Why go where no man has gone before?

[fishjie]

Wow you guys think science fiction is just a news report from 100 yrs from now. Are you aware of the laws of physics? Are you aware of the nature of space and the nearby planets? There is nothing up there of any great use and getting to it is extremely dangerous and costly. In 1000 yrs there will not be significant "colonies" on nearby planets much less other solar systems. Steve Weinburg is a nobel prize winning physicst, I think he knows a few things about the subject.

are YOU aware of the laws of physics? can you resolve the EPR paradox? can you tell me how light is a wave and a particle? can you explain gravity at the quantum level? can you come up with a grand unification theory that reconciles the non determinism of quantum mechanics with the deterministic model of general relativity? string theory you say? so can you prove it? okay then. nobody knows the laws of physics. science is an ongoing process that continually refines our views of the world. the picture we have today is definitely incomplete. even if we could prove string theory, i have no doubt there'd be new discoveries that further refine it in the future.

so unless steve weinburg has the answers physicists are looking for, he is not the god you make him out to be. he is just a naysayer, and like all naysayers of the past, he will be pwned.

It is only a matter of time.


heck i got to alpha centauri with it only at 40%.

word i usually set research to 0% for most of the game anyway. easy as pie. travel at speeds relative to the speed of light? o this will cause the mass to increase? big deal. trivial fixes will be found.

 

[classical_hero]

15th century people may have said near the same thing when Christopher Columbus set out on his exploration. International trade was still profitable despite the risks, costs, and time it took for wind powered wooden ships to cross the high seas. Historians have compared the early days of international shipping as being as difficult in its time as the Apollo program was in ours.

That is a complete myth. It was only in Washington Irvine's myth filled biography, many centuries later that. Just look here [wiki]Flat Earth[/wiki] for all the pre Columbian scholars and philosophers who believed that the world was indeed round. The real reason to doing this was to find an alternative route to the Indian region after the collapse of peace with Mongolia.

 

[Smidlee]

are YOU aware of the laws of physics? can you resolve the EPR paradox? can you tell me how light is a wave and a particle? can you explain gravity at the quantum level? can you come up with a grand unification theory that reconciles the non determinism of quantum mechanics with the deterministic model of general relativity? string theory you say? so can you prove it? okay then. nobody knows the laws of physics.

Most of those questions deals on the scale of an atom or smaller ; thus quantum mechanics. The thing is Newton's laws of physics dealing with things on the grand scale is still up to date after all these centuries.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that's slightly wrong. There are hosts of materials in the asteroid belts: some of those asteroids come really close. Because asteroids are all chunked apart, the ones containing heavier elements will be easier to mine.

 

[scy12]

I believe Space exploration had more benefits when the technology was on experimental stage rather than now where we have the technotropy and can build the technology needed but at a cost that could be used elsewhere.

However , i like the scientific results of Space exploration and as long it is not my tax money that go there , i say go for it...

 

[Slaughter]

Of course we need to go to space! Look at our planet!

It's full of people! Unless we wipe out a LOT of people, we need to find new places to go and live. It's human nature. Funds? Bah! What about stoping to use funds for the creation of war machines and use these funds to help Humanity to go into space?

 

[scy12]

Of course we need to go to space! Look at our planet!

It's full of people! Unless we wipe out a LOT of people, we need to find new places to go and live. It's human nature. Funds? Bah! What about stoping to use funds for the creation of war machines and use these funds to help Humanity to go into space?

The technology produced for creating better space exploration machines will undoubtedly be used to produce in the future better War machines.

I like your approach but ...

 

[fishjie]

Most of those questions deals on the scale of an atom or smaller ; thus quantum mechanics. The thing is Newton's laws of physics dealing with things on the grand scale is still up to date after all these centuries.

actually newton's laws fall apart on a grand scale when you look at speeds relative to the speed of light. relativity comes into play there. so micro and macro, his model falls apart.

 

[Slaughter]

The technology produced for creating better space exploration machines will undoubtedly be used to produce in the future better War machines.

I like your approach but ...

If I ruled the world, that would not be a problem.

 

[mdwh]

...For interstellar voyages the numbers get, well, astronomical. For example, to send a payload the size of a school bus to the nearest star within 900 years, you’d need ... well, more mass than there is in the entire universe. This assumes that you’re using chemical engines like those on the space shuttle. With nuclear fission rockets the situation gets better, but not by much — the propellant required would fill a billion supertankers.

This may be true, but I think it's obvious that space travel isn't going to happen in a short time period via chemical rockets. Even those who think we will one day travel to other stars realise this.

It will either require new technology (it's like saying we will never get to the moon, because it is beyond the capabilities of riding on horses), or will take place over much longer time periods (even if it takes thousand of years).

In 1000 yrs there will not be significant "colonies" on nearby planets much less other solar systems. Steve Weinburg is a nobel prize winning physicst, I think he knows a few things about the subject.

Appeal to authority works both ways (e.g., Hawking takes the opposite view - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1602361.stm ).

 

[mdwh]

Most of those questions deals on the scale of an atom or smaller ; thus quantum mechanics. The thing is Newton's laws of physics dealing with things on the grand scale is still up to date after all these centuries.

General relativity, actually. And if we're considering the possibilities of new propulsion systems, I would say the very small scale is just as important for fundament physics, as is the very large.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Beam me up, scotty

 

[Smidlee]

actually newton's laws fall apart on a grand scale when you look at speeds relative to the speed of light. relativity comes into play there. so micro and macro, his model falls apart.

Then again the trick is getting something large to get anywhere close to light speed; thus into the quantum world. So far only thing goes the speed of light in on the quantum level not on the grand scale. (since space isn't empty anything with size will also fall apart going the speed of light which Newton's model deals with) So you still hoping to bring a big object into quantum world that even if it is possible using Sci-Fi examples will use up unreal amounts of energy. It's like trying to get around the laws of thermodynamics to get a lot of free energy.

 

[Bill3000]

Then again the trick is getting something large to get anywhere close to light speed; thus into the quantum world. So far only thing goes the speed of light in on the quantum level not on the grand scale. (since space isn't empty anything with size will also fall apart going the speed of light which Newton's model deals with) So you still hoping to bring a big object into quantum world that even if it is possible using Sci-Fi examples will use up unreal amounts of energy. It's like trying to get around the laws of thermodynamics to get a lot of free energy.

What on earth? Having an object go near the speed of light has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Classical quantum mechanics doesn't even use special relativity.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Prominent physicist Steven Weinberg expresses my view exactly here. What a waste of resources to put human beings in space. Think of all the real science that could be done if we just scrapped the whole thing. I love the whole science fiction Star Trek thing as much as the next science nerd but lets not have it cloud our reason to the tune of billions of dollars. What say you?

You misrepresent the criticism. It is not manned spaceflight that Weinberg criticizes, it is NASA. I think it is eminently true that NASA has contributed next to nothing to science through manned spaceflight. It uses it more as a public relations gimmick and demonstrating how incredibly awesome it is by putting people into space. NASA is nothing more than a government agency and without a specific goal, does nothing but grandstand so that the agency can continue its own existence with government funding. This is why I believe that useful spaceflight will only be achieved through private enterprise.

For years, NASA was kicking around several projects aimed at improving launch vehicle efficiency, such as the X-33, all of which came to nothing while wasting untold time and money. Then came along Burt Rutan who built SS1 in a short period of time, with a lot less money, and a lot fewer resources (including the lack of a wind tunnel). Now Virgin Atlantic is working with him to build a fleet of spaceplanes.

Let's face it. After the US won the Space Race, there was no further need to demonstrate to the USSR that we were cool, so there are no further goals.

 

[Smidlee]

What on earth? Having an object go near the speed of light has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Classical quantum mechanics doesn't even use special relativity.

Yet both are related to the strange properties of light. To have an object near the speed of light you got to have an force at least as fast as light.

 

[mdwh]

Yet both are related to the strange properties of light. To have an object near the speed of light you got to have an force at least as fast as light.

What do you mean, a force at least as fast as light? Force and speed are different concepts.

 

[Bill3000]

Yet both are related to the strange properties of light. To have an object near the speed of light you got to have an force at least as fast as light.

Other than the fact that as said before, they are different concepts, you need an infinite force to have a massive object reach the speed of light, not a finite one. A massless object by definition always travels at the speed of light.