's Star to learn more about any accompanying planets. This information would be sent back to Earth, using the 40-meter diameter second stage engine bell as a communications dish, and targets of interest would be selected. Since the spacecraft would not decelerate upon reaching Barnard's Star, Daedalus would carry 18 autonomous sub-probes that would be launched between 7.2 and 1.8 years before the main craft entered the target system. These sub-probes would be propelled by nuclear-powered ion drives and carry cameras, spectrometers, and other sensory equipment. They would fly past their targets, still travelling at 12% of the speed of light, and transmit their findings back to the Daedalus second stage mothership for relay back to Earth. The ship's payload bay containing its sub-probes, telescopes, and other equipment would be protected from the interstellar medium during transit by a beryllium disk up to 7 mm thick and weighing up to 50 tonnes. This erosion shield would be made from beryllium due to its lightness and high latent heat of vaporisation. Larger obstacles that might be encountered while passing through the target system would be dispersed by an artificially generated cloud of particles, ejected by support vehicles called dust bugs, some 200 km ahead of the vehicle. The spacecraft would carry a number of robot "wardens" capable of autonomously repairing damage or malfunctions. [edit] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
And a few other studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Icarus_(Interstellar_Probe_Design_Study)
Now days, there are also new ideas, and technologies for propulsion. Some people think that the best propulsion for IS travel would be the magnetic sail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail
Because of the high cost, high risk of failure, and the fact that people alive when the mission had been initiated might be all dead by the time we reap the reward, I think it' unlikely we will explore other solar systems in the near future; unless there are some major breakthroughs.
| Cool video clip about landing the Mars rover. |
I read a cool documentary once about us burning fossil fuels and global warming. When you look at Mars, it's just a couple of degrees off for life to exist. And then we look at Earth, and we already have a way of making the planet warmer. So why not put 1 and 2 together and we'll have a great new planet to live on. Personally, I don't see why we still haven't :D
About space travel, I think we will get there. It's just a matter of time.
About space travel, I think we will get there. It's just a matter of time.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.