Kepler Probe Begins To Find Exoplanets In Habitable Zone (And other cool cosmology stuff)

[bornagainathiest]

Speculation is fun

 

Yes. It sure is.

 

Btw, does a 'Hitlerian regime' mean something like this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ ...?

 

BAA.

[stryper]

or maybe the reason we are missing things....is because we are.

 

Nasa Scientists admit that even with Kepler we are only seeing about 10% of the avaliable stars, and of those only about 1%-2% of the stars would actually have something that would break the plane of our line of sight with the star.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144190089/kepler-telescope-narrows-hunt-for-earths-twin

 

So it stands to reason that if you were in Siberia and wanted to find other people by building a tower and looking parallel to the plane you are on that you would probably miss most cities. To top it off those that are in valleys or on the other side of mountains would be completely invisible to you.

 

Add to that my previous comments about the definition of life being only those that can survive in our environment....and you cut out even more.

 

The very basic reality is that we need more exploration with machines and for that we need warp technology. And by then we could solve the genetic problems of how space destroys our bodies.

[Legion]

Have they seen anything that looks like a Dyson sphere absorbing a star's light and re-emitting the energy as low energy I.R. radiation?

 

Not to my knowledge, but who knows what surprises tomorrow will bring?

 

BAA I think you make some great points here about the possibility of type 2 civilizations, who might utilize the energetic potential of entire stars.

 

Infrared! Yeah! As I was attempting to explain to Reboot, basic thermodynamic considerations require that in order to extract useful work from nature 'high density' energy (e.g. visible light) must be allowed to transform into "low density" energy (e.g. infrared light). If a Dyson sphere was in place around a visible star, then maximum work extraction would entail an absorbtion of high frequency light and an emmision of low frequency light.

 

Who knows? Perhaps some of these infrared stars we've already observed are type 2's!

 

How would we test such a hypothesis?

 

Each element emits in the infrared at signature frequencies, right? So if we spotted an infrared star emitting IR at mostly hydrogen frequencies then nothing biological need be implied, right? But if we observed an infrared star emitting IR at heavy metal frequencies, then would that be suggestive of a Dyson type sphere?

[REBOOT]

or maybe the reason we are missing things....is because we are.

 

Nasa Scientists admit that even with Kepler we are only seeing about 10% of the avaliable stars, and of those only about 1%-2% of the stars would actually have something that would break the plane of our line of sight with the star.

 

 

Still, we are getting amazing results with 2% sampling. Enough to push away skeptics and give more room to better scientific exploration.

We are surrounded by billions of stars and choosing a specific patch of sky must have been a challenge.

 

About missing things... I've heard that airport radars are adjusted/calibrated to ignore/filter out signals that are outside the behaviors expected from known aircraft . We are filtering out type 1+ civilizations (and meteors) because they interfere in our operations lol

[Xerces]

because if it were, then there would be others visiting us already and proving that it can be done.

 

But again, I hope I'm wrong.

 

Not necessarily, the Universe is a big place, maybe they just haven't found us yet. When we have first contact, I want to be the first to fuck one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7OxJhtDlXw

[REBOOT]

Speculation is fun

 

Yes. It sure is.

 

Btw, does a 'Hitlerian regime' mean something like this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ ...?

 

BAA.

 

That's pretty close.

[bornagainathiest]

or maybe the reason we are missing things....is because we are.

 

Nasa Scientists admit that even with Kepler we are only seeing about 10% of the avaliable stars, and of those only about 1%-2% of the stars would actually have something that would break the plane of our line of sight with the star.

 

http://www.npr.org/2...for-earths-twin

 

So it stands to reason that if you were in Siberia and wanted to find other people by building a tower and looking parallel to the plane you are on that you would probably miss most cities. To top it off those that are in valleys or on the other side of mountains would be completely invisible to you.

 

Add to that my previous comments about the definition of life being only those that can survive in our environment....and you cut out even more.

 

The very basic reality is that we need more exploration with machines and for that we need warp technology. And by then we could solve the genetic problems of how space destroys our bodies.

 

Just curious Stryper...

 

...you think that FTL travel might be possible?

 

I can foresee long-duration 'sleeper' ships operating at up to 25% of lightspeed. Such an approach should deal with the timescale problem (decades of boost phase, decades of coasting and decades of decelleration) and ensure the survival of the human body.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Have they seen anything that looks like a Dyson sphere absorbing a star's light and re-emitting the energy as low energy I.R. radiation?

 

Not to my knowledge, but who knows what surprises tomorrow will bring?

 

BAA I think you make some great points here about the possibility of type 2 civilizations, who might utilize the energetic potential of entire stars.

 

Infrared! Yeah! As I was attempting to explain to Reboot, basic thermodynamic considerations require that in order to extract useful work from nature 'high density' energy (e.g. visible light) must be allowed to transform into "low density" energy (e.g. infrared light). If a Dyson sphere was in place around a visible star, then maximum work extraction would entail an absorbtion of high frequency light and an emmision of low frequency light.

 

Who knows? Perhaps some of these infrared stars we've already observed are type 2's!

 

How would we test such a hypothesis?

 

Hah!

Why don't you ask me a difficult question for a change, eh?

 

Seriously though, here might be a good place to start looking... http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2012-072

 

 

Each element emits in the infrared at signature frequencies, right? So if we spotted an infrared star emitting IR at mostly hydrogen frequencies then nothing biological need be implied, right? But if we observed an infrared star emitting IR at heavy metal frequencies, then would that be suggestive of a Dyson type sphere?

 

You'd think so, wouldn't you Legion?

 

But reality (as I'm also finding out with the A-Man) isn't so simple or straightforward.

Anyway, here's my take - for what it's worth.

 

Most of stars around today are 2nd or 3rd generation stars. This means that they didn't form out of the 'pure' mix of gases created by the Big Bang event, 13.72 billion years ago. Nope. Our Sun is most likely a 2nd gen star, formed out of the left-overs of various 1st generation stars. These 1st stars "cooked up" heavier elements in their cores and then seeded space with these materials when they went supernova and exploded. So, our Sun has been enriched by elements that are atomically heavier than the Hydrogen and Helium made by the Big Bang. Future stars will continue this process, so that each succeeeding generation acquires a heavier and heavier mix of gases and metallic elements.

 

Here's a neat diagram that shows a red giant star that's nearly ready to 'pop'!

http://upload.wikime...s_in_a_star.gif

Each layer contains atomically 'heavier' materials than the one above it. So, we start with Hydrogen and Helium, go thru Neon, Oxygen, Carbon, Magnesium, Silicon, Sulfur and finally Iron. When this star blows, trillions of tons of these elements will be scattered across space, to be swept up into star-forming nebulae... and the process starts all over again.

 

Anyway, 2nd and 3rd gen stars like our Sun give off Absorption and Emission spectra that clearly display all these chemicals. Now to your question - which has two parts to it.

 

Q. First, would an IR star emit thermal radiation at heavy metal frequencies?

A. No. By definition, ALL stars, even the smallest and dimmest Red dwarves emit some visible light. So there's no such thing as a star that emits only Infra Red light.

 

(However... there are objects known to be totally invisible in the Optical range of light, that do give off only Infra Red or Thermal radiation. These are the recently discovered Class Y Brown Dwarves. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Brown_dwarf Brown dwarves don't qualify as true stars. They are 'failed' stars that never had enough mass to begin thermonuclear fusion in their cores. Also, these bodies are nowhere near the size of a Dyson sphere, as this diagram shows... http://en.wikipedia...._star_sizes.svg The diameter of a sphere is equal to the size of a star's habitable zone, many millions of times greater than planet size.

 

Q. Second, would that look like a Dyson sphere?

A. No. For the reason already given.

 

But, am I understanding you right, Legion?

 

Did you mean a star that emits only IR radiation or did you mean something else? Like the IR portion of a star's entire energy output? Not the visible, UV or X-Ray frequencies, just the thermal signature?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Speculation is fun

 

Yes. It sure is.

 

Btw, does a 'Hitlerian regime' mean something like this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ ...?

 

BAA.

 

That's pretty close.

 

 

Great fun to watch as a flick - not so much fun to actually live in such a society, I'd wager.

 

Btw, my Dad did some home improvements for a scientist who worked for ESRO (now the European Space Agency) and who was a personal friend of Robert Heinlein, the author of the book, Starship Troopers.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

 

That's my (microscopic) claim to fame!

 

BAA.

[REBOOT]

Just curious Stryper...

 

...you think that FTL travel might be possible?

 

I can foresee long-duration 'sleeper' ships operating at up to 25% of lightspeed. Such an approach should deal with the timescale problem (decades of boost phase, decades of coasting and decades of decelleration) and ensure the survival of the human body.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

If your home star is in danger and you want to save your civilization then a sleeper ship is the way to go. That is probably the strategy the US would adopt at this very moment if it knew in advance of an impending stellar catastrophy. We would be 'rushing' like mad creatures to assemble a last ditch emergency craft able to survive a very long voyage to a potential replacement home. At this point in time its a roll of the dice and you'd have to equip your craft with tools able to find alternate home worlds while you are heading to your destination in case it proved a dud.

 

Finding a replacement earth and spending huge amounts in that effort might seem like a waste to fundamentalists who think the earth is the center of everything but when the shit hits the fan they'll be the first to board the damn rescue ships.

[bornagainathiest]

Just curious Stryper...

 

...you think that FTL travel might be possible?

 

I can foresee long-duration 'sleeper' ships operating at up to 25% of lightspeed. Such an approach should deal with the timescale problem (decades of boost phase, decades of coasting and decades of decelleration) and ensure the survival of the human body.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

If your home star is in danger and you want to save your civilization then a sleeper ship is the way to go. That is probably the strategy the US would adopt at this very moment if it knew in advance of an impending stellar catastrophy. We would be 'rushing' like mad creatures to assemble a last ditch emergency craft able to survive a very long voyage to a potential replacement home. At this point in time its a roll of the dice and you'd have to equip your craft with tools able to find alternate home worlds while you are heading to your destination in case it proved a dud.

 

Finding a replacement earth and spending huge amounts in that effort might seem like a waste to fundamentalists who think the earth is the center of everything but when the shit hits the fan they'll be the first to board the damn rescue ships.

 

Hey REBOOT!

 

Here's two additional thoughts re: deep-frozen humans in space.

 

1.

You can save excess mass by NOT using bulky and complicated cryogenic systems to keep the sleepers at optimum low temperature. Instead, use the extreme cold of deep space to do the job for you. Assuming each person is adequately shielded from the radiation flux in their own 'pod', simply keep those parts of the ship where the sleepers are stored en-masse, open to the interstellar vacuum. Any excess heat generated by electrical systems or similar is either radiated away or, better still, channeled via heat-exchangers to the other parts of the starship where it could be put to some useful work.

 

Ok, you'll need some layers of micrometeorite shielding on the outside, but the 'sleeping' quarters as a whole don't need to be airtight for 95% of the voyage. So why keep corridors or service ways flooded with warm, bulky masses of air when the crew will only be using them before they enter the sleeper pods and then afterwards, once they've arrived at their destination?

 

2.

Or if you want to be really smart - don't send everyone as 'sleepers'.

No. Instead, opt for a mixed cargo of sleepers (adults and children) plus bank upon bank of frozen fertilized embryos. Not just hundreds, but tens of thousands. That way you get a much bigger human genepool, which makes for excellent diversity and hybrid vigor. Also, banks of these embryos take up much less space and represent much less mass than sleeper pods. Like the pods, they can also be kept deep-chilled, as described above.

 

When they get to wherever their destination is, the sleepers wake up and establish colonies on the planet surface. Then the embryos are implanted into the female colonists, to be carried to full term in the normal human way. If the embryo thawing and implanting is done in phases, over a number of years, this should result in a vibrant human society of different age ranges - just as we have on Earth. Within two decades of planet-fall, the juvenile females who 'slept' during the voyage will mature and become ready to become mothers themselves.

 

Later on, the first generation who arrived as embryos will come of age and start having children of their own. Or the females may opt to 'foster' an embryo, raising the baby as one of their own. Strong family bonds will be helpful for the social cohesion of the whole colony.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I reckon that an armada of these ships should be able to establish dozens of viable colonies within 50 light-years of the Sun, over a period 500 years.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

2.

Or if you want to be really smart - don't send everyone as 'sleepers'.

No. Instead, opt for a mixed cargo of sleepers (adults and children) plus bank upon bank of frozen fertilized embryos. Not just hundreds, but tens of thousands. That way you get a much bigger human genepool, which makes for excellent diversity and hybrid vigor. Also, banks of these embryos take up much less space and represent much less mass than sleeper pods. Like the pods, they can also be kept deep-chilled, as described above.

 

Is there some sort of "shelf life" for frozen embryos? I think I would actually prefer to encode all of the information for functioning sperm and egg cells digitally (think something like a CD/DVD, but made out of more archival materials), then just recreate them upon arrival at the destination. You wouldn't even need to encode the full DNA for tens of thousands of people; you could encode a baseline set that most healthy humans have in common, then create variations from the baseline that are commonly found in humans.

[bornagainathiest]

2.

Or if you want to be really smart - don't send everyone as 'sleepers'.

No. Instead, opt for a mixed cargo of sleepers (adults and children) plus bank upon bank of frozen fertilized embryos. Not just hundreds, but tens of thousands. That way you get a much bigger human genepool, which makes for excellent diversity and hybrid vigor. Also, banks of these embryos take up much less space and represent much less mass than sleeper pods. Like the pods, they can also be kept deep-chilled, as described above.

 

Is there some sort of "shelf life" for frozen embryos? I think I would actually prefer to encode all of the information for functioning sperm and egg cells digitally (think something like a CD/DVD, but made out of more archival materials), then just recreate them upon arrival at the destination. You wouldn't even need to encode the full DNA for tens of thousands of people; you could encode a baseline set that most healthy humans have in common, then create variations from the baseline that are commonly found in humans.

 

Point taken Trapped.

 

Humans as patterns of computer coding is a highly efficient way to go about this. The raw materials to build the sperm and eggs would be acquired at journey's end, without having to be ferried tens of light-years. Excellent idea!

 

However, I have a question for you. Here's the preamble.

 

I'm aware that cryogenetic research is going on right now. So, extrapolating from these beginings to a fully-proven technology that's suitable for star travel, isn't such a leap in the dark. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate about 'sleeper' ships leaving for other stars in say, three or four hundred years time. (Please note that I stole the idea of frozen fertilized embryos from a science fiction short story - so that is highly speculative. Your shelf-life query may well be valid now, but in 2312 or 2412 A.D....? Who knows?)

 

My question is this...

Is there any current 'digitizing' technology for organic systems that you think might evolve and progress to the level you've suggested?

 

I'm not very hot on the Life sciences, so I'm tossing this one over to you. Ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

My question is this...

Is there any current 'digitizing' technology for organic systems that you think might evolve and progress to the level you've suggested?

 

I'm not very hot on the Life sciences, so I'm tossing this one over to you. Ok?

 

Ha-ha, I'm not so educated on biology/life science either, so I'll just have to say, "I don't know," but I would lean toward "Nothing at this time."

 

However, I don't see any reason why biological systems couldn't be digitized. The code for DNA could be stored digitally. The chemicals that make up proteins and their functions could be stored digitally. The various cellular structures, such as mitochondria, cell walls, etc., could also be stored digitally.

 

It may be possible that a workaround for the freezing issue could be found. I'm thinking along the timeframe of thousands of years before such a journey would be undertaken, so honestly, who knows what they might come up with. It may even be possible that instead of freezing people, their entire bodies and their personalities could be encoded digitally, and have AIs just rebuild everybody as fully functioning people when they arrive. This would get around needing sleepers, live crew, or frozen embryos entirely. All of this is so far beyond our current time and technology level that anything that any of us say about now is fanciful speculation, although it is fun to think about.

[stryper]

 

Just curious Stryper...

 

...you think that FTL travel might be possible?

 

I can foresee long-duration 'sleeper' ships operating at up to 25% of lightspeed. Such an approach should deal with the timescale problem (decades of boost phase, decades of coasting and decades of decelleration) and ensure the survival of the human body.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

 

To faster then light. No...however, I do think that if you take what is currently being accomplished with "teleportation" technology there "should be" away to teleport faster then light.

 

This is just a hypothesis. I you take the simple act of observation changes the way light acts in a double slit experiment. Then it would seem that consciousness would need to be added to the quantum equations. If you are able to recreate an object in another place light years away, which instantaneously has the same things happen to it as the original then it would seem there could be a way to transfer the consciousness to the new "body" if you will. Perhaps the body is a space worthy one whose sole purpose is to function for a limited duration....and then the consciousness is returned to the original body.

 

It's out there i know.

 

sleeper ships are a possibility. however you still need to solve the human body destruction issue in zero gravity.

[Sexton Blake]

Some bad news:

 

Is long-term space travel really possible? Scans on astonauts reveal serious damage to eyes and brains

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2114320/Can-humanity-cope-long-term-space-travel-Scans-reveal-damage-brains-eyes-astronauts.html

 

 

.

[Thought2Much]

Some bad news:

 

Is long-term space travel really possible? Scans on astonauts reveal serious damage to eyes and brains

 

 

http://www.dailymail...astronauts.html

 

 

This is kind of like looking at a rowboat and wondering if crossing the Atlantic would ever be possible.

 

The reason that long-term space travel isn't possible right now is because we haven't built spacecraft for the purpose of long-term space travel yet. What we have in space now is limited to what can fit on top of a rocket.

 

If we were to actually build ships for longer manned trips, we would build them with the insulation needed to stop most of the radiation that would affect the crew. A couple of options include a ship-generated magnetic field (for deflecting charged particles), and keeping your water supply between the hulls of a double-hulled craft (a couple of feet of water stops a very large percentage of radiation from getting through). I'm sure there are plenty of other ways a ship could be built to prevent a lot of the detrimental effects of space, such as using a rotating structure for artificial gravity (which would prevent the issues mentioned in the article).

 

I would say that long-term space travel is possible. It's just not easy.

[bornagainathiest]

Just curious Stryper...

 

...you think that FTL travel might be possible?

 

I can foresee long-duration 'sleeper' ships operating at up to 25% of lightspeed. Such an approach should deal with the timescale problem (decades of boost phase, decades of coasting and decades of decelleration) and ensure the survival of the human body.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

 

To faster then light. No...however, I do think that if you take what is currently being accomplished with "teleportation" technology there "should be" away to teleport faster then light.

 

This is just a hypothesis. I you take the simple act of observation changes the way light acts in a double slit experiment. Then it would seem that consciousness would need to be added to the quantum equations. If you are able to recreate an object in another place light years away, which instantaneously has the same things happen to it as the original then it would seem there could be a way to transfer the consciousness to the new "body" if you will. Perhaps the body is a space worthy one whose sole purpose is to function for a limited duration....and then the consciousness is returned to the original body.

 

It's out there i know.

 

Thanks for getting back to me on this Stryper!

 

So we're talking quantum entanglement, then?

 

 

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/bob-shaw/who-goes-here.htm

 

This book featured a humorous take on the problem of not being able to make an long-range, 'open-ended' transport with a fututristic teleportation device. The maximum range was limited to less than a kilometre and a receiver was always needed to re-construct the person/object being 'beamed' between two points.

 

So they built a kilometer-long starship with transmitter/receiver stations at both ends and it went places by beaming itself, end-over-end, very rapidly - millions of times per second. This achieved FTL speeds because it generated no inertia, so the relativistic increase of mass was never a problem.

 

Common sense was though!

 

 

sleeper ships are a possibility. however you still need to solve the human body destruction issue in zero gravity.

 

I think Trapped has pre-empted me here.

 

Contra-rotating sections of the ship that turn around a stationary core. Their movement simulates gravity and their counter-rotation eliminates a build up of torque. The Earth Force starships of Babylon 5 went with this design. A much smaller use of internal rotation to simulate gravity was the Discovery on it's voyage to Jupiter in the movie, '2001:A Space Odyssey'.

 

Factually, the Skylab astronauts re-created the scene (from 2001) where astronaut Frank Poole is jogging around the inside of this rotating area. Apparently the tiny friction forces of their feet acting on the inner walls of Skylab caused to whole satellite to rotate and they had de-rotate it again!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

I think Trapped has pre-empted me here.

 

Contra-rotating sections of the ship that turn around a stationary core. Their movement simulates gravity and their counter-rotation eliminates a build up of torque. The Earth Force starships of Babylon 5 went with this design. A much smaller use of internal rotation to simulate gravity was the Discovery on it's voyage to Jupiter in the movie, '2001:A Space Odyssey'.

 

Factually, the Skylab astronauts re-created the scene (from 2001) where astronaut Frank Poole is jogging around the inside of this rotating area. Apparently the tiny friction forces of their feet acting on the inner walls of Skylab caused to whole satellite to rotate and they had de-rotate it again!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

There are some things to consider with rotating ships. There will probably be a minimum size required, otherwise the difference in gravity between the occupants' heads and their feet makes for some rather unpleasant motion sickness. The minimum size will also depend on the minimum amount of gravity required to keep negative effects from occurring in space travelers, such as bone and muscle loss. As of now, no one knows what that minimum might be. One quarter g? Two thirds g? Who knows?

 

I've read before that to simulate about 1g at one rotation per minute requires a structure about 1 mile across (don't quote me on those numbers, though). Adjust the numbers upward or downward depending on the needs of the crew or how much mass you feel like pushing around.

[bornagainathiest]

I think Trapped has pre-empted me here.

 

Contra-rotating sections of the ship that turn around a stationary core. Their movement simulates gravity and their counter-rotation eliminates a build up of torque. The Earth Force starships of Babylon 5 went with this design. A much smaller use of internal rotation to simulate gravity was the Discovery on it's voyage to Jupiter in the movie, '2001:A Space Odyssey'.

 

Factually, the Skylab astronauts re-created the scene (from 2001) where astronaut Frank Poole is jogging around the inside of this rotating area. Apparently the tiny friction forces of their feet acting on the inner walls of Skylab caused to whole satellite to rotate and they had de-rotate it again!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

There are some things to consider with rotating ships. There will probably be a minimum size required, otherwise the difference in gravity between the occupants' heads and their feet makes for some rather unpleasant motion sickness. The minimum size will also depend on the minimum amount of gravity required to keep negative effects from occurring in space travelers, such as bone and muscle loss. As of now, no one knows what that minimum might be. One quarter g? Two thirds g? Who knows?

 

Agreed Trapped.

 

There is much we just don't know at this time - something for our children and grandchildren to work on, perhaps?

 

I believe that in the Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, interplanetary ships opted for 1/3 of Earth gravity, when it came to a spin rate. The three-fold reason cited was that this was enough to counteract the effects Stryper's mentioned re: the human body, this matched Mars' gravity and it was also sufficiently low for explorers to easily adjust to the lesser gravity of the larger outer planet moons (Titan, Callisto, Triton, etc.).

 

I've read before that to simulate about 1g at one rotation per minute requires a structure about 1 mile across (don't quote me on those numbers, though). Adjust the numbers upward or downward depending on the needs of the crew or how much mass you feel like pushing around.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[stryper]

If we were actually serious about getting to mars, then a ship that was one mile in diameter wouldn't be an issue. I could see a dual or quad counter rotating design. Probably attached to a central propulsion system by cables of some type rather they tubes to compensate for inertial stress on a solid tube. An elevator system could be used to get the the propulsion system if needed. However, once the cruising speed has been established, those inertial stresses would probably be irrelevant.

 

While I would love to see more done in space, it seems with a great red scare to compete against the US is uninterested. Though competition with china may change that.

 

It really feels to me that the focus has shifted to figuring out all this climate change stuff and how we adapt.

 

 

Going back BA.

 

I have no idea what quantum entanglement is. To be perfectly honest my hypothesis is just me pulling bits a pieces of information gleaned for disparate sources and seeing how it could fit. Not to mention that the rules of physics change seemingly daily as new discoveries are made.

 

What I do know is that as science fiction authors have written it, in many cases it has come to passed. HG Well talked about England being bombed by airplane from Germany in 1908. The public laughed at the absurdity of it. Guess what happened in WWII.

 

1984 talked about TV screens that could watch you watching them. We now have that with webcams and such not to mention the universal CCTV cameras everywhere.

 

Fahrenheit 451 talked about TV programs that gave the the audience lines and spoke directly to them. Stephen King with Running Man and the Long Walk predicted the rise of reality TV.....though I don't think that he thought it would as banal as it is..or maybe he did but he's more interested in the dark aspects humanity.

 

Many science fiction authors predicted space flight, I believe HG Wells was the first but I could be wrong. Well flight in general the Greeks came up with in ancient times...but you get the point.

 

World ending asteroid strikes on planet earth were considered science fiction until they proved in the 1970's the dinosaurs age was wiped out because of one. Since then it has been shown that earth has been hit often over its history, possibly even civilization ending.

 

Hell the ipod was inspired by Star Trek.

 

 

Among the fans who have been inspired by the program are Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Computer, who lays out the basic concepts that leads to the development of the iPod after watching Data on the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "A Matter of Time" scan through various orchestral pieces instantly at his fingertips.

 

 

IBM in the 1950 state the world market for computers was 5.

 

My point is despite what current science say is impossible. Because someone thought beyond the impossible eventually some scientist or engineer somewhere perused it. It hasn't always worked out but many of the things that we take for granted today were considered impossible just 50 - 100 years ago. So I find it humorous when people get laughed at for crazy ideas.

 

EDIT:Font color in color in quote

[Thought2Much]

If we were actually serious about getting to mars, then a ship that was one mile in diameter wouldn't be an issue. I could see a dual or quad counter rotating design. Probably attached to a central propulsion system by cables of some type rather they tubes to compensate for inertial stress on a solid tube. An elevator system could be used to get the the propulsion system if needed. However, once the cruising speed has been established, those inertial stresses would probably be irrelevant.

 

I was thinking that the big, rotating ships would be used for interstellar travel, which would take many years. If you want to get to Mars without suffering the ill effects of space, it's probably cheaper to make a ship that can accelerate quickly and get you there faster, say in less than a month, and skip the need for rotation. The technology to do this will probably be around in less than a century, while the ability to build big-ass rotating ships is probably much, much further out. I'm not sure what the best method of getting people to the outer solar system is, though; it might be large, rotating ships that cycle between Earth and the destination planets on extremely eccentric orbits that rendevous with faster, smaller craft near the start and end points, but that's just me shooting from the hip.

 

EDIT: Fixed me grammar, did I.

[Thought2Much]

Of course, one also has to wonder why the hell any humans would need to go to the outer solar system on a regular basis anyway. For space industry, mining the asteroids in the inner solar system would be sufficient for centuries; there is more metal in any one of the small- to medium-sized asteroids (20 to 100 miles wide) than has ever been mined on earth, and there are probably thousands of objects within this size range. For any organic materials, just capture a few comets that come through the inner solar system, and again, you'd have enough raw materials to last for centuries. Going to the outer solar system for anything other than exploration (which, with AI and robotics getting better over the centuries, is also redundant) is kind of pointless. Any raw materials that could be gained from the outer solar system could be found elsewhere, and without the need to lift the stuff out of the huge gravity wells of the outer planets first.

[stryper]

That is exactly why Asimov suggested colonizing the moon first. Get there then use it to build the bigger ships as it is already further out of the gravity well.

[bornagainathiest]

Going back BA.

 

I have no idea what quantum entanglement is. To be perfectly honest my hypothesis is just me pulling bits a pieces of information gleaned for disparate sources and seeing how it could fit. Not to mention that the rules of physics change seemingly daily as new discoveries are made.

 

Quantum entanglement is what those Chinese dudes were doing.

It uses one of the spooky action-at-a-distance properties of quantum entities. If you can 'entangle' two adjacent particles by affecting them in some way, then even when you separate them (over 16 Kilometres in China) they retain their identical states (spin or charge, for instance). However, if you then change Particle A, Particle B changes simultaneously, even though the two don't seem to be causally/physically connected.

 

This is an instantaneous change of the net amount of information held by both particles, NOT the instantaneous movement of anything between two widely separated points.

 

That help?

 

What I do know is that as science fiction authors have written it, in many cases it has come to passed. HG Well talked about England being bombed by airplane from Germany in 1908. The public laughed at the absurdity of it. Guess what happened in WWII.

 

1984 talked about TV screens that could watch you watching them. We now have that with webcams and such not to mention the universal CCTV cameras everywhere.

 

Fahrenheit 451 talked about TV programs that gave the the audience lines and spoke directly to them. Stephen King with Running Man and the Long Walk predicted the rise of reality TV.....though I don't think that he thought it would as banal as it is..or maybe he did but he's more interested in the dark aspects humanity.

 

Many science fiction authors predicted space flight, I believe HG Wells was the first but I could be wrong. Well flight in general the Greeks came up with in ancient times...but you get the point.

 

World ending asteroid strikes on planet earth were considered science fiction until they proved in the 1970's the dinosaurs age was wiped out because of one. Since then it has been shown that earth has been hit often over its history, possibly even civilization ending.

 

Hell the ipod was inspired by Star Trek.

 

 

Among the fans who have been inspired by the program are Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Computer, who lays out the basic concepts that leads to the development of the iPod after watching Data on the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "A Matter of Time" scan through various orchestral pieces instantly at his fingertips.

 

 

IBM in the 1950 state the world market for computers was 5.

 

My point is despite what current science say is impossible. Because someone thought beyond the impossible eventually some scientist or engineer somewhere perused it. It hasn't always worked out but many of the things that we take for granted today were considered impossible just 50 - 100 years ago. So I find it humorous when people get laughed at for crazy ideas.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points re: predicting future technologies and discoveries.

All I was trying to do was to look at what we currently understand the problems of deep space travel to be and trying to imagine what the solutions might be. As you say, something could turn up tomorrow that could be a total game-changer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.