| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16550
Location: Parkville, MD
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| 49ersfan wrote: | | Ataal wrote: | | I don't think we colonize any planet in our solar system. It will be a planet from somewhere else that matches Earth better. But, this will be hundreds of years from now. |
Agreed on a new solar system and agreed on the timeline.
|
I don't quite get this...
You're saying that you think in hundreds of years from now, you think we'll be able to colonize a planet in another solar system.
Yet your example is a planet is 42 light years away.
Unless you expect our average lifespan to nearly triple in "hundreds of years", it's going to take people essentially sacrificing their lives and reproducing on the way in order for people to make it there and have any sort of ability to sustain our species.
Highly unlikely anything like THAT happens. As DTMB said, there's a better chance we start colonizing our oceans than we start colonizing the moon/other planets, let alone other solar systems.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
49ersfan
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 4612
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Flaccomania wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | Ataal wrote: | | I don't think we colonize any planet in our solar system. It will be a planet from somewhere else that matches Earth better. But, this will be hundreds of years from now. |
Agreed on a new solar system and agreed on the timeline.
|
I don't quite get this...
You're saying that you think in hundreds of years from now, you think we'll be able to colonize a planet in another solar system.
Yet your example is a planet is 42 light years away.
Unless you expect our average lifespan to nearly triple in "hundreds of years", it's going to take people essentially sacrificing their lives and reproducing on the way in order for people to make it there and have any sort of ability to sustain our species.
Highly unlikely anything like THAT happens. As DTMB said, there's a better chance we start colonizing our oceans than we start colonizing the moon/other planets, let alone other solar systems. |
I think its possible in the far future. Likely, maybe not. Possible, perhaps.
_________________
-Not taking this off until the 49ers win #6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16550
Location: Parkville, MD
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 49ersfan wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | Ataal wrote: | | I don't think we colonize any planet in our solar system. It will be a planet from somewhere else that matches Earth better. But, this will be hundreds of years from now. |
Agreed on a new solar system and agreed on the timeline.
|
I don't quite get this...
You're saying that you think in hundreds of years from now, you think we'll be able to colonize a planet in another solar system.
Yet your example is a planet is 42 light years away.
Unless you expect our average lifespan to nearly triple in "hundreds of years", it's going to take people essentially sacrificing their lives and reproducing on the way in order for people to make it there and have any sort of ability to sustain our species.
Highly unlikely anything like THAT happens. As DTMB said, there's a better chance we start colonizing our oceans than we start colonizing the moon/other planets, let alone other solar systems. |
I think its possible in the far future. Likely, maybe not. Possible, perhaps. |
Sure, "possible". But the logistics behind it would make it highly unlikely. I'd believe our deserts, jungles, and oceans would all be colonized well before we even think about the moon/Mars, and those would come even before we think of another solar system.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vike daddy
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66652
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Flaccomania wrote: | | I'd believe our deserts, jungles, and oceans would all be colonized well before we even think about the moon/Mars. |
heck, we could colonize Cleveland with intelligent life by then.
_________________
| Webmaster wrote: | | Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom cody
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 6587
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeah, this is a long way's off. Just to get all the things needed to prepare for life on Mars would take a lot of time to plan. Maybe in my lifetime but I'm not 100% sure.
_________________
Hey there, Blimpy Boy, flying through the sky so fancy.. free.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16550
Location: Parkville, MD
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vike daddy wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | I'd believe our deserts, jungles, and oceans would all be colonized well before we even think about the moon/Mars. |
heck, we could colonize Cleveland with intelligent life by then. |
Whoa, now you're just taking gigantic leaps. One step at a time, vd.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jetsman82
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 18355
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| milanb wrote: | | vike daddy wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | 42 light years is relatively small, when i've read that our galaxy itself is 100,000 light years long, compared to the known universe which itself is supposedly 100 billion light years. So 42? Almost like a cakewalk. |
as you are discovering, 42 LY is a tiny distance in the cosmic road map, but an enormous one for our present technology, or anything immediately foreseable.
our Moon is about 2 light seconds away, our Sun is about eight light minutes away. 42 years is an enormous distance to transit, not to mention what support help would there be from an Earth command base if a one-time back and forth conversation would take 84 years to complete? |
Even if you could travel at anything close to the speed of light, time would slow down around you and you could be thousands of years into the future by the time you reached your destination. |
An interesting paradox, to say the least.
I remember working out a problem recently that essentially showed to make a conventional space ship travel at a mere 3/10 the speed of light (still approx 100000000 meters per second, mind you), it would take almost as much energy as the Earth produces in a day to make a ship travel at that speed for just a few seconds.
Basically, it told me we are a long ways away. We're going to need to go a step or maybe even two steps beyond nuclear fusion before we can even sniff that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
latinoaustino
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 5716
Location: The road is my home
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jetsman82 wrote: | | milanb wrote: | | vike daddy wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | 42 light years is relatively small, when i've read that our galaxy itself is 100,000 light years long, compared to the known universe which itself is supposedly 100 billion light years. So 42? Almost like a cakewalk. |
as you are discovering, 42 LY is a tiny distance in the cosmic road map, but an enormous one for our present technology, or anything immediately foreseable.
our Moon is about 2 light seconds away, our Sun is about eight light minutes away. 42 years is an enormous distance to transit, not to mention what support help would there be from an Earth command base if a one-time back and forth conversation would take 84 years to complete? |
Even if you could travel at anything close to the speed of light, time would slow down around you and you could be thousands of years into the future by the time you reached your destination. |
An interesting paradox, to say the least.
I remember working out a problem recently that essentially showed to make a conventional space ship travel at a mere 3/10 the speed of light (still approx 100000000 meters per second, mind you), it would take almost as much energy as the Earth produces in a day to make a ship travel at that speed for just a few seconds.
Basically, it told me we are a long ways away. We're going to need to go a step or maybe even two steps beyond nuclear fusion before we can even sniff that. |
Correct me if I'm wrong but nuclear fission is what we do now with fusion being the goal in the immediate term. They've talked about a propulsion system that works off of anti matter that would be much better than what we use now. Scientists have speculated that harnessing the power of dark matter is the key, but to my knowledge we haven't physically proved its existence.
_________________
Adopt A Titan
Alterraun Verner and Scott Solomon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[UMN]
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 11833
Location: Desolation Row
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jetsman82 wrote: | | I remember working out a problem recently that essentially showed to make a conventional space ship travel at a mere 3/10 the speed of light (still approx 100000000 meters per second, mind you), it would take almost as much energy as the Earth produces in a day to make a ship travel at that speed for just a few seconds. |
Getting a space ship to get moving that fast is not an issue (due to the lack of drag). Simply a solar sail could easily do that with no energy needing to be provided. The issue is getting something up to speed quickly.
_________________
[UMN]'s 2013 Vikings' Offense Tracker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[UMN]
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 11833
Location: Desolation Row
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Colonizing the moon would be MUCH easier than Mars, simply because of the amount of energy it takes to get to Mars compared to the moon.
Anything in deep space (such as other stars) is practically impossible until we make some major breakthroughs in physics. See: wormhole jumps, FTL communications, anti-matter engines, etc.
_________________
[UMN]'s 2013 Vikings' Offense Tracker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samgurl775
Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 11096
Location: Lake Tahoe, NV
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EliteTexan80 wrote: | As soon as we find the Mass Relays, we're in it to win it. #Cerberus.  |
Aw man you stole my joke 
Edit:
| EliteTexan80 wrote: | | Ataal wrote: | | EliteTexan80 wrote: | | As soon as we find the Mass Relays, we're in it to win it. #Cerberus. |
+1 for the Mass Effect plug. |
(Thanks samgurl!) |
Just saw this. I forgive you.
_________________
| Troy Brown wrote: | | But thing is, you're like half-girl. You like sports and seemingly think logically. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaliforniaKid7
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Posts: 4203
Location: Cali
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| milanb wrote: | | vike daddy wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | 42 light years is relatively small, when i've read that our galaxy itself is 100,000 light years long, compared to the known universe which itself is supposedly 100 billion light years. So 42? Almost like a cakewalk. |
as you are discovering, 42 LY is a tiny distance in the cosmic road map, but an enormous one for our present technology, or anything immediately foreseable.
our Moon is about 2 light seconds away, our Sun is about eight light minutes away. 42 years is an enormous distance to transit, not to mention what support help would there be from an Earth command base if a one-time back and forth conversation would take 84 years to complete? |
Even if you could travel at anything close to the speed of light, time would slow down around you and you could be thousands of years into the future by the time you reached your destination. |
Explain this to me? How does that work?
_________________
props to macklemore on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adamq
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 7705
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Waste of time and especially money, IMO.
_________________
-kiltman
| Uncle Buck wrote: | | I'd rather have Tebow than any other QB in the NFL besides Rodgers, and I may even take him over Rodgers due to the difference in age. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bohlmann20
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Posts: 5138
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| adamq wrote: | | Waste of time and especially money, IMO. |
Yeah, and so was putting gravy in a dispenser at gas stations. How did that work out? . . . Awesome.
Anyways, yeah, unless it's ever proven feasible for people to live in space for a long time, it's a waste of money and time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jetsman82
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 18355
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | | Jetsman82 wrote: | | I remember working out a problem recently that essentially showed to make a conventional space ship travel at a mere 3/10 the speed of light (still approx 100000000 meters per second, mind you), it would take almost as much energy as the Earth produces in a day to make a ship travel at that speed for just a few seconds. |
Getting a space ship to get moving that fast is not an issue (due to the lack of drag). Simply a solar sail could easily do that with no energy needing to be provided. The issue is getting something up to speed quickly. |
Hmm, last I heard, we couldn't get anything to even go .1c
Regardless, the issue again comes from energy. Right now, we simply don't have the energy source to generate that kind of power. Like I said in a previous post, it's probably going to be a step or two beyond self sustaining nuclear fusion, which we haven't quite mastered yet IIRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
