|
Post by erush1345 on Dec 6, 2006 17:18:28 GMT -5
Wat's the most interesting proposal for an FTL drive that you've heard? It doesn't matter if it's not possible right now, because of course no FTL drive is (that I know of.) Probably the way Star Trek does it, it is fairly technical, despite being completely impossible. Anitmatter/matter reactions would be a more feasable method to produce large amounts of power without having to have all the space/shielding needed for a fusion or fission power source. I'm also pretty fond of Spaceballs, nothing like going to PLAID!
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Benlove on Dec 7, 2006 9:01:48 GMT -5
How true to Science is Star Wars?
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Dec 7, 2006 12:05:22 GMT -5
How true to Science is Star Wars? Not very. If you notice when spacecraft are flying around in space, they make a lot of noise, which is impossible due to the low amount of atoms for a sound wave to propagate through. Spacecraft do not make noise while blowing up either, for the same reason. Space travel faster than the speed of light is impossible. An item like the Death Star would be impossible to build, let alone have enough power to destroy a planet. Most people would like to think that Ewoks were impossible, but, sadly, they do not seem to violate any rules. The Force is impossible due to the reason they listed (additional items in cells).
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Benlove on Dec 7, 2006 12:18:43 GMT -5
Why do people think that Ewoks are impossible?
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Dec 7, 2006 14:00:34 GMT -5
Why do people think that Ewoks are impossible? People don't think they're impossible, they just want them to be. Outside of Jar Jar Binks, they're the least popular of all of the Star Wars things created.
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Benlove on Dec 8, 2006 9:19:42 GMT -5
What?! Why?
I always liked the Ewoks! It's Jar Jar I hate.
Stupid Lucas's son...
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 25, 2007 13:08:52 GMT -5
Time for a resurrection!
So... Which do you think is more feasible for the continuation of the human species:
Terraforming a close planet, keeping ours in a stable/livable range, or colonizing a planet with optimal conditions outside of our solar system?
|
|
|
Post by spacefreak on Mar 25, 2007 21:59:08 GMT -5
Since I've got a fair background knowledge of science and math (I better, I'm a third year physics major), I'll try to answer your question Sederien, mostly off the top of my head.
Terraforming is an interesting topic. Keeping Earth in a stable livable range will work for the next 1 billion years or so; the main problem is keeping humanity from over crowding the planet and killing itself off through wars and such.
Since the sun began burning hydrogen and converting it into helium via the proton-proton chain, the power output of the sun has steadily increased, and is currently 30% greater than when the sun first undergoing nuclear fusion. However, within the next one billion years, the power output is expect to increase another 10% as the Sun begins its long process to becoming a red giant in another 5 billion years from now, causing the amount of heat produced and received on Earth to increase an equal amount. Thus, the conditions on Earth will be too hot to sustain life within another 500 million years. Ofcourse, this doesn't affect us now, but it gives reasoning for why we must find a new planet in the long-run.
Terraforming is always an option for Mars, but there lies a small problem. Unlike the Earth, which has a very strong magnetic field that protects us from cosmic radiation, Mars has no such thing. Thus, even if we are able to convert the current Martian atmosphere into a breathable N2 - O2 atmosphere, we would still have to walk around with protective suits on, or constantly be finding new medicines to protect our DNA from mutating with solar radiation and other high-energy cosmic rays. There also lies the small problem that Mars is currently losing its atmosphere, although it is a small rate. This only means that we would have to be continuously pumping N2 and O2 into the atmosphere to keep it stable, and if something were to happen to those pumps, we'd have some problems. We'd also have to safely thicken up the atmosphere, as the atmosphere on Mars is currently about 0.01 atm, where 1 atm is the pressure of the atmosphere at sea level on Earth. We'd be able to do this by releasing CFC's and all kinds of other greenhouse gases, but again, we have to do it carefully to avoid a run-away greenhouse effect. Finally, terraforming a planet would take generations to do, so if we want a blue Mars for our great-great-great grandchildren, we better start now.
Now, interstellar travel. Though I am a Star Trek / Star Wars fan, and would love the idea of travelling to other planets in other systems, its just currently not possible. There are many theories out there on how to go about it, mostly involving negative energy or warping of interspacial geometry, but currently our science and technology (or near-future knowledge) do not allow for it.
Antimatter currently takes more energy to produce than it creates. Nuclear fusion power is still another fifty to hundred years off (sadly, as we kinda need it NOW), and solar sails aren't going to work once you get past Pluto. Thus, any interstellar trip we do make wil be one-way, assuming we find a suitable planet to travel to. There are searches underway to find Earth-like planets, and our telescopes and detection methods are getting better with every decade. We have currently found over 100 extrasolar planets, but all of them are at least five or six times the size of the Earth, and most are located within the orbit of Mercury around their parent stars. Not looking too hospitable there. It seems that we will not travel to the stars unless we have an actual destination to go to ... ie, an Earth-like planet. I hate being pessimistic on this topic, as I too dream of the age when humans travel the stars and meet up with other beings and realize that we are not alone in the universe, but what if we get there and find that the planet isn't as hospitable as we thought? Would generations's worth of work be wasted?
For the now though, we must learn to take care of our own planet. For years, scientists have been releasing document after document of how the Earth's climate is changing and getting hotter in some places, colder in others, and we are witnessing more and more variations and extremes in weather. We are already in the process of the one of the next great periods of extinction of animal and flora species, mostly because of the actions of humans. The US is wasteful enough, but with India and China becoming more developed countries, with the rest of southeastern Asia following suit, we have to take measures to prepare for a rather rough 21st and 22nd century. Droughts are going to be a little more common, as are water and food shortages with the influx in population.
So yeah, we've gotta take better care of our own planet. We can try terraforming probably in the next hundred years or so, but that is not going to help us now.
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Mar 27, 2007 23:51:49 GMT -5
Uh... thanks for the zombie thread assist spacefreak!
I would have to agree. Travel outside our solar system is very much limited atm. So far, the closest is probably Voyager 1, and it's still currently in the solar system. And, thus far, we're not able to make a ship that could carry a person at those speeds (at least that's what I think). A computer are pretty easy to speed up and down, humans, not so much. Plus, we're still not going that fast even at Voyager's speed, which is around 38,000 mph according to the Voyager website (Did I mention that I'd like to work on that project before they turn them off for the last time, it's been a dream of mine). It's been going since 1977 and currently is over 100 AU (9.3 billion miles) away (as of 15 Aug 2006, 5:13 PM EST). Not getting anywhere fast, the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 7.544595439 x10^26 AU (4.22 light years) away.
Terraforming is not happening within our lifetimes, or probably anytime in the forseeable future. We just are not able to alter a planet near us to anything resembling Earth. We might raise the temperature of Mars a degree or two, but that's about it. And Venus is too far different for us to be able to change it (which is kind of ironic that it IS the planet nearest to Earth in size, composition and orbit). The only way to make Mars' atmosphere thicker would to be raise the temperature, which would cause more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. But, we cannot make changes on such a scale at this time, despite what Greenpeace or Al Gore try to tell you. The atmosphere is pretty dang large. [note for you: I do believe that the small changes we have seen in our temperatures and atmosphere are more related to cylic changes in the Sun than anything that humans have done. However, being cleaner never hurt anybody].
That leaves us with altering how we do things in you list of options. By the time any change humans can do, it would either be too late or too little. It takes many years for the tinyest change in the Sun to alter the atmosphere. What's a few humans going to do. And be honest, were a change needed to be done, how are you going to state to 4.something billion people how they will live their lives. Not happening.
So, in my estimation, we die. Evolution wins.
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Mar 27, 2007 23:54:26 GMT -5
Thus, any interstellar trip we do make wil be one-way, assuming we find a suitable planet to travel to. Remember to aim pretty good too, the minutest error on this end, you wind up in space pretty much forever.
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 27, 2007 23:56:51 GMT -5
I still hold some faith in the idea that we will find technological ways to 'adapt' to the new climate. (I'm thinking big shelters...) But considering the results of that last bio-dome experiment in which they forgot to account for the CO2 outputted by microorganisms, your last line might actually become true.
I'll remain the optimist, though.
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 27, 2007 23:58:04 GMT -5
Thus, any interstellar trip we do make wil be one-way, assuming we find a suitable planet to travel to. Remember to aim pretty good too, the minutest error on this end, you wind up in space pretty much forever. I quite remember the NASA lecture discussing this in layman's terms. "You're flinging this spec of dust here to a particle on that spec of dust several meters away. And they're moving."
|
|
|
Post by Duke Random Guy ZT on Mar 27, 2007 23:58:07 GMT -5
I think the only way we could beat evolution is if we challenged it to a caged death match.
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 27, 2007 23:59:42 GMT -5
I think the only way we could beat evolution is if we challenged it to a caged death match.
|
|
|
Post by Duke Random Guy ZT on Mar 28, 2007 0:03:26 GMT -5
I don't get it. Are they watching the fight or something?
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 28, 2007 0:04:47 GMT -5
It's a shot from the movie Evolution. I figured they looked as confused as I was as to the caged death match comment.
(And yes, erush1345, we take over threads like this. ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Duke Random Guy ZT on Mar 28, 2007 0:14:59 GMT -5
Evolution may be a strong in theory, but it's no good at direct combat. I think we could beat it's pansy butt in a head-to-head fight...especially if we could use weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Sederien on Mar 28, 2007 0:17:38 GMT -5
Right... Well, my friend Adaptation is going to want to get in on that fight. And he can grow new weapons when placed in such a situation as to warrant them.
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Mar 28, 2007 0:17:47 GMT -5
Heck, I'm game, I'm getting attention in my thread OMG!!
Ya, I think biodomes would be a possible solution, but, that's not changing the planet like the original question asked. Terraforming still be kinda hard to do.
That movie was strange. I can't remember when I saw it though.
|
|
|
Post by erush1345 on Mar 28, 2007 0:19:31 GMT -5
Evolution may be a strong in theory, but it's no good at direct combat. I think we could beat it's pansy butt in a head-to-head fight...especially if we could use weapons. Don't count evolution out, it'll just grow some claws or something and take you out. That's what it's there for ;D
|
|