Space elevators are for what? You can use them to get into orbit, but not to the moon.
What I was thinking of is building an assembly on the moon, where workers could assemble ships in a relatively safe environment. I guess space elevators could move material to orbit, then a shuttle could transport them to the moon.
1. bring spaceship up to orbit using very little power.
2. Spaceship is fully fueled, launch it off.
You mean a space elevator can raise a ship large enough to make it to Mars into orbit? :ohmy.gif: I was thinking more along the lines of an elevator that is connected to a space station or something, and it would lift the materials. The ship would be built in space, or on the moon, as opposed to building it on earth and lifting the whole thing in one go.
Quote from Breadlord »
You're both neglecting the fact that our advancements in particle physics will inevitably provide the groundwork for more advanced propulsion systems and (while I am skeptical about practical application) no one has completely ruled out the viability of folding space via warp drives and such.
Imagine yourself waking up after a 40,000 year voyage to some star. You land on a planet only to be greeted by humans that have been there for 20,000 years. That would surely be a kick in the ass.
As I've said, it would be overly expensive to assemble an entire mission in orbit, or on the lunar surface.
But a possibility is having pre-fab components being launched into LEO, and then be assembled by multiple missions. It wouldn't be overly difficult, and would require only a few rocket launches.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
You're both neglecting the fact that our advancements in particle physics will inevitably provide the groundwork for more advanced propulsion systems and (while I am skeptical about practical application) no one has completely ruled out the viability of folding space via warp drives and such. Science is exciting because there is so little we actually understand. Today's limitations fuel tomorrow's advancements. If someone can say "This is why we can't." a scientist will always endeavor to find a way to say "Now we can."
Oh, I definitely wasn't ruling warp drives and advanced propulsion out. He just said something about a 40,000 year trip and that it wouldn't work. It COULD work. It would just be really impractical.
I'm definitely rooting for advances in space travel... but y'know, we'd need funding for that, right? ;D
As I've said, it would be overly expensive to assemble an entire mission in orbit, or on the lunar surface.
But a possibility is having pre-fab components being launched into LEO, and then be assembled by multiple missions. It wouldn't be overly difficult, and would require only a few rocket launches.
It seems like that would be a good idea. But if you are going to launch multiple missions, wouldn't it be more practical to construct a permanent facility?
Quote from blaster »
At least you don't have to go through the irritation of rebuilding all the infrastructure.
True, but you would have a lot of catching up to do. I wonder what they would serve at the bar in the (Earth) year 42,000?
It seems like that would be a good idea. But if you are going to launch multiple missions, wouldn't it be more practical to construct a permanent facility?
A permanent facility would require infrastructure, and years of assembly and planning, whereas launching four components on a relatively cheap booster would be simple, and would only really require around a billion dollars in launch costs, compared to the ~125 Billion of a structure similar to the ISS.
Over the long term, it would make sense. On the short term, an orbital assembly building is overly expensive and time intensive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Well, that's just it. The answer depends on the question.
For one or two ships, it would be more economical to fly up the pieces and put them together in orbit. But if you want to launch many ships over many years, then it would probably be better to establish something more permanent.
I like the idea of an ongoing space program, which is why I support the moon base.
Humans should not be allowed to spread their idiocy to other worlds.
No.
we already spread to a whole continent
we already spread to other continents
we already spread to every corner of the earth
we already spread to many other places in the solar system using machines.
now we are just suppose to stop?
space is just another vast ocean to cross, and there are fresh new worlds, full of hope and opportunity that will be had only by the brave.
plus, lets just not launch corporate executives and politicians into space and the idiocy will be contained.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
join off topic IRC at #otter on esper.net, there is cake*
*there may or may not be cake
To reach 1/4 light speed, we would need an energy source much more powerful than we can currently create
Theoretically a chemical rocket could do it, it'd just require that all but a vanishingly small part of the spacecraft be propellant (about 2*10^-7398 of the total mass could be something other than propellant).
possibly need to harness antimatter
Unlikely. Antimatter will always be prohibitively expensive to generate and would only act as an energy storage medium (and an incredibly inefficient one at that). Worse still matter-antimatter annihilation produces a lot of neutrinos which carry a lot of energy (and momentum) away and which you can't harness in any way, so it represents a significant fraction of wasted energy. It'd simply be too expensive.
More reasonable propulsion systems would be electric propulsion systems (ion and plasma thrusters) likely powered by a nuclear power plant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
19 votes for "AMG YES SPACE EXPLORATION IS SO RELEVENT!!" Is this serious? What have people actually done in space? Plant a flag? Take pictures? Bring back rocks? FIND ALIENS AMG!?!?!?!? I'm sorry, but all space exploration programs do is throw away money.
You must learn to crawl before you can walk.
you get the idea
we didnt just magically pop up at the tech we are today, some people had to venture into unknown areas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You are now reading this. You just lost the game.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
19 votes for "AMG YES SPACE EXPLORATION IS SO RELEVENT!!" Is this serious? What have people actually done in space? Plant a flag? Take pictures? Bring back rocks? FIND ALIENS AMG!?!?!?!? I'm sorry, but all space exploration programs do is throw away money.
I doubt many would say the same thing if they had to personally fund the space programs, instead of using plundered loot.
You mean a space elevator can raise a ship large enough to make it to Mars into orbit? :ohmy.gif: I was thinking more along the lines of an elevator that is connected to a space station or something, and it would lift the materials. The ship would be built in space, or on the moon, as opposed to building it on earth and lifting the whole thing in one go.
Imagine yourself waking up after a 40,000 year voyage to some star. You land on a planet only to be greeted by humans that have been there for 20,000 years. That would surely be a kick in the ass.
But a possibility is having pre-fab components being launched into LEO, and then be assembled by multiple missions. It wouldn't be overly difficult, and would require only a few rocket launches.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Oh, I definitely wasn't ruling warp drives and advanced propulsion out. He just said something about a 40,000 year trip and that it wouldn't work. It COULD work. It would just be really impractical.
I'm definitely rooting for advances in space travel... but y'know, we'd need funding for that, right? ;D
Or you could trash it with various pictures. It's your choice.
It seems like that would be a good idea. But if you are going to launch multiple missions, wouldn't it be more practical to construct a permanent facility?
True, but you would have a lot of catching up to do. I wonder what they would serve at the bar in the (Earth) year 42,000?
A permanent facility would require infrastructure, and years of assembly and planning, whereas launching four components on a relatively cheap booster would be simple, and would only really require around a billion dollars in launch costs, compared to the ~125 Billion of a structure similar to the ISS.
Over the long term, it would make sense. On the short term, an orbital assembly building is overly expensive and time intensive.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
For one or two ships, it would be more economical to fly up the pieces and put them together in orbit. But if you want to launch many ships over many years, then it would probably be better to establish something more permanent.
I like the idea of an ongoing space program, which is why I support the moon base.
Signed, the Martians
best to be prepared, amiright?
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
No.
We're already broadcasting it into deep space, what would a few uninhabited planets care?
we already spread to a whole continent
we already spread to other continents
we already spread to every corner of the earth
we already spread to many other places in the solar system using machines.
now we are just suppose to stop?
space is just another vast ocean to cross, and there are fresh new worlds, full of hope and opportunity that will be had only by the brave.
plus, lets just not launch corporate executives and politicians into space and the idiocy will be contained.
*there may or may not be cake
Stand up.
Walk a few steps.
YOU'VE EXPLORED THE GALAXY! :biggrin.gif::D:D
...
Just go and find a stunning new method of space travel :tongue.gif:
It's super effective!
Pointless thread has fainted!
This is why i love MC fourm's moderators
cryogenics, but I hope you are ready to adapt to a completely changed world. but immortality will give you tones of time to adjust.
*there may or may not be cake
Cause this one is really very important for all of us.
Theoretically a chemical rocket could do it, it'd just require that all but a vanishingly small part of the spacecraft be propellant (about 2*10^-7398 of the total mass could be something other than propellant).
Unlikely. Antimatter will always be prohibitively expensive to generate and would only act as an energy storage medium (and an incredibly inefficient one at that). Worse still matter-antimatter annihilation produces a lot of neutrinos which carry a lot of energy (and momentum) away and which you can't harness in any way, so it represents a significant fraction of wasted energy. It'd simply be too expensive.
More reasonable propulsion systems would be electric propulsion systems (ion and plasma thrusters) likely powered by a nuclear power plant.
You must learn to crawl before you can walk.
you get the idea
we didnt just magically pop up at the tech we are today, some people had to venture into unknown areas.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
I doubt many would say the same thing if they had to personally fund the space programs, instead of using plundered loot.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/