TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I agree with Uppi. It is certainly possible theoretically, so I don't see why it can't be done with future technological advancements.
Yes and yes because these things are relevant to the survival of our species so they should have top priority, as opposed to looking outside of our solar system which is totally irrelevant to the survival of our speices.
"Back here on Earth, are we doing enough to detect and track asteroids and comets that might even now be on a collision course with our planet? The answer, according to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, is a resounding "No." "
I found pretty much the holy grail on the subject, jury is still out, but it seems unlikely.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ast.2006.0124
And yet you completely ignored what I just said. Power consumption is not static. As in, we generate more power as time goes on. As in, those values relatively speaking will become smaller and smaller as time goes on.Any technological advancement only changes how we get the power, it doesnt change how much power is required. My description of the power requirement is just a way to try and put into perspective the sheer scale of how much power is involved. Let me give you another example, a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb, thats twice the size of the largest weapon ever detonated, has 420PJ of energy. 12500PWh is 45000000PJ, so the power needed is equivalent to, assuming zero loss, 107142 megatons, or 214284 Tsar hydrogen bombs, x2 because we have to slow down, 428568 Tsar hydrogen bombs. If you release the equivalent power of one Tsar hydrogen bomb per hour, it will take 24.5 years to accelerate to 1/10th the speed of light. Science cannot change that fact, it is a fundamental law of nature, 1 Tsar hydrogen bomb worth of energy per hour for 24.5 years. The power of Tsar is even difficult to comprehend, so I'll scale it down even more, The Tsar hydrogen bomb released the same power as 3333 little boy atomic bombs. Using my previous analogy that works out to releasing the equivalent power of the little boy atomic bomb every single second for 24.5 years.
Mostly empty, is not empty, and when you calculate the distance you need to cover the odds become greater, and you are covering a very very very large distance.
I understand that life can exsist in many many different enviroments, what you dont understand is extremophiles cannot evolve into animals or anything as complex as an animal... show me one scientific study that says different.
For most people, probably.
But I promise to be astounded . . .
And then it goes onto how they need to do more research to be able to better refine their models.
... Extremophiles are only called extremophiles because the conditions are unusual on Earth. In unusual conditions, you're not going to have a lot of chances to develop, compared to usual conditions by definition.
And yet you completely ignored what I just said. Power consumption is not static. As in, we generate more power as time goes on. As in, those values relatively speaking will become smaller and smaller as time goes on.
I'm not arguing that the energy cost is going to decrease, but the percentage of energy relative to what we produce in a period of time is going to decrease.
And yet, the energy output of the sun in one millisecond is greater than that. And in terms of fuel it would be about 500 tons of antimatter, which could be easily carried by a 100000 ton ship (And you could probably build a spaceship much lighter than an aircraft carrier).
The energy output of an uncontrolled fusion reactor with a 4.4 million km circumference and a mass of 1.9891 x10 to 30 power kg is not relevant, read up on the energy used by plant life alone in one day, its mind boggling.
Your antimatter calculation is off, antimatter could generate the power required with 10714 pounds or 5MT, thats using 1 pound of antimatter = 20 megatons as a base.
Creating antimatter requires a massive amounts of energy itself, here Bluemofia can your "Power consumption is not static." argument be applied. I heard creating one teaspoon of antimatter would bankrupt the USA... this was before the US went bankrupt
Actually I have grossly underestimated the mass of a generation ship. How many people do you need to have a viable genetic pool? then add some more as a safety factor multiply by 4 because they are going to breed during the trip and you can expect at least 4 generations to be alive at any point. So lets say 200 people to maintain a viable gene pool x 4, you need living quarters for 800 people plus all other nessesitys, hospital, school, recreation, mess halls, machine shops, storage ect, you need a greenhouse large enough to supply food and oxygen to 800 people, you need water to supply 800 people and the greenhouse for thousands of years, you need power source, engines, fuel... you need ships to land on the planet once you get there, equipment and supplies to get the colony going once you arrive, for safety you need double or more of everything you have for ship systems, because theres no home depots in intersteller space, and youll probably need a way to manufacture stuff from scratch, raw materials, forges mini factorys, in the end youre probably looking at millions of tons and just changed the power requirements by a factor of ten or more.
Just one (probably want a couple more in case she kicks it)How many people do you need to have a viable genetic pool?
No, it's not, assuming your figure of 12500 PWh is correct. Pro tip: Stick to SI units, makes the whole thing easier.
Anything involving antimatter is obviously only viable if we find some way to produce it more efficiently. The current antimatter production method is horribly inefficient, and there is no fundamental limit why it cannot be more efficient.
But you're assuming 50 years old technology. Building a spaceship from steel would be incredibly stupid. You would really have to optimize it for weight. If we could build huge carbon nanostructures that factor of 10 could be easily compensated by material science alone.
No argument there, but just on the subject of getting a generation ship to a habitable star its not relevant, we just assume we have it. Of course in practice it is a big deal because we arent leaving until we do have it, assuming its even possible. Also theres the problem of not just creating it, but containing it, heh imagine the containment structure and power needed to keep 500t of antimatter away from matter... and would we even want that much antimatter on our planet, if something went wrong, Praxis seems to me we would have to be able to create it as we need it in the ship itself, so now youll need to add an antimatter factory to the ship too, with its power consumption, mass and whatever raw materials it needs.
Yup, scientific advancement in material is definatly one way we could help improve the possibility of star travel. But, its still going to have mass, and if we have to keep humans alive and safe and in sufficient quantity for a viable gene pool, a lot of mass, and thats the killer. The more you consider it, the more problems crop up, the more unlikely such an endeavor seems possible. Sure science can solve some issues but a lot of them are fundamental physical laws of nature, distance and time.
Not really, I already know a vehicle that can transport enough humans to form a viable gene pool. It's called a Geo Metroand if we have to keep humans alive and safe and in sufficient quantity for a viable gene pool, a lot of mass, and thats the killer
Extremophiles are extremophiles because they survive outside of the optimum oxygen cycle of life. Titan is a prime example of an extremophile enviroment, it has weather, liquid on its surface, rain even, its the closest thing to earth in our solar system with the possibility of a truly alien life, evolved outside of the optimum oxygen environment and at best will produce microbes... wheres the link I asked for? There isnt one because there isnt a biologist who thinks a complex animal like life form can develope without oxygen.
This is, however, an incredibly chauvinistic argument. The only rigorous conclusion that can be drawn from the lack of exotic biochemistries on Earth is that contemporary conditions do not favor those other systems. Since a rich diversity of habitats is possible in the Galaxy, peculiar life chemistries cannot be categorically ruled out.
For instance, there used to be the notion that oxygen (O2) is absolutely required for higher life. Many xenobiologists today categorically reject this proposition. Oxygen was largely absent during the first few billion years of evolution on Earth, and many organisms today still do not need this element to survive. Experiments have shown that plants grow better in air containing only about half the normal amount of oxygen, and the presence of O2 in the nuclear regions of contemporary living cells is usually fatal. Human scuba divers are poisoned by the gas at more than a few atmospheres pressure. Large creatures on any world may need some strong oxidant to power their bodies, but it may not have to be oxygen.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting my statements? (NOT efficiency. NOT physical energy requirements. RAW power generation and consumption. The US power consumption was 9TWh in 1900. Now it is obviously far higher.) You say we require 12500 PWh. Then you state that the amount is 431 years worth of US energy, and therefore impossible.EDIT; ok I think I understand what your getting at, you are talking efficiency, correct? so what your saying is that as we increase efficiency we increase energy output? Problem is still power output, no matter how efficiently we can generate power, you are still not generating enough power even at 100% efficiency. On earth this isnt such a big deal because we just build more power plants, as many as we need, with a spaceship that is not possible. A correct analogy would be, can we supply the entire power consumption of the USA with one single power plant, no, and even that fantasy power source would still take 431 years to accelerate my ship to 1\10th the speed of light.
PS an atomic bomb is E=MC2 uncontrolled, in its purest form, we will not ever be able to generate power faster then the uncontrolled mass to energy conversion of a nuclear bomb. Once we apply control to the mass to energy conversion we slow it down, no matter how efficient it is, aka a nuclear reactor vs a nuclear bomb. So lets imagine a major scientific breakthru, we can create and utilize (as thrust) an atomic bombs total energy output in say one minute, thats far beyond even the theoretical fusion reactor. You can now accelerate my ship to 1\10th the speed of light in 1470 years.
Trapping antimatter could in principle be done without any energy consumption in, say, a magnetic trap, as long as there is no heating of the antimatter. If there is heating, cooling is needed, which will require energy. I don't think it could be done at the moment (although I do wonder how well a giant magneto-optical trap would work in space...should actually be pretty good), but we're working on that.
Why the hell do you think it needs to be 1/10th the speed of light anyways? Why can't it be say, 1/100th?
How many people do you need to have a viable genetic pool?
Wouldnt the lasers in the magneto-optical trap be introducing matter (photons) into the antimatter? Heh was reading up on anti-matter, we have a long long way to go in that field and its still up in the air if its ever going to be feasible.
Earth is not the only planet in our solar systems "habitable" zone, both Venus and Mars are in that region and yet we do not find any life on those planets.
Now we just have to bring them democracy
Really? How the heck would Venus POSSIBLY be habitable?
Even Mars, how?