I grow ever more impatient everytime I hear of voyages being launched or to be launched only at the moon or mars or pluto!

Why don't we launch interstellar travels? Certainly the Orion propulsion system can get us to Alpha Centuari in under a century!

We have the capability!


And then there is an issue, though, communication. I've always wondered, we can't send probes to faraway stars because it would take ages for their information to come back to us. How can we communicate with each other when we are at such distances?

Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to our Solar System at 4.37 light-years distant (about 41.5 trillion km, 25.8 trillion miles or 277,600 AU). Proxima Centauri, usually regarded as part of the system, is the closest star at 4.22 light-years distant.

WIKI

4.37 light years would mean that a rocket that left Earth traveling at todays speeds which is just over 45,000 MPH would take over 1000 years to get there! Light travels at 183,000 miles per second and we have only propulsion for miles per hour. That is why we don't explore other than our own solar system. Until humans can get better speed for their spacecraft they are only going to be able to stay around this area of space for a very long time.

you mean project orion witch would carry +500 nuclair bombs and in it smallest form weight 300 tons (the ISS weights 232 ton).
The probe could possible be builled but would require in space assembly and would take abouth 10 years to construct.
The probe itself would probably be verry small and therefore primitive and can only make a high speed fly by. Hence you only get visual information.
Because it can be build with modern techniques there wouldn't be any real scientific gain except perhaps promoting the hopelesly expansive in space building.
And data would take around a 100 years to get to earth.
On the other hand space telescopes are developing so fast then you can expect similar results from them then can be recieved by such a fast flyby. In a matter of decades. I doubt then the space telescopes in a 100 years from now could see less then a lightweight power starved probe build with current techniques who would stay at least a 100 000 km from any celestial body with only a observation period of a couple of months/weeks. That by the way will be a 100 years old and had been bonbarded with space radiation/atoms for a 100 years

Interstellar travels? We are so backwards as a culture, we can't even deal with a guy in a dress.

Orion doesn't get the speed up very much and it uses atomic explosions to drive it. What is going to prevent the ship itself from being blown up since it is within a few hundred feet of a 10 megaon nuclear explosion? It really is a very odd thing to use something that will blow your craft up to try and propell it isn't it? :shrug:

Orion doesn't get the speed up very much and it uses atomic explosions to drive it. What is going to prevent the ship itself from being blown up since it is within a few hundred feet of a 10 megaon nuclear explosion? It really is a very odd thing to use something that will blow your craft up to try and propell it isn't it? :shrug:
It's got a big ass pusher plate with some ablative (I think) layering.

Interstellar travels? We are so backwards as a culture, we can't even deal with a guy in a dress.

Trans-verst-ite. Amazing new element with incredible propulsion applications, and fashion sense...

It's got a big ass pusher plate with some ablative (I think) layering.

A big ass pusher plate! Now what does that mean? Put anything within a 10 megaton nuclear device and see what the results are, SHAZZZM...Nothing left! I really don't think that is a very smart way to fly do you? Would you get aboard that thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

The Orion drive using nuclear explosions to produce thrust seems like science fiction, not science.

In the absence of some far out technology (not yet known), a star ship relies on conservation of momentum to obtain thrust. The ship sends reaction mass in the direction opposite to the direction of the destination. Consider 1000kg of payload and a 100kg reaction mass, both of which are not moving toward or away from the destination (Total momentum is zero).Send the reaction mass away from the destination at 1000 km per second: Star ship velocity is 100km per second.


Send the reaction mass backwards at 100,000km per second (about 1/3 velocity of light): Star ship velocity is 10,000km per second.StarshipMass*StarshipVelocity = ReactionMass*ReactionVelocity

If the star ship is moving, the above equation indicates the increase in velocity due to reaction mass propelled backwards. Use nuclear explosions or coolies throwing rocks: You need a huge amount of reaction mass sent backwards slowly or less mass sent backwards very fast.

No matter how you accelrate the reaction mass, an enormous amount is required for a trip to a nearby star, unless you are willing to take a long time to get there. Perhaps a generation ship is the only possibility, allowing the descendants of the original crew to complete the journey.

Perhaps it might be possible to get out of the solar system in the direction of the center of the galaxy and rely on the gravitational pull of the galactic core to speed up a star ship. I suspect that you might not want to go toward galactic center: It might be a one way trip. After building velocity toward galactic center, perhaps you could use a gravitational whip effect to return to the solar system or take a trip elsewhere.

After building velocity toward galactic center, perhaps you could use a gravitational whip effect to return to the solar system or take a trip elsewhere.

Where's the food, water and medical supplies? What about parts that are needed to fix and repair the ship? So many questions and so few real answers.:shrug:

And then there is an issue, though, communication. I've always wondered, we can't send probes to faraway stars because it would take ages for their information to come back to us. How can we communicate with each other when we are at such distances?

You mean FTL communication? Like Tachyon Communication in Sci-Fi? We do not know how to even theorize...

Here are some speculation but that borders on psedoscience...

1. Find a way to communicate via another dimension. The speculation is that the other dimensions are very small like a few millimeters...find a way through it

2. Use Hyperspace - whatever that is

3. Using quantum entanglement, but then one may have to send the other half particles first to the destination before using it.

The solution may come from quantum mechanics....

Short of an unexpected major advance involving presently unknown theories, we are not going to develop star travel this century. The distances are unbelievably huge and we would have to have a definite target to reach with an inhabitable planet, which may be 10 light years away, or 110 light years away. It is not something that can be hurried.

Marvel Comics did a story in the late sixties about a man who did a thousand year voyage to the stars. Not long after he left, a new peopulsion system was discovered and when he finally reached his destination, he found Earth people there waiting for him on a planet they had reached several centuries ago.

kmguru. Other dimensions like hyperspace (and tachyons) are all just ideas at present. Quantum Entaglement is a memory trick which works on atomic particles so no use for anything bigger.

kmguru. Other dimensions like hyperspace (and tachyons) are all just ideas at present. Quantum Entaglement is a memory trick which works on atomic particles so no use for anything bigger.

Well, we need to find what are the ideas that does not violate established phusical laws. Some of them may have practical applications. Normally I dream my computer system solutions. But one time, I dreamed that the empty space is not empty. It has string like rivers of energy that when seen through the sensors look like blue-green thread like spagetti. Our ship uses that path to go from one point to the other at half the speed of light. The ship is coated with some material that changes its properties when imersed in those energy streams. It may have something to do with dark energy/matter.

Of course it is a dream but my dreams always give clues to a solution I am looking for, such as dense recording using Violet lasers on polymer crystals using phase encoding.

kmguru. Other dimensions like hyperspace (and tachyons) are all just ideas at present. Quantum Entaglement is a memory trick which works on atomic particles so no use for anything bigger.

There is a other thread in chemistry
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=75670&page=4
where they discuss absolute 0kelvin and Bose–Einstein condensate.
At 170 nanokelvin atoms no longer behave like individual atoms, but due to quantum effects behave like one uniform wave. Fascinating really. There is nothing other like that in nature or in our human experience.


Quantum effects can aparently be upscaled

Further I do believe star travel is possible with today's or near todays technology if you do not mind that it will only involve a stellar flyby and take near a 100 years.

Like kaneda said with it's marvel story they fastest way to the stars probably involves staying yust here for now.

I grow ever more impatient everytime I hear of voyages being launched or to be launched only at the moon or mars or pluto!

Why don't we launch interstellar travels? Certainly the Orion propulsion system can get us to Alpha Centuari in under a century!

We have the capability!


And then there is an issue, though, communication. I've always wondered, we can't send probes to faraway stars because it would take ages for their information to come back to us. How can we communicate with each other when we are at such distances?

yeah we will work on that as soon as we cleanup all the islamists scum bags from the earth!

Well, we need to find what are the ideas that does not violate established phusical laws.

oh and double oh
what theories are floating around?

if this sci subforum does not produce, if its output is inferior to the pseudoscience subf, i propose deletion

/slam for slam sake

if this sci subforum does not produce, if its output is inferior to the pseudoscience subf, i propose deletion

/slam for slam sake
I suggest you lower your expectation, the change someone here will come up with a better realistic alternative to project orion are very slim. Besides Orion is one of the few realistic rockets that uses nuclair propulsion, something that has a bid of a taboe on it for some silly reason

:Besides Orion is one of the few realistic rockets that uses nuclair propulsion, something that has a bid of a taboe on it for some silly reason


:crazy: :wallbang: :wtf:

I suggest you lower your expectation, the change someone here will come up with a better realistic alternative to project orion are very slim. Besides Orion is one of the few realistic rockets that uses nuclair propulsion, something that has a bid of a taboe on it for some silly reason

you appear to have a time frame?


you know what , discount the question
aint interested
lemme look at your prior posts

you know what , discount the question
aint interested
lemme look at your prior posts
You lost me somewhere?:confused:


to cosmic traveler:
people don't like nuclair energy in space yust look at the newsreport when cassini made it's earth fly by with it's 10 kg or so plutonium

Just call it Orcot alloy....:D

people don't like nuclair energy in space

Scientists don't like saying things that can't be done either. Orion is not what most scientists envision as a good way to travel. Orion just isn't a good idea to many people not because it is nuclear but because it won't work.

There is no reason to go to Alpha Centairi as far as we know....no planetary system. Also, re the time to travel there....it takes as much energy to slow down a craft as accelerate. A craft needs to take energy to slow itself but that energy has mass in the form of storage (nuclear devices). But then you need MORE fuel to accelerate the increased weight and, then of course, MORE stored energy to slow it down. It becomes an impossible amount of energy just to accelerate and slow an object of more than a few grams..every extra gram exponentially increases energy needs as does every incremental increase in speed.

bottom line: We ain't going anywhere soon.

There is no reason to go to Alpha Centairi as far as we know....no planetary system. .

bottom line: We ain't going anywhere soon.



We can IF scientists can make a usable wormhole. Like in the movie "Stargate". They are trying to do so now with many experiments into the particle physics world. People must stop thinking about the "old" ways to travel and become aware of other possibilities and methods of space travel. Once humans evolve past solid fuels to move through space with then they can start to realize that there's faster and easier ways to do so. ;)

One way, we could do this is shown in Carl Sagan's Contact. Once we establish a remote connection with an alien civilization that basically looks the same and scienctifically as advanced, we will teach them (or they will teach us) how to build a stargate. Then two are connected....trade can take place.

I make a bet here: Our first contact will be a group that evolved directly from the dolphins but look somewhat human - in 180 years.

[COLOR="Blue"]One way, we could do this is shown in Carl Sagan's Contact. Once we establish a remote connection with an alien civilization that basically looks the same and scienctifically as advanced, we will teach them (or they will teach us) how to build a stargate. Then two are connected....trade can take place.


You could just send through a remotely controlled Stargate to wherever you want then it could automatically turn itself on to accept travelers through it wherever it is. ;)

Robert L. Forward, a recently-deceased physicist who wrote "hard" sci-fi novels, built a plausible scenario for getting to Barnard's Star, which is a bit further away than Alpha Centauri but has planets, in about fifty years. The technology is a solar sail, a gigantic, thin membrane that collects photons from the nearest sun and converts them into energy to generate continuous acceleration. At the beginning of the voyage a focused light-beam from a huge lens built in space would provide an extra burst of power.

Solar sails have been discussed on SciForums (and obviously elsewhere) and I gather that the problems with Forward's hypothesis are:It's difficult to protect the occupants of the spacecraft from the unfiltered radiation in outer space, without making the craft as massive as a skyscraper, and There's a limit to how big the solar sail can be, without being torn apart by solar winds.Therefore the largest practical interstellar craft that could use this technology would have a payload of a few kilograms,

Still, that's plenty of room for a computer with a bank of instruments and the means to communicate with us. A four-year time delay would not detract from the value of the pictures and other data it sends back. And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could launch several of these on their own, without having to convince the voters that it's a good use of their tax dollars.

It makes sense to me, to first find a planet that we could land on, or better yet one with life, or better still one with a civilization. THEN we can use the technology we've devised in the meantime to figure out how to get people there safely.

It could still turn out that the nearest destination worth the time and trouble is a couple of hundred light years away and takes a millennium to reach. In that case we have to either have perfected suspended animation, or else take the unknown risk of a generation-starship.

KmGuru: That looks like a safe bet. How do I collect if you are wrong? I make a bet here: Our first contact will be a group that evolved directly from the dolphins but look somewhat human - in 180 years.I do not figure to live more than 20 years (if that long), and I am sure you will not last another 180.

What makes people think that dolphins are so smart? Analyze the history of the only intelligent species that we know about. It looks to me like you need a hand (or similar apendage) with at least one opposing thumb (probably not more than two) and 2-6 fingers.

The ability to pick up and use a tree limb or a rock is the precursor to developing the intellignence to improve on a naturally occurring item and then go on to actually designing & making a tool.

Intelligence does not sudenly occur due to magic. It is a slow evolutionary process starting with a hand-like appendage.

KmGuru: That looks like a safe bet. How do I collect if you are wrong? I do not figure to live more than 20 years (if that long), and I am sure you will not last another 180.

That is your problem. May be give the bet to your children who will contact my children?

As to Dolphins...either we may tinker with them by infusing our DNA (remember the guy who was having sex with a bicycle, we humans have a basal urge to stick it where we do not belong) or they were already tinkered by somebody else.

Just because we are away from the bitten path in the Milky Way,does not mean, others can not find us....

BTW: How sure are you that we were not tinkered by an external specis? The answer to that will soon come from the Genetic Tinker labs....

kmguru. I think the structure of space itself prevents anything moving faster than light speed. If you could somehow circumvent space, as in hyperspace, you would still need a drive capable of propelling you somehow at FTL speeds. I have said elsewhere why wormholes will not work.

I think this is like asking someone 200 years ago how we could journey from Britain to America in 5 hours. Such a person would not have a clue about Concorde so would imagine some sort of huge clipper with lots of sails on. I think we are in that position at present where we literally have no idea how FTL travel will be accomplished.

kmguru. I think the structure of space itself prevents anything moving faster than light speed. If you could somehow circumvent space, as in hyperspace, you would still need a drive capable of propelling you somehow at FTL speeds. I have said elsewhere why wormholes will not work.

I think this is like asking someone 200 years ago how we could journey from Britain to America in 5 hours. Such a person would not have a clue about Concorde so would imagine some sort of huge clipper with lots of sails on. I think we are in that position at present where we literally have no idea how FTL travel will be accomplished.
100% agree.

orcot. Quantum Entanglement involves imparting spins to two particles so that they "effectively equal one" so that if you read one spin, you can then know the other spin. It has a use in hiding data and such but not in travel.

I suggest you lower your expectation, the change someone here will come up with a better realistic alternative to project orion are very slim. Besides Orion is one of the few realistic rockets that uses nuclair propulsion, something that has a bid of a taboe on it for some silly reason

There was whining in the early sixties about polluting space with radiation :rolleyes: but I think what serious people were worried about was the real danger of such a craft failing to reach and leave Earth orbit and falling back onto a populated area, spraying radioactive material far and wide.

I don't think Orion is going to get us to the stars but it may prove viable for it's original intention when it was said it could get a few dozen men and a thousand tons of supplies to Mars within a month. Possibly some improved form of ion propulsion will do, but it will still be a very long voyage as such ships take years to reach a good speed before a ramjet then takes over and builds up some real speed.

We can IF scientists can make a usable wormhole. Like in the movie "Stargate". They are trying to do so now with many experiments into the particle physics world. People must stop thinking about the "old" ways to travel and become aware of other possibilities and methods of space travel. Once humans evolve past solid fuels to move through space with then they can start to realize that there's faster and easier ways to do so. ;)

If wormholes exist, you are talking the energy/gravitation of a black hole to make something which may work for just a few miles. A wormhole which would bend space for light years is whole galaxies worth of energy/gravity.

kmguru. I think the structure of space itself prevents anything moving faster than light speed. If you could somehow circumvent space, as in hyperspace, you would still need a drive capable of propelling you somehow at FTL speeds. I have said elsewhere why wormholes will not work.

I agree. However the space itself has certain properties that may be subject to manipulation. For example, if nothing can move faster than light then how come space does. The space itself is expanding faster than light.

I think this is like asking someone 200 years ago how we could journey from Britain to America in 5 hours. Such a person would not have a clue about Concorde so would imagine some sort of huge clipper with lots of sails on. I think we are in that position at present where we literally have no idea how FTL travel will be accomplished.

I agree again. I am always cognizant of that fact and hence look for other ideas not invented yet. I used to teach Creativity in colleges. But that was not a big hit, because students could not invent time machines after the class, even though I had good feedback on the class.

We may not come up with a Concorde, but primitive people knew that if birds can fly, may be someday, humans can too. The way, new products are developed is when inventors make the leap of faith...that what-ifs, within the basic understanding of base science. One should not say, gravity will not allow us to fly or travel to Mars...one should say "How can I"...

In my years of being a scifi member, only 3% to 4% indulge with my and others speculations. Rest jump in saying it can not be done. Inventors usually are not among those 96%.

I understand what you are saying....hence let us dream how those far out ideas are possible.

One way, we could do this is shown in Carl Sagan's Contact. Once we establish a remote connection with an alien civilization that basically looks the same and scienctifically as advanced, we will teach them (or they will teach us) how to build a stargate
shall we call that kmguru alloy
I make a bet here: Our first contact will be a group that evolved directly from the dolphins but look somewhat human - in 180 years
You mean somewhere from earth itself? No intiligent life can evolve in such a short time and we do not need a 180 years to make one with genetic manipulation or cloning extinct ones back.
I believe anything in the homo class will be recreated in under a 100 years from now gowing from homo habilis, erectus, neanderthals and some of the ones in between. All of them will be far smarther then all life on earth except humans and some of them might be worth being called truly intiligent.
Still, that's plenty of room for a computer with a bank of instruments and the means to communicate with us. A four-year time delay would not detract from the value of the pictures and other data it sends back. And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could launch several of these on their own, without having to convince the voters that it's a good use of their tax dollars.
Power sortage your probe could never send it's data back to earth. And in it's 100 year voyage space telescopes would be developed that are far better and have the obvious advantage that they can study stars for several years in stead of weeks/months like with a stellar flyby.
orcot. Quantum Entanglement involves imparting spins to two particles so that they "effectively equal one" so that if you read one spin, you can then know the other spin. It has a use in hiding data and such but not in travel.
True but did I say something abouth travel? If you read the post it yust says that certain quantm effects can be increased to a bigger size under certain conditions.

shall we call that kmguru alloy


Why not? Every other alloy has a name. :D

Orion doesn't get the speed up very much and it uses atomic explosions to drive it. What is going to prevent the ship itself from being blown up since it is within a few hundred feet of a 10 megaon nuclear explosion? It really is a very odd thing to use something that will blow your craft up to try and propell it isn't it? :shrug:

current rockets are pretty much explosives.....

We may not come up with a Concorde, but primitive people knew that if birds can fly, may be someday, humans can too.

And then some crazy sigaret smoking monk put one bird on a bean diet and the rocket got invented by the guy who stood 5 feet away

what about ion propulsion? No need for messy nucleair explosions, it is a proven technology that can speed up a spacecraft (and slow it back down again) to insane speeds

is also relatively cheap to build.

what about ion propulsion? No need for messy nucleair explosions, it is a proven technology that can speed up a spacecraft (and slow it back down again) to insane speeds

is also relatively cheap to build.

Ion propulsion is still very very slow. It cannot attain any greater speeds than what we have in chemical types today plus it cannot lift anything into orbit! It takes it awhile to attain speed as well.

And then some crazy sigaret smoking monk put one bird on a bean diet and the rocket got invented by the guy who stood 5 feet away

Actually rocket got invented in a round about way by the chinese who used sulphur, charcoal, ammonium nitrate (or some white oxidizer) when they were using it to do art work and it caught fire....accidents do happen.

We need a new thinking for FTL drive (relative speed). WARP drive anyone?

Ion propulsion is still very very slow. It cannot attain any greater speeds than what we have in chemical types today plus it cannot lift anything into orbit! It takes it awhile to attain speed as well.

well no the speeds it can attain are far greater than what chemical propulsion can do. Granted it takes thousands of hours to get to really big speeds, but when you are talking about years of traveltime that doesn't really matter. Also this is a young technique. While it has already proven that it works in practice, i would imagine there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Yes it cannot lift anything into orbit but I reckon it still is a great alternative to chemical propulsion for space probes. Only for long distance tho...it doesn't make sense to go to the moon with it...even mars is a bit silly i think

If you want to put a StarGate at a distance, may beIon Propulsion be the perfect choice.

Besides Orion is one of the few realistic rockets that uses nuclair propulsion, something that has a bid of a taboe on it for some silly reason

I think you need to go look at the schematics again. The only pictures I have seen of the proposed system have a single pusher plate, and it cannot be angled. So Orion can go in straight line, but it cannot steer, spin, nor slow down. So just how do you make sure it slingshots to speed up, and manages to slow down when it reaches it's destination?

Oh, it can't.

Great discussion! :) I particulary liked this post:
kmguru. I think the structure of space itself prevents anything moving faster than light speed. If you could somehow circumvent space, as in hyperspace, you would still need a drive capable of propelling you somehow at FTL speeds. I have said elsewhere why wormholes will not work.

I think this is like asking someone 200 years ago how we could journey from Britain to America in 5 hours. Such a person would not have a clue about Concorde so would imagine some sort of huge clipper with lots of sails on. I think we are in that position at present where we literally have no idea how FTL travel will be accomplished.


"at present where we literally have no idea how FTL travel will be accomplished." Or will it ever be acomplished.


http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5729/bigd02adlunjc6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I think you need to go look at the schematics again. The only pictures I have seen of the proposed system have a single pusher plate, and it cannot be angled. So Orion can go in straight line, but it cannot steer, spin, nor slow down. So just how do you make sure it slingshots to speed up, and manages to slow down when it reaches it's destination?

Oh, it can't.

It can turn itself around and face the opposite direction to stop itself. I still think it is a waste of time to even bother with this nonsense. :(

Where did that pic come from?

Perhaps we can look at the science fiction to get some ideas. Remember the original Star Trek Series...that brigde and computer screens etc are obsolete in just a few years. What can we do in another 100 years....

What can we do in another 100 years
Like you said we've only been in space for 50 years. We'l probably already have begun terraforming mars in a 100 years from now, whill sending future versions of starwisps to the stars

Where did that pic come from?

http://www.elfwood.com/art/a/l/aliced2/big_d_02_adlun.jpg.html

I have always wondered, why is it exactly that nothing can exceed the speed of light?

If we can attain 75% the speed of light, I think that is superb. Even 20% the speed of light is good.

A destination? It should be obvious, Zeta Reticuli, about 39.9 Light Years away. It also has planets in the Goldilocks Zone and, in case you don't know, that is supposedly where the Grays are or whatever.





However, for all those that are looking for alternative means of travel, YOU guys are smart. One can travel in a straight line, but nonetheless shortening the space between us is even better, via wormhole.

For instance, here's another problem. Even if we somehow manage to travel at light speed, there are still plenty of things that are simply inaccessable. Communication would be difficult, for one (unless we find other means of doing so), but I was thinking more about the fact that there are still tons and tons of celestial bodies where are hundreds of light years away!

Even at light speed, Zeta Reticuli would take 39.9 years, so how are we ever to accomplish 100+ light year journies without resorting to suspended animation or generation ships, which are extremely risky (generation ships, for instance, are not plausible at the moment, are expensive, would require alot of resources and time to build, and there are alot of things that can go wrong).

How is Humanity ever to reach Andromeda or the Magenallic Clouds? I personally believe, as a member once said in this thread, that the possibilities are out there, we simply don't know of them. Remember, it once took months to go from America to England, and now it takes mere hours. So perhaps, we will find something.

But ultimately the goal is FTL travel, because even light speed travel (and that's already quite out of our reach) is simply not practical for major space exploration.

Colonies on Mars? That's a good idea.......but oh wait, there's no vegetation or water on mars!





Other threats which can be deadly if exploration is not taken with caution is things such as extraterrestrial diseases. If tropical diseases here on Earth are deadly enough, imagine what these distant worlds may hold?

Interstellar is our next goal, and then intergalactic, and perhaps even interuniversal.
I predict Humanity will stretch across the galaxy, at least, by the next few billion years.....if only I could live then though:(

There was whining in the early sixties about polluting space with radiation :rolleyes:
Ridiculous considering that every star is a giant fusion reactor . . .

I predict Humanity will stretch across the galaxy, at least, by the next few billion years.....if only I could live then though

I doubt somewhat that humans will stretch across the galaxy. If that could have been the case, we would be having visitors from other solar systems that had a head start of say a million years.

Human beings could survive for a long time but like Dolphins, Whales and trees, we could be grounded to Earth or our Solar System.

Possibilities also exist that we could be the only intelligent life in Milky Way...then we need to spread out....

Of course your prediction is as good as anybody...you can always watch Babylon 5....and think that we are already there....:D

Diplomacy. Alien civilizations, if we ever contact them, can offer us new things and we to them.

But a few billion years is a LONG time, I'm sure we'll have the capability for efficient travel throughout the galaxy, and colonization of space will be a very possible possibility.

But a few billion years is a LONG time, I'm sure we'll have the capability for efficient travel throughout the galaxy, and colonization of space will be a very possible possibility.

Perhaps the reason we have not interfaced with aliens may be because they are cybernetic creatures that do not have anything in common with us. If Kurzweil is right, we will be uploading our minds to cybernetic robots in about hundred years with a brain copy existing in the internet like My Space. If abrey has his way, human cells could also have immortality too...

Possibilities are endless...

Who knows, we may be creating bubble universes for our own use....remember the genesis gizmo in Star Trek....

http://www.elfwood.com/art/a/l/aliced2/big_d_02_adlun.jpg.html

Thx

It can turn itself around and face the opposite direction to stop itself.(

Not according to the schematics I've seen;

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/spc_lib_gdyson_preview.pdf

check out the diagram on page 4.

One single pusher plate. This thing, as proposed, could lift off, but not steer. At 200 tons, standard manouvering thrusters or retro rockets would not be able to orient the vehicle. It would be impossible, therefore, to stop. The only way it would work, was if it were a cube, and able to eject nukes in every direction.

Not according to the schematics I've seen;

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/spc_lib_gdyson_preview.pdf

check out the diagram on page 4.

One single pusher plate. This thing, as proposed, could lift off, but not steer. At 200 tons, standard manouvering thrusters or retro rockets would not be able to orient the vehicle. It would be impossible, therefore, to stop. The only way it would work, was if it were a cube, and able to eject nukes in every direction.

Not necessarily. Only a slight, tiny angle change on the pusher plate would be necessary and even small steering jets could do the job slowly. No resistance to overcome, just inertia. So just a short burst would begin a very slow rotation about it's center axis allowing for re-pointing the nose.

Antimatter.
That's your answer.
The perfect Energy / mass efficiency.
A few grams of the stuff could apparently get an unmanned probe to Mars in a month, compared to the 11 months of conventional rockets.

The only issues are:

(1) Production. At present production rates of artificial production it would roughly 2 billion years to produce just 1 gram of the stuff; It's said that all the production of artificial antimatter so far would light a single lightbulb for only a few minutes.
(2) Storage. Current techniques can store antiprotons for roughly 10 seconds after production, and I don't think antihydrogen has ever been stored. And the storage container weighs a fair amount as well! :D

And then the main problem...
Any fuel that has high-energy potential will have a military use far earlier than a scientific use. So as soon as anti-matter becomes available for scientific use / space-travel, it will most likely already be developed into weapons of global destruction.

Hey ho!

Ion propulsion is the most feasible "conventional means" at present, in my opinion. Granted it starts slow. But you can set the space-ship in motion long before you send people onto it (using conventional means). And given you're looking at 1000 years to travel the distances... a few years to get going won't make a huge difference.

And then wormholes... but this needs exotic matter as well as some existing assumptions for wormhole feasibility to be proven.

I guess we're stuck with interplanetary until then. :)

One interstellar version of the Orion drive is known as the Daedalus Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Daedaluscap158.JPG

There are other methods, such as antimatter rockets or beam propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion) which might work.

Not necessarily. Only a slight, tiny angle change on the pusher plate would be necessary and even small steering jets could do the job slowly. No resistance to overcome, just inertia. So just a short burst would begin a very slow rotation about it's center axis allowing for re-pointing the nose.

Well, the schematics don't show a gimballed pusher plate, but I agree in principle. Your approach would allow for directional change, albeit slowly, and I guess once on the way to The Moon, or Mars, you have got plenty of time to orient the vehicle, but I have doubts about getting into orbit once Orion gets there. It would all have to be executed really accurately, as there is little wiggle room for error, especially considering the energy is in bursts. If the yield of the nukes could be dialed in as they were ejected, maybe that could give less quantised, and more variable thrust.

Anyway, I don't think the concept was actually viable, the speed and frequency at which the nukes have to be ejected from the vehicle, to pass to the correct position beyond the pusher plate is problematic. The factor in gimballing the plate, and it's potential reaction speed (although simple brakes could be used to prevent some shock absorbers extending fully, I think that would be another tricky engineering task).

Well, the schematics don't show a gimballed pusher plate, but I agree in principle. Your approach would allow for directional change, albeit slowly, and I guess once on the way to The Moon, or Mars, you have got plenty of time to orient the vehicle, but I have doubts about getting into orbit once Orion gets there. It would all have to be executed really accurately, as there is little wiggle room for error, especially considering the energy is in bursts. If the yield of the nukes could be dialed in as they were ejected, maybe that could give less quantised, and more variable thrust.

Anyway, I don't think the concept was actually viable, the speed and frequency at which the nukes have to be ejected from the vehicle, to pass to the correct position beyond the pusher plate is problematic. The factor in gimballing the plate, and it's potential reaction speed (although simple brakes could be used to prevent some shock absorbers extending fully, I think that would be another tricky engineering task).

Yes, personally I'm not real happy with the feasibility of the original thing anyway. It looks to me like something that a couple of engineers sketched out on the back of an envelope while on a coffee/tea break. ;) And from that point, someone else picked it up, wasted real money on it and somehow it became a "project" - for a while. :D

the most probable first stellar probe
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp)

from daedalus 54000 tons ship to orions 300 tons and now the starwisps 80 grams (altough their is a extra reusable space station).
And it is by far the fastest daedalus would only reach 12%c orion a mere 5% and a starwisp 20%

the most probable first stellar probe from daedalus 54000 tons ship to orions 300 tons and now the starwisps 80 grams (altough their is a extra reusable space station).
And it is by far the fastest daedalus would only reach 12%c orion a mere 5% and a starwisp 20%


Even if this were to work just how can it transmit data back to the Earth?

from the link
The antenna uses a microwave lens 560 km in diameter, would transmit 56 GW of power, and would accelerate the probe to 10% of the speed of light.

The probe would cruise without power for decades until it finally approached the target star, at which point the antenna which launched it would again target its beam on Starwisp. This would be done when the Starwisp was about 80% of the way to its destination, so that the beam and Starwisp would arrive there at the same time. At such extreme long range the antenna would be unable to provide any propulsion, but Starwisp would be able to use its wire sail to collect and convert some of the microwave energy into electricity to operate its sensors and transmit the data it collects back home.
and a correction a starwisp weights 1,80 kg

These are the weights that we could possible speed up to such speeds and micronisation is the fastests growing science in these years.

Not according to the schematics I've seen;

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/spc_lib_gdyson_preview.pdf

check out the diagram on page 4.

One single pusher plate. This thing, as proposed, could lift off, but not steer. At 200 tons, standard manouvering thrusters or retro rockets would not be able to orient the vehicle. It would be impossible, therefore, to stop. The only way it would work, was if it were a cube, and able to eject nukes in every direction.

I agree, I thought there were some type of manuvering thrusters on it to allow it to turn. Looking at that image I can't see any. Thanks for posting it. :)

I agree, I thought there were some type of manuvering thrusters on it to allow it to turn. Looking at that image I can't see any. Thanks for posting it. :)

I would venture to say that there MUST be thrusters there somewhere. Any design that didn't allow for trimming would be the greatest engineering boondoggle of ALL time!

No device can be so perfectly well aimed that it could travel millions of miles and arrive at a designated spot!!!! Besides, without the ability to maneuver, what could it possibly do in terms of observation? Just zoom by something at several hundred thousand miles per hour? That's as outrageous as expecting it to arrive at a predesignated set of coordinates that far from the starting point!!

Absolutely none of that makes any sense at all.

I would venture to say that there MUST be thrusters there somewhere. ...Absolutely none of that makes any sense at all.

Well, that is my major problem with Orion, that the practical points never got thrashed out, but we had that loon who called himself 'ProjectOrion' (some guy called 'Wayne that Q is aware of) rattling on about it before.

Here's a debunking I did of the ejection system;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=718480&postcount=110

To be honest, I have as much if not more issue with this, than with steering.

Steering is the same as with all rockets- point the ship in the right direction while accelerating and you will get where you want to go.

The ejection system is a weak spot in the pusher plate concept; here is one solution I have found. This chap has made a series of well-thought-out models of Orion ships, depicting an alternate history where the Amerians and Soviets fight a war in deep space.
http://rhysy.plexersoft.com/Deep%20Space%20Force%20Gallery/

Here is an image of the pusher plate and trapdoor
http://rhysy.plexersoft.com/Deep%20Space%20Force%20Gallery/slides//Drive%20section.jpg
As far as I can see, the 'trapdoor' doesn't close; instead it remains open, and a plume of plasma comes through with each firing, which is deflected by the conical shape of the spaceship above. When the shock absorbers reach their maximum compression, the delivery system in the centre makes contact with the plate and ejects another bomb package through.

I'm not entirely sure that this is the best solution, but Freeman Dyson expected the plate itself to undergo minimal ablation - and the structures behind the plate would receive only a fraction of the ablation that the plate would receive. If well designed they should function well under such conditions.

Another solution could be to lob the pulse units around the edge of the plate, and detonate them when they get to the midline using precision guidance technology. Three or more catapults (say) could operate in turn, poking around the plate only when it was time to throw another bomb.

Freeman Dyson expected the plate itself to undergo minimal ablation - and the structures behind the plate would receive only a fraction of the ablation that the plate would receive.

The ship would have to have the same coating as the shield, and there is going to have to be a trap door mechanism of some sort, because those nukes are being detonated at just 140metres from the ship, and you don't want any exposure to that.

That said, we still have the problem of this mechanism opening and closing at the frequency of 1hz, and the nukes travelling at 140m/s.

However, you guys are forgetting that even getting to Mars in a month is still too damn slow.

Is it possible to get to Mars in under a week? That's really the only convenient time scale, and even then it's too much if we want to colonize the solar system.

Communications! Even if we reached a star 60 light years away, we'd need to find some better form of communication between Earth and that star otherwise it will take 60 years to transmit a message, which is obviously inconvenient.

A month of travel ain't that bad, considering how long it once took to reach India or Americas.
Currently we are using the equivalent of a space raft.

it will take 60 years to transmit a message, which is obviously inconvenient.
Humm, we could use pidgeon mail...

However, you guys are forgetting that even getting to Mars in a month is still too damn slow.it took colombus 2,5 month to reach america
Communications! Even if we reached a star 60 light years away, we'd need to find some better form of communication between Earth and that star otherwise it will take 60 years to transmit a message, which is obviously inconvenient.
It took him 8 months to report back. Now it happens instantly try that explaining to someone who doesn't know anything abouth phones

But in the end your yust as likly to use a ??? to travel to mars in hours and make a direct call on your ???. As Colombus could have used a plane and cellphone. Your born a couple of centuries to early for that.

Yes, but there is nothing faster than light, and as for communications that hinders it quite badly

Yes, but there is nothing faster than light, and as for communications that hinders it quite badly
And no boat will ever reach the speed of sound, you would need a plane.

If you believe that there ever was a big bang then you must agree that at one time all matter/energy was more or less on the same place and then it expanded in a gravity field most likly higher then the speed of light.

Humanity does not stop even if we have to. Technological developments are sure to come, it would be scifi to predict them especially something as poorly understood as fasther then light travel.

Antimatter.
That's your answer.
The perfect Energy / mass efficiency.
A few grams of the stuff could apparently get an unmanned probe to Mars in a month, compared to the 11 months of conventional rockets.

The only issues are:

(1) Production. At present production rates of artificial production it would roughly 2 billion years to produce just 1 gram of the stuff; It's said that all the production of artificial antimatter so far would light a single lightbulb for only a few minutes.
(2) Storage. Current techniques can store antiprotons for roughly 10 seconds after production, and I don't think antihydrogen has ever been stored. And the storage container weighs a fair amount as well! :D

And then the main problem...
Any fuel that has high-energy potential will have a military use far earlier than a scientific use. So as soon as anti-matter becomes available for scientific use / space-travel, it will most likely already be developed into weapons of global destruction.

Hey ho!

Ion propulsion is the most feasible "conventional means" at present, in my opinion. Granted it starts slow. But you can set the space-ship in motion long before you send people onto it (using conventional means). And given you're looking at 1000 years to travel the distances... a few years to get going won't make a huge difference.

And then wormholes... but this needs exotic matter as well as some existing assumptions for wormhole feasibility to be proven.

I guess we're stuck with interplanetary until then. :)



Fascinating I'm guessing that means no FTL for the forseeable future.
There most be better methods for creating antimatter.

anti matter does not allow FTL travel

We need to think outside the box, then. If we can't travel there quickly, then shorten the space between the two points!

Since gravity manipulates space, we could figure some sort of way to, rather than travel there, simply warp there or shorten the travel distance via super-powerful black holes (my term for a black hole which is at least 1000 times stronger than a supermassive black hole)

Is there an otherside to a blackhole?

Is there an otherside to a blackhole?

Yes but it leads to the same hole.

We need to think outside the box, then. If we can't travel there quickly, then shorten the space between the two points!

Since gravity manipulates space, we could figure some sort of way to, rather than travel there, simply warp there or shorten the travel distance via super-powerful black holes (my term for a black hole which is at least 1000 times stronger than a supermassive black hole)


space folding.
I don't see how anything less that a black hole could do it. And that seems more impossible than breaking the light speed barrier.

Assuming we figure out new and more efficient methods of propulsion, how would we go about colonizing space? I would think the smartest solution is paraterraforming, or domed cities on otherwise nonhabitable planets.

Or, we could:

terraforming
space station cities

And that's all I can think of. What else?

On arrival in a new system, you need to look for resources first; energy and raw materials. Energy can come from the local star, and you will need to build collection devices to gather that energy. Building such devices (either thermal or photovoltaic) requires raw materials, so you need a supply of those. If you are going to start your colonisation effort by building photocollection arrays then your first goal would probably be an asteroid, small moon or planet relatively near the local star.

Alternately you might find a souce of fissile material in a small moon, asteroid or planet further from the star, this would give you access to energy from fission. If you have the technology level to build fusion power plants, energy could be obtained from deuterium or helium3, which could come from icy bodies or rings far from the local star.

Gaining abundant energy in the outer part of a planetary system can be advantageous, because there is generally abundant water ice and nitrogen in such cold locations. If you want to grow food and biomass then the elements C,H,O, and N are essential. Only colonising the inner system might mean that some of these elements are hard to come by.

But metals and silicon might be more abundant in the inner system, so you might want to start transporting raw materials around if necessary.

Once you have a supply of energy and raw materials you can start building space colonies to live in. Gerard O'Neill made some interesting designs for such colonies- but no doub the designs will have evolved by the time interstellar colonisation is possible. It is entirely feasible for a colony in a new system to be entirely made up of space habitats; but if there are any suitable planets in the vicinity then they will almost certainly also be colonised.

Some planets might be colonised by subterranean construction; some would have domed habitats, which could get so large that they could cover a respectable portion of the planet- this would be very similar to the concept of paraterraforming, which is described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Paraterraforming
and some (perhaps very few) planets would be good candidates for full terraformation.

I doubt that we will find any worlds which are already shirt-sleeve environments; if they are they will almost certainly become protected nature reserves.

terraformation is impractical, expensive, and would take far too long. We also currently do not posess the technology levels needed to do that.

Here's a question: if we find extraterrestrial non-intelligent life (but it'd be complex, like animals), and we had to eliminate it in order to colonize the planet, should we do so? I'd say yes, but that'd be controversial as a formal decision.

Why would we want to eliminate it? Rather than decimate the ecology of the alien world, we could live in space habitats in orbit around the planet and the local star, and visit the surface as required.

Our biochemistry would probably be incompatible with the local biology anyway, so in order to successfully colonise such a world we would probably have to eliminate a major part of the biosphere. This would not really be a justifiable option.

Assuming we figure out new and more efficient methods of propulsion, how would we go about colonizing space? I would think the smartest solution is paraterraforming, or domed cities on otherwise nonhabitable planets.

Or, we could:

terraforming
space station cities

And that's all I can think of. What else?

How bout underground cities on unihabitable planets?

How bout underground cities on unihabitable planets?

Much more energy intensive, but doable. As long as there are food growth in the form of animals, fish, plants...people can survive and prosper. Humans lived through the iceage.

Generational ships will work, if we know where we are going...

If suddenly we have iceage, a lot of people will die here on Earth.

How bout underground cities on unihabitable planets?

And they suddenly become habitable underground? Perhaps warmer, but that isn't much incentive to pick an underground city over a domed city on the surface. In fact, a surface city would probably be the better choice for the solar energy and view.

Burying the habitat underground is advisable on airless planets and moons such as Mars, the Moon, Callisto, or Ganymede. Just a few metres down will suffice.These worlds each have almost no defence against solar wind particles or cosmic rays; the surface of such a world could support large expanses of light-gathering urface, and the light could then be piped underground to illuminate crops.

Water in Moon?

In 1994, the SDI-NASA Clementine spacecraft orbited the Moon and mapped its surface. In one experiment, Clementine beamed radio signals into shadowed craters near the Moon's south pole. The reflections, received by antennas on Earth, seemed to come from icy material.

That makes sense. If there is water on the Moon, it's probably hiding in the permanent shadows of deep, cold craters, safe from vaporizing sunlight, frozen solid.

So far so good, but... the Clementine data were not conclusive, and when astronomers tried to find ice in the same craters using the giant Arecibo radar in Puerto Rico, they couldn't. Maybe Clementine was somehow wrong.

In 1998, NASA sent another spacecraft, Lunar Prospector, to check. Using a device called a neutron spectrometer, Lunar Prospector scanned the Moon's surface for hydrogen-rich minerals. Once again, polar craters yielded an intriguing signal: neutron ratios indicated hydrogen. Could it be the "H" in H2O? Many researchers think so.

Lunar Prospector crashed, as planned, and several teams of researchers tried to detect that cloud, but without success. Either there was no water, or there was not enough water to be detected by Earth-based telescopes, or the telescopes were not looking in precisely the right place. In any event, no water was found from Prospector's impact.

In 2008, NASA plans to send a new spacecraft to the Moon: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), bristling with advanced sensors that can sense water in at least four different ways. Scientists are hopeful that LRO can decide the question of Moon water once and for all.

Our interest is not just scientific. If we are indeed to build a base on the Moon, the presence of water already there would offer a tremendous advantage in building and running it. It's been 35 years since we first set foot on the Moon. Now ambitious eyes once again look toward our satellite not just as a place to visit, but as a place to live.

Link: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14apr_moonwater.htm
--------------------------------

If we have water in the Moon, underground shelter is a good idea....

What about the vertical surface of a crater. Blast horizontally and make caves?

Fascinating I'm guessing that means no FTL for the forseeable future.
There most be better methods for creating antimatter.As someone said - antimatter will not give you FTL.

As for production - difficult to see how it can be produced quicker and/or stored easily. The power required for production is orders of magnitude less than the power the anti-matter actually can give you.

But it possibly occurs naturally - although has never been detected - and any naturally occurring antimatter would annihilate on impact with the first matter it came in contact with.



Only sensible method of intergalactic travel (if ANY method can be deemed sensible) with extrapolated current technology, are generation ships using the best propulsion systems available at the time, accelerating as long as possible (with some method of getting fuel on the way).

(if ANY method can be deemed sensible) with extrapolated current technology
extrapolated current technology in a real economy could only produce something of a starwasp. Then again their is always the change of a true genieus popping up somewhere, the next albert einstein or tesla FTL travel might not be all that impossible.

And they suddenly become habitable underground? Perhaps warmer, but that isn't much incentive to pick an underground city over a domed city on the surface. In fact, a surface city would probably be the better choice for the solar energy and view.

I was thinking radiation exposure. surface solar cells would still be an option but I think when constructing on the surface...whether it be a airless moon or asteroid, a thin aired planet like Mars, the option over the long run might be better to protect from asteroid impacts, freak weather anomolies or solar radiation.

Geneational ships would for instance be continualy exposed to high levels of radiation.

Geneational ships would for instance be continualy exposed to high levels of radiation.
from witch source?

I can understand why you would wan't to live underground on any smalltime base, but paraterraforming seem to simple
The radiation levels on Mars are relative okay, and there is far enough material in the oort cloud to thicken it's atmosphere. And what abouth the loss of atmosphere? Even the moon could hold a 200 millibar enviroment for at least a 3 000 years that's long in human terms.
This is far from being comfrable and no human could get outside without a space suit but it would be 20 times more dense then the martian atmosphere and block much of the dangerous radiation and it would disperse the temprature around the planet making less difference between day and night, also domes could be lighter because humans can tolerate a 300 millibar enviroment so you can make your domes real big while solar mirrors allow some plant live on it.

If you can do this with the moon then you ca only wonder what you could do with mars

Cosmic and Solar Radiation are both intense in solar space and interplanetary space when considering the length of time of exposure.

On planets radiation is a lesser problem because the atmosphere can absorb what ever isn't blocked by the planet's magnetic field.

It was my understanding that the forseen moon base would not be station on the light side. I"m not sure if this was because of the issue of solar flares or heat exposure.

To quote Pink Floyd:
"There is no dark side of the Moon."
The Moon rotates once every 28 days, so any habitat would be exposed to sunlight and solar wind for around half of that time. Daytime on the Moon is around 14 times as long as on Earth.

Wormholes? Quantum particles are constantly jumping around the place. If we can replicate that and control our destination, which would be difficult, it would be very rewarding. Isn't the problem, however, the fact that it takes too much energy?


Just out of curiousity, have we ever traveled 10% the speed of light?

Just out of curiousity, have we ever traveled 10% the speed of light?

No. The fastest spacecraft made by humanity so far were the Helios probes, which whipped past the Sun at 250,000 kph. The speed of light is a billion kph, more or less, so the top speed acheived so far is a mere 0.04% of c.

That's....disapointing. Orion propulsion could reach 10% the speed of light, right? We must use that.
The real annoyance is that I won't be alive to witness these great achievements and discoveries, and that's really why I want them to hurry up already.


Would Zeta Reticuli be a good destination? It's not only relatively close, 39.9 light years away, but it also is a star system and is the supposed home of the greys and does contain a planet within the Goldilocks Zone. As good a place as any, but even at 10% of light, it'd still take centuries!

Another question out of curiousity, why is it that nothing can go faster than light? Sure light is fastest, but why can nothing go faster?
Can't Ion propulsion get damn near light speed if it is allowed enough time and resources to accelerate to that point? Negative acceleration would lengthen a trip, though, since you'll have to slow down as well before you reach a destination, but it's a far better bet than conventional rocket systems.

How would colonies on other worlds be? A bunch of metal huts, where you really can't enjoy your time outside without breaking your back by the sheer amount of protection you need to carry? That's why paraterraforming is best, if it's large enough ( and it can expand), it would allow us to lead relatively normal lives. Does anyone know if there are plans for colonization anytime soon?

To quote Pink Floyd:
"There is no dark side of the Moon."
The Moon rotates once every 28 days, so any habitat would be exposed to sunlight and solar wind for around half of that time. Daytime on the Moon is around 14 times as long as on Earth.

Not to be rude but I think most people here no that. We just don't see the other side. although I can understand how you thought that what I was talking about....When Nasa released there premise to return to the moon and the subsquent moon base it spoke of placing the base on the "dark side" or on or near the terminus I guess at what would be the north or south pole. I assumed this was to place the base at a location where the rotation was faster instead of the days and night of sun light.

That's the part I'm fuzzy about....I'm not quite sure why I'm just theorizing.

wouldn't it be near the poles t a peak of eternal light, there are places near the pole where you get a sort of midnight sun allowing the have a "near" constant supply of solar energy.

Would Zeta Reticuli be a good destination? It's not only relatively close, 39.9 light years away,
alpha centauri is 4,3 LY away so let's say it's 10 times closer. Alpha centauri's suns are only 23 AU apart zeta reticuli's are 9000 AU apart and neither have confirmed planets.

How would colonies on other worlds be? A bunch of metal huts, where you really can't enjoy your time outside without breaking your back by the sheer amount of protection you need to carry? That's why paraterraforming is best, if it's large enough ( and it can expand), it would allow us to lead relatively normal lives. Does anyone know if there are plans for colonization anytime soon?
it depends on the surface conditions overpressure/underpressure/no pressure
to hot/to cold/rotation/composition atmosphere/composition surface(ice).

In general any innerplanet who has at least 300 millibar atmosphere and is not to hot could be verry friendly to the point that your space suit would become comparable with that of a diver, with surface cities comparable with those on earth except that they are eveloped under a giant sail that can indeed be giant because of lack of pressure difference (any rip in the tent would also not lead to decrompression).

Intresting point but wouldn't the sunlight be weaker coming in at an angle?
For instance on Earth sunlight is weaker at the poles than at the equator because the rays are coming in at an angle instead of direct light. Correct me if I'm wrong...

If I'm right they might as well set up at the sea of tranquillity.

Can we not setup operation inside a crater and live in the vertical side of the crater?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/picsol/10075255.jpg

well that's kinda my original point...
The moon is airless...what exactly would a solar flare do to the hardware and people on the surface of the moon say the flare was the size of that which hit during the Regan Presidency?

oh wait..."vertical"? You mean in the walls of the crater?! Fascinating,
Would it be enough though....I do not know but i don't imagine it would require as much excavating.

Intresting point but wouldn't the sunlight be weaker coming in at an angle?
For instance on Earth sunlight is weaker at the poles than at the equator because the rays are coming in at an angle instead of direct light. Correct me if I'm wrong...

If I'm right they might as well set up at the sea of tranquillity.Two things to consider:

1. The distance the sunlight is travelling... on our earth at the poles it has to travel 6,400km more than at the equator. But compared to the roughly 150,000,000 km that it travels to get to earth, the additional 6,400km is not going to be that important. (roughly 0.004% increase in distance).

2. The atmosphere it travels through... If you assume the atmosphere is 50km thick, then at the equator the sun has to travel through only 50km, but at the equator it travels through an incredible 800km of atmosphere (unless my maths is way off!). I know the ozone layer is the main area of absorbing the UV, but this rough calculation gives some indication of the increased travel through the various layers of the atmosphere - roughly 15 times more for sunlight at the poles.

Unfortunately on our own moon there is no such atmosphere - so this second consideration has no impact whatsoever, and it is purely on the distance travelled.

Also important is the angle of incidence of the sunlight. If the angle is very far from perpendicular, the energy of the sunlight will be spread out over a much larger area. You could collect solar power using raised collectors set at an angle, but bear in mind that these collectors will cast a shadow on any collectors directly behind, thus cutting down on the total energy received.

It already has been proven that a biodome supporting life cannot be built today that could be used in space anywhere. Food, water, and all other essential supplies must be transported to wherever humans set up a spaceport. That's a very expensive way to live I'd say. Then if someone would need a doctor for a serious medical problem they would have to be transported back to Earth, another costly trip IF the astronaut/cosmonaut even lives that long due to his/her life threatning medical problems.

I think Biodomes are the way to go, anyway.
But onto the matter of travel, that's the biggest issue. Do you think Humanity will ever span another galaxy? the Cluster? The Universe?

Do you think Humanity will ever span another galaxy? the Cluster? The Universe?

That is a Big unknown. However, if the following two conditions are met - then definitely.

1. Our exponential growth in science and technology continues... Just look at the last 100 years vs. last 1000 years.

2. Humanity survives at the same technology base from self-inflicted or natural disasters.

Do you think Humanity will ever span another galaxy? the Cluster? The Universe?Just traveling to a distant star in our galaxy will require either:1. Finding a way to beat relativity, or 2. Building a generation starship that works, which requires solving all the social problems.Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter. IIRC intergalactic distances are about ten times that.

Taking option 2., which is at least understandable with today's science, would require a million years to traverse the Milky Way and ten million years to get to its closest neighbor. (If you go fast enough you pick up some relativistic time dilation and that might shorten your trip by--what? a factor of fifty? Whoopee!) The oldest habitations we've built that are still standing are only about six thousand years old, and they're made out of nice durable rock, the same as our planet. The oldest more complex technology that still works is the Roman aqueducts, and they're barely two thousand years old.

Can we build something--can anybody build something!--that will last ten million years, in an environment that is guaranteed not to provide spare parts and spare tools whose needs were not anticipated?

Can we build something--can anybody build something!--that will last ten million years, in an environment that is guaranteed not to provide spare parts and spare tools whose needs were not anticipated?

That is an engineer's nightmare. Metals could lose their cohesion. How about sometype of organic structure that repairs itself? Or may be when we have nano-technology that can constantly repair the ship?

By the way, in ten million years, humans could evolve or de-evolve to something while in transit....likes of Red Dwarf?

Two things to consider:

1. The distance the sunlight is travelling... on our earth at the poles it has to travel 6,400km more than at the equator.

2. The atmosphere it travels through... If you assume the atmosphere is 50km thick, then at the equator the sun has to travel through only 50km, but at the equator it travels through an incredible 800km of atmosphere (unless my maths is way off!). I know the ozone layer is the main area of absorbing the UV, but this rough calculation gives some indication of the increased travel through the various layers of the atmosphere - roughly 15 times more for sunlight at the poles.

Unfortunately on our own moon there is no such atmosphere - so this second consideration has no impact whatsoever, and it is purely on the distance travelled.

I suspected as much but I couldn't be for certain.
No ones really addressed how much shielding would be needed for intense solar flare activity though.

... If trips would take million of years, would it be possible to make slight adjustments to the stars itself that would in a matter of millions year result in a more or less controlled stellar collision with perhaps a massive dark hole flyby that would blast the star out of the milky way in a more our less controlled fashion to a preselected target while still carrying it's planetary system with it. With it's inhabiatants