tigerninja
Cancelled
- Apr 10, 2015
- 2,354
- 2,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Modern Day Event Space Exploration thread
- Thread starter TheKanga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
yes and no, if they send everything they separate from the lander they go in include a way off of mars then its magnitudes easier. problem is this increases costs a *ton.
basically mars's atmosphere is very thin, which makes it hard to slow s**t down. thats the whole issue in a nutshell. but it's not really as big as problem as detractors make out, it's a clickbait point brought up because it's something everyone can say holy * thats a pretty big issue.
the reason we don't have a system for landing humans on mars is because such a craft will only have one purpose nobody's going to spend billions in RND for a proof of concept. we already have the concepts that can be redesigned to work with humans. But getting back off the planets another issue entirely.
much larger issues is how we store and transport the fuel needed to get a craft to mars and back, because right now no rockets can take people to and return them from the red planet.
Moody Blue
Premiership Player
Nuclear power. We use it to fuel carriers and submarines. We can use it to get to Mars much quicker as there would be a steady supply of fuel, unlike the liquid fuel required by previous craft. Need to start by having a base on the Moon which would give us an idea of the challenges of living and working off world and constructing a base in space. If something goes wrong Earth is a couple of days away.
problem with that:
RTG's and HPS are not powerful enough for a manned mission.
direct nuclear options are fairytale stuff, which will never be greenlit for a manned mission this century.
almost all nuclear pulse projects are non viable due to rad shields and surge protections, yes these things can be overcome, but the weight would be far too high for traditional launches you'd never get the rocket off the ground and you couldn't use the nuclear propulsion to take off because no one's going to let you fire off nukes in atmosphere. even if you find away to protect the crew, you've now soaked the return vessel in ionising radiation far beyond safe limits the moment they open the capsule they're dead.
thermonuclear rockets are viable. but the risk of contamination in a crash means you have zero chance of this being launched in full in atmosphere. it would have to built in orbit due to environmental concerns and thus becomes unviable.
this leaves the only real option as nuclear-electric, but there's still several hurdles before we can deploy these, we haven't even built the ion engines which would provide propulsion at this scale before.
Last edited:
And in 1990 it was 2015, definitely. For the first colonists not just explorers. Its not about the technology. For NASA, its about getting the funding through Congress. And its far easier to take the money from, and give hundreds of times as much to, the military industrial complex for a few wars than for a Mars attempt.
If the Chinese make a serious attempt, then the US might think about it. Might. More likely, they will make an attempt to sabotage the program.
For all the promises being made, they are politician's promises.
So the us congress just basically said the * off to the outer space treaty and is allowing US companies to claim sovereignty over asteroids for mining purposes.
- Banned
- #357
Doesn't surprise me
Moody Blue
Premiership Player
The US has a debt of 20 trillion (and climbing) hanging over its head. This debt will not be sustainable for much longer and then watch out. China, India and Russia have the resources and Capital to undertake such a project, but they need the Americans know how to help them.
Interesting quandary whether they can all get together and do something for humanity instead of pursuing their nationalistic goals.
- Banned
- #359
Ununpentium will power the vessels.
Thought this was interesting. The Brits are developing engines to make space flight cheaper and more practical. The engines will work in and out of the atmosphere enabling a plane to take off normally and fly into orbit.
Could at least make it easier to start missions from in orbit or from a moon base.
http://news.sky.com/story/1580115/baes-20m-boost-for-3800mph-space-engine-firm
http://www.reactionengines.co.ukuk
Could at least make it easier to start missions from in orbit or from a moon base.
http://news.sky.com/story/1580115/baes-20m-boost-for-3800mph-space-engine-firm
http://www.reactionengines.co.ukuk
Last edited:
pretty much, the tech doesn't exist, the training isn't long enough, there's no detailed projections, no tests or proofs of concept.
to still believe this is anything but a publicity at this point is to have you head in the sand.
they're already behind NASA, who still don't have a rocket.
are black holes powerful enough to potentially rip open space and time to another dimension? Or will everything just get destroyed?
Are white holes the opposite end of a black hole from another dimension or parallel universe?
Are white holes the opposite end of a black hole from another dimension or parallel universe?
well one theory is blackholes ARE a rip in fabric of the universe, which is space time.
white hole theory says that they are the opposite end of black holes. think of it like sand flowing through an hourglass, whether it's a white hole or a black hole depends on what end of it your looking at.
it would be another universe as dimensions are not what you see in the movies, for example as far as we know, we live in a 4 dimensional universe, if it turns out there's 6000 dimensions then we are actually living in a 6000 dimensional universe. you can't "go" to another dimension you're already within it.
White holes cannot consume matter they only produce and black holes cant introduce matter they only consume (both are anomalies to our current knowledge AFAIK). They have to be related somehow and I think that is our ticket to transporting vast distances over the multi universes.
well you're right in that they have to be connected, a white holes existence is 100% dependant on blackholes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
but as for travel there's two issues. 1 white holes can't exist in our universe. 2 you'd have to first cross into a blackhole and pass through the singularity to get to a white hole. which would do a lot more than just kill you.
- Banned
- #368
But it worked for interstellar
That pic with the statue and the milky way above it, the reason I loathe light pollution. I've stayed out in the country before and the view in the middle of the night was mesmerising.Time for some random space photos
Was that a real image? Looked like a freaking animation to me. If real, my mind = blown (cue the gift of the guys mind blown into a galaxy or whatever it is)
I'd put money on it that it's real. You can see the Milky Way from Earth.
yeah its "real" but its not what the human eye would see, that shot is taken with a long exposure it allows more light into the camera.
but yes the milky way is visible from earth.
SA is one one of the best places to see the milky way or at least it would be if not for light pollution.
but you can still see quite a bit from most places just outside of main cities, on a clear night with no moon, the view of the night sky from little heartley is amazing or at least it was before they started keeping the lights on at the 3 sisters all year round.
