SPACE TRAVEL AND THE BENEFITS:

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Establishing bases within various positions in our solar system, would I Imagine be a pre requisite for a stellar mission.
We have to know our own backyard first, take advantages of what we have, mining asteroids and other space rock for building materials and shelter...maybe a space elevator.....living, working successfuly in space for long periods is essential before a preferred International Stellar mission.
The Moon.....Mercury......a floating Venusian city.......Callisto.....
As Confucious said...A journey of a thousand miles, starts with a single foot step.

One "promising " company that I have failed to mention....The "MarsOne" one way mission, that had overwhelming world wide applicants for the proposed journey in 2025

Mars One will establish a permanent human settlement on Mars. Crews of four will depart every two years, starting in 2024. Our first unmanned mission will be launched in 2018. Join the Global Mars One Community and participate in our mission to Mars. - See more at: http://www.mars-one.com/#sthash.90kBtjGo.dpuf


Did I apply? Well after the Mrs threatened me with a cricket bat, I gave it second thoughts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[I actually thought she may be glad to get rid of me after 39 years of marriage!]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On (2):
I don't think I am wasting my time either and complexly agree with them. I.e. we are both saying that humans traveling to even the nearest star requires very serious revision of the laws of physics. BTW, I have grey matter "upstairs" too - It earned me a Ph. D. in physics.
AND
On (1a) refuting Special and General Relativity that clearly states, nothing, not even massless information, can travel faster than light.
AND
On (1b) that Inertia mass is not always the same as gravitational mass. Or in more direct relationship to rocket, made up of billions of atoms, can turn the inertial mass of every proton and neutron in those atoms to near zero inertial mass, so tiny fuel supply can let the rocket travel to a star. Also having the rocket gain momentum with nothing losing an equal amount, is a violation of the conservation of momentum law.

That is they say, as I did in in early post, that IF one could change the laws of physics, then traveling to a star might be possible.
Such drastic change in the laws of physics probably would change many things. For example the mutual attraction of atoms, so the earth "dissolves" into a gas, expanding into space, etc. As they say: "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it."

 

* No males will go. Instead a kilogram of sperm in small liquid N2 jug will go along with very carefully selected, relatively small, young fertile women. I. e. You can tell your wife you would not be accepted for transport there. That "small females only" policy cuts the weight of food required at least by 2/3. - One of several advantages, perhaps the most important of which is low levels of testosterone makes aggressive, destructive behavior much less probable. If I were in charge, no lesbians would go as Love, gone sour, sometimes results in murder, or other destructive behavior etc.

We certainly don't want the settlers falling in love for at least a generation. Living on Mars will be stressful, no reason to make it more so. Perhaps male fetus will always be aborted very early in the pregnancy. Better still is parthenogenesis - genetic diversity maintained by joining two female gametes, both of which have only X chromosomes (no males with XY chromosome ever conceived).

 

No that's false....They are not saying that. Discovering new applications, or revelations of new physics, is certainly not changing the present known laws of physics.

And please dont put words in my mouth. By asking you to realise that the mainstream experts that are far more optimistic than you, do have brain matter upstairs, is not inferring that you don't.

 

Interesting...I was unaware of that in regards to no males, and taking sperm...Although it has been awhile since I have looked at their site.
Could you link that info please?

 

I agree with the baby step approach for any large undertaking of course but I don't see the utility of having multiple bases in our solar system as a means of making it easier to travel to another solar system. There may be other reasons for doing it however.

The difference in distance between Earth (or the Moon) and another solar system as opposed to the distance between Calisto (or whatever base you have in mind) and another solar system is negligible given the scale involved.

 

A drastic change in the laws of physics? You're a nonsense machine BillyT. The prognosticator of doom. The world economy is going to collapse on month/day/year. Regardless what is done I fear it's to late [say that way to much to be anything other than an alarmist nutcase with respect to the climate science]. And your grasp of modern physics is < weak. That pretty much makes your analysis moot.

 

No revisions needed. No "revisions in physics" were needed to get to the Moon or get rovers to Mars - just decades of engineering. Getting probes (and then people) to other star systems might take centuries, but it will require time and not any "revisions in the laws of physics" (although they may happen as well.)

 

I think the bases, whatever, would be in the wake of learning what is technologically possible. Over time. An interstellar journey is theoretically possible. But...would the human race have the desire and will to ban together and take on such a project? Not anytime soon but think about the value gained through direct interaction between the peoples of the earth working on such a project which would need to be funded by all the economies on this planet.

 

He certainly aint no optimist, and even further from a realist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If attitudes like that were to persist, we wouldn't have too far to go before extinction!

 

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

Winston Churchill:


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu103739.html#vBSA4gFOmyZvgpIS.99

 

Another couple of pessimist/Optimist quote....
A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties.
Harry S Truman:

No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.
Helen Keller:

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/pessimist.html#DZqx8U74rVtYo1gU.99

 

Exploring the Universe with Nuclear Power
by MATT WILLIAMS on JANUARY 30, 2015
As the Marshall Space Flight Center’s manager of nuclear thermal research, Dr. Houts is well versed in the benefits it has to offer space exploration. According to the presentation he and fellow staffers made, a fission reactor can be used in a rocket design to create Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP). In an NTP rocket, uranium or deuterium reactions are used to heat liquid hydrogen inside a reactor, turning it into ionized hydrogen gas (plasma), which is then channeled through a rocket nozzle to generate thrust.
These tests are slated to run until June of 2015, and are expected to lay the groundwork for large-scale ground tests and eventual full-scale testing in flight. The ultimate goal of all of this is to ensure that a manned mission to Mars takes place by the 2030s, and to provide NASA flight engineers and mission planners with all the information they need to see it through.

A second possible method, known as Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEC), involves the same basic reactor converted its heat and energy into electrical energy which then powers an electrical engine. In both cases, the rocket relies on nuclear fission to generates propulsion rather than chemical propellants, which has been the mainstay of NASA and all other space agencies to date.

A second possible method, known as Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEC), involves the same basic reactor converted its heat and energy into electrical energy which then powers an electrical engine. In both cases, the rocket relies on nuclear fission to generates propulsion rather than chemical propellants, which has been the mainstay of NASA and all other space agencies to date.

In fact, according to the report, an NTP rocket could generate 200 kWt of power using a single kilogram of uranium for a period of 13 years – which works out of to a fuel efficiency rating of about 45 grams per 1000 MW-hr.

But of course, it is also likely to have its share of applications when it comes to future Lunar missions, sending crews to study Near-Earth Objects (NEOs), and sending craft to the Jovian moons and other locations in the outer Solar System. As the report shows, NTP craft can be easily modified using modular components to perform everything from Lunar cargo landings to crewed missions, to surveying Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs).

The universe is a big place, and space exploration is still very much in its infancy. But if we intend to keep exploring it and reaping the rewards that such endeavors have to offer, our methods will have to mature. NTP is merely one proposed possibility. But unlike Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, theDaedalus concept, anti-matter engines, or the Alcubierre Warp Drive, a rocket that runs on nuclear fission is feasible, practical, and possible within the near-future.

Nuclear thermal research at the Marshall Center is part of NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division, managed by the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate and including participation by the U.S. Department of Energy.

http://www.universetoday.com/118431/exploring-the-universe-with-nuclear-power/#more-118431
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


The above extracts are from a very lengthy article...To lengthy to prescribe in total here, but worth a read to anyone Interested in future space endeouvours and the propulsion means that will take us up, out and beyond.

 

Your "beyond" seems to imply outside of the sun's gravity, keeping or making the rocket bound to our solar system. Your link does not even hint that the fission rocket might be useful beyond the objects orbiting the sun. APL/JHU, where I worked for 30 years designed the fastest ever spacecraft- New Horizons, and launched it 9+years ago. Any day now they will be releasing the first photo of Pluto that is more than just a bright pixel or two but the fly-by is this July.

The Cornell asto-physic article* shows that if "beyond" means trip to a near by star, that is inconsistent with the laws of physics, even assuming sustained controlled fusion (not fission) could both be achieved and that 100% of the energy is placed into the exhaust thrust gas.

* see the Cornell astro-physics paper those posts abstract data from at: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/pdfs/relrocketderiv.pdf

And /or read post 20 for the main points of it. "Little things" like fuel mass, at lift off, needs more than half the mass of Jupiter (837 times the mass of the earth) for a constant 1G trip to land on a planet of Alpha Centrus (4.5 light years away only)

BTW Los Alamos Scientific Labs, where I worked for two summers, while still graduate student, tested a fission powered rocket (earth bound as the exhaust was pointed up) more than 50 years ago! It developed more than enough thrust to lift off, but the direct heating of the to be exhaust gas by contact with the fuel rods eroded them too quickly to be worth much more testing. Getting more thrust than the reactor's weight via the more convential fission reactor approach you link is suggesting, with be tough, if not impossible. LASL's direct heating by fuel rods of the exhaust is about as light weight per pound of thrust and as efficient as is possible. So, lets wait until they get to the testing stage before we get too excited about fission powered rocket.

 

Here's a good case study on how to do just that with currently understood (but not yet available) technology. No inconsistencies in the laws of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

 

To Billvon: You are moving the goal post. I have already agreed man can set AI robots to a star (See now bold text, from post 20, near end of this post.) Or at least beyond the sun's grasp. We did that twice more than three decades ago, but their travel time to even the nearest star would be at least 75,000 years. Your link sets a much more ambitious goal - do that in only 100 years. New Horizon, is much more advanced and it may be possible to send it near a star but probably no one will be alive on earth if/when it does.
Sending humans to a star is what is impossible - note summary of my post 20 reply.

Paddoboy said in bold in post 13:" ... I don't expect or believe we were born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb." And in post 20, I replied:

"That is very likely a physical necessity for humans. Even assuming fusion energy could be used and 100% converted into the rocket's exhaust's thrust, the launch mass is prohibitorly large to go to any star.* ...

* Perhaps we could send some robot there with a lesser acceleration rate and many millenniums of travel time, but I doubt it would survive even to the half way point - Space is not "empty" but it would be smacking into hydrogen atoms at about half the speed of light** during the journey - even strong solar flare, much lower energy per particle, typically hydrogen too, destroys the electronics of earth satellites.

** Just a quick guess based on the 1G, 6.14 year long, trip to alpha Centaurs achieving peak speed at the half way point of vmax = 0.954C. This lethal radiation of H atoms would kill you on the trip or add tons of lead sheading to the launch mass.

SUMMARY Like it or not, humans must learn how to live on this earth without things like extinction of all but the tiny mammals via global warming."

 

Voyager 1, launched in the fall of 1977 to take advantage of a once every 175 years alignment of four planets to get an atypically large gravity assist speed boost is now traveling at 61,000 km /hour and only very slightly losing speed as it climbs away for sun's very weak gravity and as it plows into mass in space (mainly hydrogen atoms). By 2020, its radioactive isoptope power will be too weak for Voyager 1 to send information back to earth, but it should be able to receive commands until about 2025 after which it is but a tiny fraction of the diatace to the nearest star.

The closest star (one of a cluster of three, seen as one star and called "Alpha Centarus," long ago) is Proxima Centauri. it is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (Or 271,000 AU.) Thus if it were headed there, which it is not, Voyager would arrive there in 39,900,000,000 / 61 hours. As average year is 8766 hours, that is 39,900,000,000 / (8766x61) = 39,900 /534,736 = 0.074,616 million year or 74.62 thousand years or longer than anything you would call "human" has existed.

Again Paddoboy is only dreaming / wishing - Space is much too big for man to ever leave this "little speck" (our solar system) so he had better learn (and soon) how to take better care of it. I'm not very confident that he will. -Think in the end Mother Nature will realize that much "intelligence" in any creature was a huge mistake - responsible for the extinction of more than half of all her creations.

 

And I completely disagree with that. It would be much more accurate for you to say "I cannot imagine a way we could send humans to another star." It is a technical problem, but does not require a rewrite of the laws of physics to accomplish it.

See the linked article. There are several ways to deal with that.