| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FuhZee
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 227
Location: Oklahoma
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| vike daddy wrote: | | so... you're proposing that a viable place for us to colonize off-Earth would be 50km above a planet's surface...? |
Using basically bubbles filled with the air we breathe which would float suspended in the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Venus is much more resource rich than Mars and with temperature and atmospheric pressure the same as on earth 30 miles up it would be easier than on Mars. It would cost less to send people to Venus and would take a lesser amount of time.
Venus would also be a better option for terraforming |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
diehardlionfan
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 21967
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: How soon until Space Colonization is a viable reality? |
|
|
|
| iPwn wrote: | | vike daddy wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | | Mars... apparently has a somewhat habitable environment suited for humans- at least more so than our Moon. |
say whut?
please explain how Mars' environment is more habitable for us than the Moon's, or actually can in any way be considered "somewhat habitable." both are totally deadly to us. |
Yep. No breathable oxygen, the aforementioned temperature, and the low gravity that would lead to muscle degeneration/added fat from the lower caloric burn (that is, much lower life expectancy). Oh, and no water.
But somewhat habitable. |
Breathing is apparently overrated. 
_________________
Sig by LionsFTW
To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[UMN]
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 11848
Location: Desolation Row
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
_________________
[UMN]'s 2013 Vikings' Offense Tracker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gmen4ev
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 16952
Location: In west Philadelphia born and raised
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
|
could you give your insight Mr. Space Cowboy ... or should I call you Maurice ... maybe the gangsta of love?
_________________
| Spock wrote: | | The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vike daddy
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66823
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
|
hmmph.
i read that Venus has over 800 degrees.
_________________
| Webmaster wrote: | | Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17900
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
|
Hell, the most technical degree I have is Math, and I got a kick out of this.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
49ersfan
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 4657
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
|
I'm very interested in the subject of the universe and space travel but lack the knowledge/education required to fully understand it as someone who studies it.
What are your thoughts on a topic like this? EG, when do you think a manned mission to mars would be possible? And have you followed the NASA voyager's mission? Apparently It may be near interstellar space and could give us a lot of valuable info.
_________________
-Not taking this off until the 49ers win #6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thrILL!
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 16713
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
In the year Two Thousand and Never.
Or at least until we are forced to when the Drej invade.
_________________
| bkobow05 wrote: | I DON'T DRINK FROO FROO COFFEE
I AM A MAN
YOU CAN'T GRAB PUDDING
IT OOZES THROUGH YOUR HANDS |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iPwn
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 36209
Location: Stand United
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vike daddy wrote: | | so... you're proposing that a viable place for us to colonize off-Earth would be 50km above a planet's surface...? |
If we find a way to live 50km above Venus' surface, why wouldn't we just do that here?
_________________
 | samgurl775 wrote: | | It's alright iPwn, you're my #1. |
| EliteTexan80 wrote: | | I AM TRYING TO BE PWNY! AND I AM NOT! AND THIS VEXES ME SORE!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vike daddy
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66823
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 49ersfan wrote: | I'm very interested in the subject of the universe and space travel but lack the knowledge/education required to fully understand it as someone who studies it.
What are your thoughts on a topic like this? EG, when do you think a manned mission to mars would be possible? And have you followed the NASA voyager's mission? Apparently It may be near interstellar space and could give us a lot of valuable info. |
1) manned mission to Mars - while conceivably possible, it would take an enormous amount of energy to send a payload to Mars and have the technology to bring at least some of it (the astronauts and their vehicle) back. lots of energy expended means lots of dollars to pay for it, which will be a limiting factor for quite some time. NASA instead is planning unmanned missions to save billions of dollars, ie: you don't have to bring a rover unit back to earth, you can leave it there for many years. nor does it need health care or a pension.
2) Voyager leaving the solar system - space is just that, space. by far, most of it is empty. there are enormous distances between planets, let alone other stars.
_________________
| Webmaster wrote: | | Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
milanb
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 5225
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| x0x wrote: | For all out technological advances, people don't seem to grasp that the concept of colonization is very time consuming and even though we build skyscrapers at a faster rate than farms, it doesn't mean space colonization will come easy.
Probably 150 years before we see significant colonization.
Simply because economic demand is not there yet.
Right now, Mars doesn't seem to have many useful resources, Deuterium is the popular one but we're far away from really being so hungry for it that we'd be raising colonies just to ship it.
Terraforming is most likely the way of the future, and indeed we may create advanced technology that could terraform planets like Mars into more Earth-like in 1-300 years.
But again, people jump too quickly.
People growing up from the time period of 1940-1970 also thought we'd have space colonization within a lifetime.
Hell, have you guys read science fiction novels written in the early 20th century?
To people of the 1950s, 2012 is pretty freaking boring. Internet notwithstanding.... |
I think part of that is that we went from horses and buggies to the jet age in the space of about 50 years. Then you had the moon landings only 20 years later. That's a very short period of time, and people didn't fully appreciate the huge technical hurdles that needed to be overcome to go beyond the moon or even to make space flight routine.
The Challenger disaster was a huge shock to everyone inside and outside the space program, because the general public had come to believe that the Space Shuttle was a huge success and that space flight was now so commonplace that it made sense to send school teachers up there. A lot of people in the space program believed it too. But basically, the fact of the matter is that once you put a man on the moon, the technical hurdles that you have to overcome to get to the next level are orders of magnitude greater.
_________________
The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11
But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16746
Location: Parkville, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| iPwn wrote: | | vike daddy wrote: | | so... you're proposing that a viable place for us to colonize off-Earth would be 50km above a planet's surface...? |
If we find a way to live 50km above Venus' surface, why wouldn't we just do that here?
|
Exactly  For each obstacle that we have to plan around to live on another planet, we have the same issue here that is a lot easier to overcome.
Inhospitable places to live? We have those here.
Live 50km about a surface? We can do that here.
We aren't going to attempt to colonize any place before Earth is literally stuffed to the brim with people.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan?
XBL GT: kanxalanx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EliteTexan80
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 37207
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| [UMN] wrote: | as someone with degrees in both aerospace engineering and astrophysics, this is the funniest thread I have seen in a while. some of the replies here are priceless.
|
Oh yeah? Well, I had a fling with an Ansari a few weeks back on Thessia. Would be going back, but I heard the Reapers really did a number to that planet.
(For those of you who don't get my references in this thread - do me a solid, get yourself a copy of Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, play 'em both a lot, and thank me later).
_________________
iPwn, Kempes and Flaccomania: The official sig makers for THE ET80! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vike daddy
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66823
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| milanb wrote: | I think part of that is that we went from horses and buggies to the jet age in the space of about 50 years. Then you had the moon landings only 20 years later. That's a very short period of time, and people didn't fully appreciate the huge technical hurdles that needed to be overcome to go beyond the moon or even to make space flight routine.
The Challenger disaster was a huge shock to everyone inside and outside the space program, because the general public had come to believe that the Space Shuttle was a huge success and that space flight was now so commonplace that it made sense to send school teachers up there. A lot of people in the space program believed it too. But basically, the fact of the matter is that once you put a man on the moon, the technical hurdles that you have to overcome to get to the next level are orders of magnitude greater. |
i agree with all that you are saying here, other than some points about the Challenger disaster. but you may agree with mine too, if we both continue to elaborate on the subject.
the Challenger blew up upon launch due to an o-ring failing, allowing super hot gasses to uncontrollably ignite outside of any combustion chamber. the o-ring failed because of the unexpected low temperature on launch day in Florida. actually, it didn't technically fail because it was not expected to perform within the temperature range of that day.
the engineers in Utah who designed that part of the vehicle, Morton-Thiokol, were on the phone basically pleading with NASA to scrub the launch, saying it was too risky. even so much that they insisted on NASA waiving their responsibility if they continued with the launch. but the bureaucrats didn't listen to the engineers and launched anyway.
result? disaster. and one that could have been avoided.
why then did NASA insist on launching when engineers were strongly advising against it? ahh, the answer there lies in the realm of politics....
_________________
| Webmaster wrote: | | Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17900
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vike daddy wrote: | | milanb wrote: | I think part of that is that we went from horses and buggies to the jet age in the space of about 50 years. Then you had the moon landings only 20 years later. That's a very short period of time, and people didn't fully appreciate the huge technical hurdles that needed to be overcome to go beyond the moon or even to make space flight routine.
The Challenger disaster was a huge shock to everyone inside and outside the space program, because the general public had come to believe that the Space Shuttle was a huge success and that space flight was now so commonplace that it made sense to send school teachers up there. A lot of people in the space program believed it too. But basically, the fact of the matter is that once you put a man on the moon, the technical hurdles that you have to overcome to get to the next level are orders of magnitude greater. |
i agree with all that you are saying here, other than some points about the Challenger disaster. but you may agree with mine too, if we both continue to elaborate on the subject.
the Challenger blew up upon launch due to an o-ring failing, allowing super hot gasses to uncontrollably ignite outside of any combustion chamber. the o-ring failed because of the unexpected low temperature on launch day in Florida. actually, it didn't technically fail because it was not expected to perform within the temperature range of that day.
the engineers in Utah who designed that part of the vehicle, Morton-Thiokol, were on the phone basically pleading with NASA to scrub the launch, saying it was too risky. even so much that they insisted on NASA waiving their responsibility if they continued with the launch. but the bureaucrats didn't listen to the engineers and launched anyway.
result? disaster. and one that could have been avoided.
why then did NASA insist on launching when engineers were strongly advising against it? ahh, the answer there lies in the realm of politics.... |
It's an interesting read. Apparently, the engineering company (and NASA) had been aware of the design flaw for years, but had essentially hand-waved it. The engineers involved with the project strenuously argued against the launch, but when NASA pressured to go ahead, the management from the company greenlighted the mission.
| Roger Boisjoly wrote: | "We thought that if the seals failed the shuttle would never get off the launch pad," Boisjoly told Zwerdling. So, when Challenger lifted off without incident, he and the others watching television screens at Thiokol's Utah plant were relieved.
"And when we were one minute into the launch a friend turned to me and said, 'Oh God. We made it. We made it!'" Boisjoly continued. "Then, a few seconds later, the shuttle blew up. And we all knew exactly what happened." |
Boisjoly is one of the engineers who attempted to halt the launch of the Challenger. Quite depressing how it went down, honestly. So many warning signs ignored.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| 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
