Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on November 29, 2011, 04:32:57 pm
-
I see no point. Most of the winners of the contest are variations of the Stanford Torus. We already have 3 designs that should work. Colony design isn't a problem.
The biggest problem is financing. The second biggest problem, imo, is launch systems. Of course, it would be a lot cheaper (and require less launches) to construct colonies from secret soviet moonbase solaris using the bootstrap principle.
So why don't we tackle those two obstacles first, hm?
-
The problem with financing will be solved when we have a requirement that the space habitat would fill that the ISS doesn't. Launch systems and station fabrication are much more interesting problems, and will probably solved depending on the particular design and financing available. (more cold wars notwithstanding)
-
The problem with financing will be solved when we have a requirement that the space habitat would fill that the ISS doesn't. Launch systems and station fabrication are much more interesting problems, and will probably solved depending on the particular design and financing available. (more cold wars notwithstanding)
Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
-
The problem with financing will be solved when we have a requirement that the space habitat would fill that the ISS doesn't. Launch systems and station fabrication are much more interesting problems, and will probably solved depending on the particular design and financing available. (more cold wars notwithstanding)
Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
The optimal population in space is zero.
(ed well not exactly but for the near future it might as well be)
-
I wonder what moon rock tastes like.
-
there are salvagable nuclear reactors in orbit around earth. i say we do something with them, such as drop them on flaming cobra's house.
-
there are salvagable nuclear reactors in orbit around earth. i say we do something with them, such as drop them on flaming cobra's house.
Since he did mention colonies, how about a Colony Drop, Gundam style?
-
there are salvagable nuclear reactors in orbit around earth. i say we do something with them, such as drop them on flaming cobra's house.
Since he did mention colonies, how about a Colony Drop, Gundam style?
I think I'm going to ignore that comment.
We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.
-
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
-
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
what we need is a nuclear war or a new plague, maybe a small asteroid. even a conventional world war would help.
-
We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.
This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station. Also I'd rather see humanity consume all available resources and then die off in a nuclear war. But that's just me, and there's hardly room for an objective take on humanity's goals.
-
what we need is a nuclear war or a new plague, maybe a small asteroid. even a conventional world war would help.
Shortsighted, as it would just kickstart the same rampant expansion again that is the problem in the first place.
This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station. Also I'd rather see humanity consume all available resources and then die off in a nuclear war. But that's just me, and there's hardly room for an objective take on humanity's goals.
Yup... let humanity as it is right now would act very much like a cancer if it had the means to let itself lose on the galaxy: Grow for growths sake until infinity or collapse...
-
what we need is a nuclear war or a new plague, maybe a small asteroid. even a conventional world war would help.
Shortsighted, as it would just kickstart the same rampant expansion again that is the problem in the first place.
not if you're thorough. besides people dont want solutions that make sense. they want to do the most psychologically unsound solution presented to them.
-
I see no point. Most of the winners of the contest are variations of the Stanford Torus. We already have 3 designs that should work. Colony design isn't a problem.
The biggest problem is financing. The second biggest problem, imo, is launch systems. Of course, it would be a lot cheaper (and require less launches) to construct colonies from secret soviet moonbase solaris using the bootstrap principle.
So why don't we tackle those two obstacles first, hm?
Because, as usual, you are missing the point. This contest isn't about providing a new, revolutionary design for a space station (although that's a nice bonus), it's about stimulating people into thinking about space colonization. Specifically, people young enough to be inspired by working on such a project. It's an effort to create a base of people NASA might eventually recruit from.
-
Because, as usual, you are missing the point. This contest isn't about providing a new, revolutionary design for a space station (although that's a nice bonus), it's about stimulating people into thinking about space colonization. Specifically, people young enough to be inspired by working on such a project. It's an effort to create a base of people NASA might eventually recruit from.
Exactly. Never underestimate the importance of stimulating young minds towards becoming the sort of quality work force you'll eventually recruit. There's this kind of thing everywhere. Car design contests that are geared towards identifying talented young designers, and generally don't end up with a serial production car. A bit like this:
there are salvagable nuclear reactors in orbit around earth. i say we do something with them, such as drop them on flaming cobra's house.
It's not actually realistic to expect this will happen, but just fantasizing about it it thinking about ways to do it will inspire a generation of young minds. Incidentally, maybe we could have a vote on this and suggest it to NASA if the results are good enough?
-
Drop a version of this with multiple chainsaws and flamethrowers:
(http://creationrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/11-26-11-crev-mars-rover-curiosity.jpg)
-
Drop a version of this with multiple chainsaws and flamethrowers:
-snip-
wat? no Beamz? :drevil:
-
wat? no Beamz? :drevil:
Beams are too clean. I hereby give my complete support to Slayer's suggestion. Curiosity-style house incineration, yeah!
-
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure. Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.
-
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure. Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.
And before that they were saying that we'd be bound to stabilize at about 6 billion, and before that they were saying that we'd stabilize at about 4, and before that 1, and before that, we actually were pretty nearly stable, compared to the exponential thing we've been doing since industrial agriculture kicked off. We're just gonna keep kicking Malthus in the giblets until we, as a species, get tired of it (and lemme tell ya, that never gets old :arrr:).
-
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure. Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.
Meh. I was just going along with the number whosits posted.
-
Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
ENGAGE RANT MODE
Cite your ****ing sources. Cite them right the hell now. Then find proof for their accuracy and the accuracy of the scientific methods by which the "3 billion" number was reached.
Here's the thing though: You won't be able to. Why? Because that number, and the stuff behind it, are bull****. It's based on the belief by certain green idiots that the only way of life that is "sustainable" is that of subsistence farming. In other words, a return to preindustrial ways of life, where a majority of the population was directly involved in producing food. They think that the modern advances in farming are bad, that being able to feed a large number of people efficiently is not a good thing to have.
Also, if you are saying "there should be only 3 billion of us", I want you to make a list of the people you want dead. I want you to ask everyone you know to draw up similar lists. Because that is what this whole "sustainable population" bit entails. Now, you may be a sociopath like Nuke, or you may be a teenager (which, by and large, amounts to the same thing) who would have no problem whatsoever. Or you may actually be a normal human being, who wouldn't like this idea one bit.
-
I see no point. Most of the winners of the contest are variations of the Stanford Torus. We already have 3 designs that should work. Colony design isn't a problem.
The biggest problem is financing. The second biggest problem, imo, is launch systems. Of course, it would be a lot cheaper (and require less launches) to construct colonies from secret soviet moonbase solaris using the bootstrap principle.
So why don't we tackle those two obstacles first, hm?
Because, as usual, you are missing the point. This contest isn't about providing a new, revolutionary design for a space station (although that's a nice bonus), it's about stimulating people into thinking about space colonization. Specifically, people young enough to be inspired by working on such a project. It's an effort to create a base of people NASA might eventually recruit from.
That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?
That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.
-snip-
This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station. Also I'd rather see humanity consume all available resources and then die off in a nuclear war. But that's just me, and there's hardly room for an objective take on humanity's goals.
What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.
-snip-
I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure. Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.
Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
ENGAGE RANT MODE
Cite your ****ing sources. Cite them right the hell now. Then find proof for their accuracy and the accuracy of the scientific methods by which the "3 billion" number was reached.
Here's the thing though: You won't be able to. Why? Because that number, and the stuff behind it, are bull****. It's based on the belief by certain green idiots that the only way of life that is "sustainable" is that of subsistence farming. In other words, a return to preindustrial ways of life, where a majority of the population was directly involved in producing food. They think that the modern advances in farming are bad, that being able to feed a large number of people efficiently is not a good thing to have.
Also, if you are saying "there should be only 3 billion of us", I want you to make a list of the people you want dead. I want you to ask everyone you know to draw up similar lists. Because that is what this whole "sustainable population" bit entails. Now, you may be a sociopath like Nuke, or you may be a teenager (which, by and large, amounts to the same thing) who would have no problem whatsoever. Or you may actually be a normal human being, who wouldn't like this idea one bit.
Chill out, bro.
Looks like I was wrong. My environmental science textbook from last year stated that David Pimentel claims the optimum human population would be two billion. The text goes on to state that he is an extreme neo-Malthusian.
This book also gives three stabilization projections for the human population. An optimistic one, a medium one, and a pessimistic one. It claims the UN Projection Division made these three projections in 2003.
Optimistic (good): 8 billion by 2050, back to where it is today by 2150.
Medium: 9.3 billion by 2050, stabilize at 10 billion by 2150.
Pessimistic (ugly): Continued exponential growth, 25 billion people by 2150.
OK, E, I'LL GIVE SOURCE INFORMATION FOR THE BOOK IF YOU WANT IT. YOU LIKE MLA OR APA FORMAT?
Environmental Science: A Global Concern. Eighth Edition. William P. Cunningham, Mary Ann Cunningham, Barbara Saigo. 2005. Published by McGraw-Hill.
PS: 2 billion is too few. I personally believe the optimum population would be anywhere from 3 to 4 billion. I'm not going to back it up because I can't. And I'm not going to make a list of people I want dead because right now, the majority of population growth is occurring in developing nations. If the people in those countries were more educated and/or had a more secure food-and-income base, they would most likely have less kids. If that didn't do it, we could provide incentives for people to have less kids. Over time, the population would drop on its own.
Or we could just ship half the people in the world off the planet and into orbital colonies. And you already know I am a teenager.
EDIT:
the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.
I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.
But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.
See my above argument about extinction.
EDIT2:
In 2001, Stephen Hawking is reported to have said: "I don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."
Y'all wanna argue with Stephen Hawking?
EDIT3: Nuke isn't a sociopath. He's just misunderstood.
-
That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?
That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.
You're expecting these projects to produce actual, usable results. That is not and has never been the point. The point is to get these kids to start dreaming, so that maybe a few more of them would try and get into science and engineering to make these dreams a reality.
-
That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?
That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.
You're expecting these projects to produce actual, usable results. That is not and has never been the point. The point is to get these kids to start dreaming, so that maybe a few more of them would try and get into science and engineering to make these dreams a reality.
Yeah. I was one of those people. Then I realized that one person can't change the world. I realized that on my own. HLP made me realize mass drivers are not and will never be economical, so engineering for me is pointless. We already have the technology to do the sled-assisted rocket launch, which one thread on this forum stated would actually be pretty cheap. So now the only two obstacles are public opinion and politics (finances). I think.
You yourself said that space colonization is not economical, is a bad idea, and will never happen. Or something along those lines. If you want to know where/when you said that, check that thread I made about terraforming venus. It's somewhere in there.
-
Yep, and I stand by those statements. With current technology, space colonization is not economical. But I am more than happy to be proven wrong in that regard, and one step to be proven wrong is getting people into thinking about the issues attached to this whole thing. Oh, and while I am critical of the idea of colonization efforts, exploration is something else entirely. And that's a task that can use some good scientists and engineers.
As for one person not being able to change the world, Isaac Newton would like to throw apples at you. Albert Einstein finds your pessimism relatively amusing. Robert Oppenheimer is blown away by the ease with which you give up hope. Alan Turing, informed of your opinions, has declared that he would not rest until he could inject some intelligence into you. Dennis Ritchie has a programming paradigm for cases like yours.
-
We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.
This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station.
What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.
You've managed to miss my point entirely. What resources do you expect to find at Earth's L4?
-
We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.
This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station.
What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.
You've managed to miss my point entirely. What resources do you expect to find at Earth's L4?
None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.
Yep, and I stand by those statements. With current technology, space colonization is not economical. But I am more than happy to be proven wrong in that regard, and one step to be proven wrong is getting people into thinking about the issues attached to this whole thing. Oh, and while I am critical of the idea of colonization efforts, exploration is something else entirely. And that's a task that can use some good scientists and engineers.
As for one person not being able to change the world, Isaac Newton would like to throw apples at you. Albert Einstein finds your pessimism relatively amusing. Robert Oppenheimer is blown away by the ease with which you give up hope. Alan Turing, informed of your opinions, has declared that he would not rest until he could inject some intelligence into you. Dennis Ritchie has a programming paradigm for cases like yours.
I get your point. Individuals can change the world. I also like the way you worded that.
I think the technology is there but we just don't have the finances to do it. The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether made of diamond is.......... money.
-
So the NASA challenge has managed to inspire a whole generation of young bright minds AND pursuade Flaming Cobra not to risk our lives by going into engineering.
And they say NASA never achieves anything. :p
-
The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether made of diamond is.......... money.
I believe that Money is the product of collective willpower and available resources because:
(No will) * (abundant resources) = no money
(abundant will) * (no resources) = no money
One could deduce that if there is an abundant will and limited resources, there might be a large chunk of money. But to that I point out that much of this money is lost when the resources dwindle or doesn't increase.
Money is not the true reason why a space elevator isn't economically feasible. Rather, its the fact that diamonds are still very rare, difficult-if-not-impossible to use for constructions, and expensive in terms of energy needed to extract & refine them AND the impact said processes have on the environment.
Not only that, but there is no collective will to make a diamond space tether in the first place.
Why make a drab community item when you can make numerous, glamerous personal items?
What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race?
Human nature with its large population is unsustainable. That's the cold, hard fact. Since the dawn of time, it's always been Us vs. Nature, and it is a war that will never be won by us, unless we can achieve the powers of gods and actually bend nature to our will (scary...). :nervous:
-
main thing we need is infrastructure outside of the gravity well. and non necessarily space stations, though they will play a role (you need a place to change over from your launch vehicle to your transfer vehicle, or your transfer vehicle to your re-entry vehicle). we need to produce air, power, fuel, water, food, your basic 5. provide those and you can colonize, this colony will move on to manufacturing space-fairing tech, spacecraft hulls, fuel tanks, building materials, hardware, engines. fairly low tech stuff. high tech stuff like ion engines and computers can be shipped in from earth. put simply, moon base.
it doesnt even need to be a very high tech base. were talking cavemen on the moon here. growing mushrooms in human **** and drinking pee to survive. when you can smelt iron, bake bricks, and make glass you can build a greenhouse and grow actual food.once agriculture is out of the way, move on to industrialization. make the heavy **** locally and ship in the lightweight stuff thats above your tech level. it will pay off in the long term. lunar made structural materials and fuel can be traded for terrestrial tech and resources and both get a better space program out of it. get that helium 3 reactor online. as the lunar tech level catches up to the earth that becomes the new base for expansion.
screw manned exploration of anything till this happens. you might have a useless publicity stunt like going to mars and doing nothing useful in the process. but until we have a thriving moon colony were stuck on the blue ball. think of it as an investment. it will drop space exploration to a fraction of what it is now, and the only thing you would need to launch into space is the people. by then we should have a working ssto platform and the cost to put your ass into space will be something that can be affordable for anyone invested for a career in space. you sign on for a tour, do your job on the moon base and come back a year later. permanent settlement depends on how well humans can adapt to the low grav environment. will breeding be possible, well, that remains to be seen.
-
None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.
That's your endgame?
Exploration and colonization of space has to produce two resources: extra physical space capable of being occupied by human beings for indefinite periods, and the resources (food, water) necessary for their survival. The moon and asteroids do not meet either of these criteria.
The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.
Ultimately, we can guarantee that eventually humanity is going to have to mount a colonization-just-for-the-sake-of-it attempt if we ever have any serious intentional of travel and exploration in space, but that eventually is a long way off. Meanwhile, project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.
Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war.
Methinks you have been watching too many disaster movies. Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.
-
The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.
Pretty much, which is why it would be more attractive to use the resources on Luna to further its colonization/moonbase establishment, rather than try to ship everything over the Earth... unless there's a high enough demand for a Luna-exclusive resource.
Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these [pollution] problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.
Money = willpower * resources. We have the resources to do exploration, but we don't have enough will to do so yet.
...project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.
:yes:
-
The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether -snip-
Money is not the true reason why a space elevator isn't economically feasible. Rather, its the fact that diamonds are still very rare, difficult-if-not-impossible to use for constructions, and expensive in terms of energy needed to extract & refine them AND the impact said processes have on the environment.
-snip-
What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race?
Human nature with its large population is unsustainable. That's the cold, hard fact. Since the dawn of time, it's always been Us vs. Nature, and it is a war that will never be won by us, unless we can achieve the powers of gods and actually bend nature to our will (scary...). :nervous:
First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.
Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.
None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.
That's your endgame?
Exploration and colonization of space has to produce two resources: extra physical space capable of being occupied by human beings for indefinite periods, and the resources (food, water) necessary for their survival. The moon and asteroids do not meet either of these criteria.
The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.
Ultimately, we can guarantee that eventually humanity is going to have to mount a colonization-just-for-the-sake-of-it attempt if we ever have any serious intentional of travel and exploration in space, but that eventually is a long way off. Meanwhile, project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.
Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war.
Methinks you have been watching too many disaster movies. Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.
For one, the moon and many of the asteroids have water in the form of ice. For two, they contain metals, which could be extracted and refined in-situ. O'Neill colonies simulate gravity through centrifugation. You could fill them with oxygen, since oxygen would be a byproduct of the metal refining process. Nitrogen would probably come from earth. O'Neill worked out a design for growing food in little bubble things outside the colony, so food should not be an issue.
Don't you guys realize? Colonization should not happen "for the sake of it." Colonization is an insurance policy for our species!
-
First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.
Tell me how much power it takes to create an artificial diamond, as well as the success rate. Then, tell me where most of that power is going to come from.
Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.
Not quite. if O'Neil colonies where built, we'd be making our own artificial environment... but we still have to play by nature's rules when it comes down to how long it takes to cycle matter through its stages and how energy flows throughout the station.
-
i get the feeling it would be cheaper to build an industrial and agricultural complexes on the moon than it would be to set up a space elevator. idea is you build almost all the stuff you need for exploration, exploitation and colonization of space on the moon and reduce the amount of stuff you need to launch from earth, so that the only thing you need to launch are the scientists, miners, and colonists.
id rather have colonies on low grav moons than floating in space. you would need space stations for 2 main reasons though. first off you need a bus stop. these dont need gravity, just a place to stay while you wait for your ship. sure beats sitting out in your space suit till your ship comes in. using the same vehicle for both launch and transfer is less efficient than having purpose built craft. launch engines will likely be chemical for some time, while transfer engines will be ion or mpd thrusters and will need a reactor to power them. transfer vehicles will just be a single engine (or more likely engine array) with thrusters and no landing or re-entry capacity. re-entry vehicles need to be heat shielded and aerodynamic but dont need very large engines, landing vehicles for non-atmospheric targets may need vertical thrust engines. both need landing gear. launch vehicles need to be light and powerful, and carrying a reactor could be dangerous (build your reactors on the moon).
the other reason you need space stations (ones with gravity) is to adjust space travelers to different gravitational fields. you come back from the moon at the end of your tour, stop in at the grav ring and it slowly spins up at the appropriate rate for earth gravity. after which you may board a ship to earth.
stick with bases with at least some gravity, asteroid miners will likely have a refinery base at ceres and on large asteroids. titan would be mined for hydrocarbons for fuel and perhaps also for plastics manufacture. being as cold as it is would require a lot of power to remain habitable. of course these are more long term.
-
First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.
Tell me how much power it takes to create an artificial diamond, as well as the success rate. Then, tell me where most of that power is going to come from.
Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.
Not quite. if O'Neil colonies where built, we'd be making our own artificial environment... but we still have to play by nature's rules when it comes down to how long it takes to cycle matter through its stages and how energy flows throughout the station.
1. wikipedia doesn't actually say :/ And I don't have any books on space elevators. I still don't see why we can't use StarTrams. They use existing maglev technology. And I don't think they have the switching issues that classic mass drivers do.
2. I thought you meant nature like storms and hurricanes, not laws of physics.
i get the feeling it would be cheaper to build an industrial and agricultural complexes on the moon than it would be to set up a space elevator. idea is you build almost all the stuff you need for exploration, exploitation and colonization of space on the moon and reduce the amount of stuff you need to launch from earth, so that the only thing you need to launch are the scientists, miners, and colonists.
That's what O'Neill said. That was his proposal. basically.
-
Why the **** would you make a space elevator tether out of diamond? Holy ****.
-
Another space elevator discussion? Let me bypass all of the drivel and go the part where we conclude that some people still need to do a lot of research. In increasing order of headhurt:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
http://spaceelevatorwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Overview
-
im not a big proponent of the space elevator. i mean it seems like a good idea now considering what it costs to launch to leo now. but by the time we get to where we can make the damn thing our launch cost will have been greatly lowered. even then it will not be feasable to build the tether on earth, launch it, and string it down. its going to be really really massive and the engine you need to launch it will equate to a weapon of mass destruction. you aint going to be able to build it bottom up because it will be impossible to stabilize without being under tension. it will need to be lowered from space. lunar or orbital manufacture will be your best bet. and what does this mean? it means you will already have production infrastructure in space and will not need to build space hardware on terrestrial ground.
-
Why the **** would you make a space elevator tether out of diamond? Holy ****.
because only diamond, carbon nanotubes, and graphene have the breaking lengths necessary to make the tether. If it were made of any other material it would collapse under its own weight.
Notice that all of the materials mentioned are made purely of carbon.
-
Why the **** would you make a space elevator tether out of diamond? Holy ****.
because only diamond, carbon nanotubes, and graphene have the breaking lengths necessary to make the tether. If it were made of any other material it would collapse under its own weight.
Notice that all of the materials mentioned are made purely of carbon.
I believe redsniper knows what he's talking about.
-
I still like Nukes idea of throwing a couple of Ion jets onto Apothis as it goes by, coaxing it into orbit and using it as a geostationary locking point for an elevator :)
-
We build this
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qYacCONZA9o/TcmV9prjOhI/AAAAAAAAAK4/QcS2cLRZ00k/s1600/ishimura.jpg)
Why put a colony on a moon/planet, when you can put a colony in a ship?
-
Please read some science on the subject before posting crap.
-
This is HLP you know, we do have some standards to maintain :p ;)
-
-snip-
no, at least not a traditional ship. mobile mining outpost, perhaps. but dead mass is a killjoy in space. you'd need big reactor and a lot of propellant mass just to move it from asteroid to asteroid. its probably the way to to mine asteroids actually. leave all the slag in place and move the processed materials. some materials may need to be processed under gravity, unless you can come up with a zero g bessemer process or have a rotating section to provide gravity. you need a lot of heavy hardware to do this though, and a lot of power. definately need megawatt range mpd thrusters to move it around. a reactor that can power those engines would also be able to power the forge while the ship is stationary. its cost to move unrefined ore to the refinery base vs the cost to move the refinery to the ore and the materials back. another approach might be to bring the asteroids to the refinery. set up base on ceres, drop the asteroids onto a pre-designated spot on the surface, and once cool, stripmine the area till its depleted, then go fetch another asteroid, wash rinse repeat.
I still like Nukes idea of throwing a couple of Ion jets onto Apothis as it goes by, coaxing it into orbit and using it as a geostationary locking point for an elevator :)
its really the most viable meathod of getting a counterweight. some requirements need to be met however.
1. the object cannot be a rubble pile, a solid metal core asteroid is needed.
2. it needs to cross close to geosync, to save the fuel cost of orbital re-positioning.
3. it needs to be big enough to hold up the cable, but light enough to not snap the cable or do any major damage should it re enter.
it does not do anything for actually making or deploying the cable. lower it from the counter weight, and youd need to place temporary thrusters at various points in the cable to keep it under control as you thread it down to the anchor point. once attached and the cable tensioned (by slightly rasing the asteroid to provide constant centrifugal force on the tether) you could start detaching the control thrusters and attatch your elevator. you might actually favor a multi-tether system, where multiple tethers string to a single object to provide multiple travel paths, you could have low speed cargo haulers and high speed personel transfer lines in both directions to speed up transport.
of course the fact remains, you are gonna need to build it in space. to do that you will need to already have some industrial infrastructure up in space. it would be a money saving endeavor and will only be viable if it can compete with launch vehicles, which will be much cheaper in the future.
-
Please read some science on the subject before posting crap.
D:
Was that directed at me D:
no, at least not a traditional ship. mobile mining outpost, perhaps
Funny you said that since that IS the USG Ishimura... a planet cracker class vessel designed to mine and process it at the same time
As for going from one asteroid to the next, no need. Afterall, those asteroids do move on their own yes? Wait for it to come to you, then grab onto it
-
As for going from one asteroid to the next, no need. Afterall, those asteroids do move on their own yes? Wait for it to come to you, then grab onto it
wait what
-
As for going from one asteroid to the next, no need. Afterall, those asteroids do move on their own yes? Wait for it to come to you, then grab onto it
wait what
They move at 10m/s don't they? Or was it 25m/s...
I just know they're bracketed in white on collision courses so knowing which to pickup should be easy
-
Heh, if the asteroid belt were as dense as most Sci-fi depictions of asteroid belts, it would probably be heavier than the Sun ;)
-
thing is they (the stable ones in low eccentricity orbits) all move at similar speeds. and to keep your orbit stable, you also need to move at similar velocity. 2 objects in similar but non-synchronus orbits will essentially circle each-other and never actually close in. you need to do a sync orbit and rendezvous maneuver and that means using fuel. you cant really base a mining buisness on getting lucky.
-
thing is they (the stable ones in low eccentricity orbits) all move at similar speeds. and to keep your orbit stable, you also need to move at similar velocity. 2 objects in similar but non-synchronus orbits will essentially circle each-other and never actually close in. you need to do a sync orbit and rendezvous maneuver and that means using fuel.
On a serious note, this is true. However, one must also define what sort of fuel we'd be using (since this isn't exactly something we can pull off now). Currently, what we have just isn't sufficient enough to be able to make this happen. So, what sort of fuel do you think we'd be using at such time?
Not so serious (much like my previous comments): Gravity Tethers
-
On a serious note, this is true. However, one must also define what sort of fuel we'd be using (since this isn't exactly something we can pull off now). Currently, what we have just isn't sufficient enough to be able to make this happen. So, what sort of fuel do you think we'd be using at such time?
It's more of a question what kind of propulsion system will be used. Standard Hydrogen/Oxygen thrusters are too inefficient, cold gas thrusters don't have the power. NSWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket) systems might work. VASIMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR) might work as well. Basically any propulsion system that can deliver usable thrust without having to carry both fuel and oxidizer around. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion
-
thing is they (the stable ones in low eccentricity orbits) all move at similar speeds. and to keep your orbit stable, you also need to move at similar velocity. 2 objects in similar but non-synchronus orbits will essentially circle each-other and never actually close in. you need to do a sync orbit and rendezvous maneuver and that means using fuel.
On a serious note, this is true. However, one must also define what sort of fuel we'd be using (since this isn't exactly something we can pull off now). Currently, what we have just isn't sufficient enough to be able to make this happen. So, what sort of fuel do you think we'd be using at such time?
Not so serious (much like my previous comments): Gravity Tethers
ive brought up mpd thrusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster) countless times in this thread. these can use xenon, neon, argon, hydrazine, or lithium as propellant (they also need a reactor or rtg for power). i just assumed you would parse the context :P
-
I kinda scanned through the thread really only to come to conclusion I had to insert some sort of one liner.
What we'd need is something that can be easily produced within the ship, rather than having to be constantly refilled
On a sidenote: VASIMR rockets are awesome. Read up on those a while back.
-
VASIMR is good because we have working thrusters awaiting testing (installation on the iss). mpd still needs work, especially on power systems, but have the potential for higher thrust (but not necessarily efficiency) than VASMIR.
-
Key things here being efficiency, propulsion, and fuel
We need something highly efficient delivering enough propulsion to move something of that magnitude, and fuel that can either be easily obtained, or produced
Until such time, build a giant space installation. Docking is afterall, far easier than landing
-
how cheap could sled assisted rocket launch actually go?
On a serious note, this is true. However, one must also define what sort of fuel we'd be using (since this isn't exactly something we can pull off now). Currently, what we have just isn't sufficient enough to be able to make this happen. So, what sort of fuel do you think we'd be using at such time?
It's more of a question what kind of propulsion system will be used. Standard Hydrogen/Oxygen thrusters are too inefficient, cold gas thrusters don't have the power. NSWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket) systems might work. VASIMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR) might work as well. Basically any propulsion system that can deliver usable thrust without having to carry both fuel and oxidizer around. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion
I personally think VASIMR is the best, though Helicon Double Layer would work well too. We'd pretty much always use nuclear electric rockets in all of those situations though, right?
Or we could always go with Project Orion (http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/profiles/icons/tiny/000/022/946/Trollface.jpg?1280377345)
-
What we'd need is something that can be easily produced within the ship, rather than having to be constantly refilled
wat
You'd still have to carry (and refill) the materials used to make the fuel. Conservation of mass kind of bites you on the ass here.
Unless I completely misunderstood what you're trying to say.
-
What we'd need is something that can be easily produced within the ship, rather than having to be constantly refilled
wat
You'd still have to carry (and refill) the materials used to make the fuel. Conservation of mass kind of bites you on the ass here.
Unless I completely misunderstood what you're trying to say.
maybe what he means is a fuel that we could harvest the materials from asteroids that pass by and then manufacture on the ship?
-
Why the **** would you make a space elevator tether out of diamond? Holy ****.
because only diamond, carbon nanotubes, and graphene have the breaking lengths necessary to make the tether. If it were made of any other material it would collapse under its own weight.
Notice that all of the materials mentioned are made purely of carbon.
I believe redsniper knows what he's talking about.
I know what I'm talking about.
Material Science and Mechanical Engineering Education for Hard Light Productions: Round Two
(Round 1 was the last time we talked about space elevators when you guys were smugly comparing grades of steel for the tether based on their hardness (:wtf:) and tensile strength (:wtf:))
When you apply a load to an object, it deforms. Like when we put our tether in tension, it gets longer. Up to a point, this deformation is reversible; the object will return to its original size when the load is removed, sort of like a spring. This is called the elastic range and the deformation is elastic deformation. When loaded further, the object will permanently deform. That is, even when the load is removed, the dimensions of the object will be different from what they were originally. This is called the plastic range, and the permanent deformation is plastic deformation.
Elastic deformation is directly proportional to load (double the load, double the deformation..) thus it's predictable. Plastic deformation.... is not. When an object crosses from the elastic range to the plastic range, we say it "yields," and the stress (force over area) it's experiencing is the yield stress or yield strength. We design stuff around the yield strength and always try to stay well within the elastic range. Now if your object goes plastic and you continue to increase the load, eventually it's going to break. The stress at the breaking point is the tensile strength. (The caveat here is that with ceramics and really brittle materials, the plastic range is tiny; your object would stretch a tiny bit under increased loading and then just snap. In those cases you would design around tensile strength because it's basically the same as yield strength.) This is all well and good for perfectly formed objects, and diamond actually has a pretty high tensile strength compared to steel and such, but there are no perfect objects.
Another crucial failure mode besides overloading is crack growth or brittle fracture. That is, if you load an object with a crack in it, the stress tends to concentrate at the tip of the crack, causing the crack to grow until your objects cross section so small that then it fails by overloading. We quantify a material's resistance to crack growth with something called fracture toughness. It's not as straightforward as yield strength, having some rather funky units associated with it, but basically higher is better. Fracture toughness is low for brittle materials and high for ductile materials. Stuff like steel and aluminum has good fracture toughness, while stuff like iron and diamond does not. You could actually pretty easily shatter a diamond just by smacking it with a hammer.
Hardness is basically just a relative measure of how easily a material gets scratched. You use it to figure out how a material will get affected by wear and small localized surface deformations. There's a rough positive correlation between hardness and yield strength (in metals at least), but hard materials also tend to be more brittle.
Breaking length I hadn't heard of and it's actually kind of an interesting way to express strength to weight ratio.
breaking length, also known as self support length: the maximum length of a vertical column of the material (assuming a fixed cross-section) that could suspend its own weight when supported only at the top. For this measurement, the definition of weight is the force of gravity at the Earth's surface applying to the entire length of the material, not diminishing with height.
However it all kind of falls apart because of the scale and loading conditions of something like the space elevator because
when supported only at the top
Nope, and...
For this measurement, the definition of weight is the force of gravity at the Earth's surface applying to the entire length of the material, not diminishing with height.
the force of gravity at the Earth's surface applying to the entire length of the material, not diminishing with height.
the entire length of the material, not diminishing with height.
the entire length of the material
sea level to geosynchronous orbit
1g up to up to geosynch orbit? Nope nope nope nope nope. No, no, no way, no.
So what would the loading conditions for our tether actually be? Well.... I don't know. I don't know enough about orbital mechanics or proposed space elevator design to discuss this confidently. It would probably be complicated though. I mean non-uniform gravity field? Geez... Furthermore, depending on how steadily we can keep the anchor in place, our tether might see cyclic stresses, which are a whole other can of worms.
So, diamond is very hard and strong, but it's WAY too brittle for a structural material. We're a long ways off from manufacturing useful nanotubes that actually meet their theoretical tensile strength. Graphene is like, a one atom thick layer of carbon, last I heard. I was under the impression people were more excited about using it for electric circuits than for structural stuff.
tl;dr: diamond may be the strongest metal know to man, but it's too brittle for a space elevator or just about anything else.
Or at least that's how I see it, but what do I know, I'm only a practicing mechanical engineer. :banghead:
-
carbon is a non-metal, lol.
we need to be able to manufacture very long nanotubes. these would then be woven into larger fibers, and those fibers woven into even thicker fibers, and so on as with cable manufacture. these would need to be embedded in some kind of binding material. carbon fiber materials use epoxy but im not sure if that would work for this application. also i think right now we can only grow nanotubes a few mm at a time. i have serious doubts of being able to actually build a space elevator though. and when it has a high enough technological readiness level, that the need for the tether would have gone to cheaper launch platforms and off planet manufacturing.
-
carbon is a non-metal, lol.
It's a meme. :p
And yeah, the more I think and read about it, the more I think it would be better to work on SSTO stuff like the Skylon, assembling stuff in space, and establishing more permanent stations and moon bases and stuff.
-
What we'd need is something that can be easily produced within the ship, rather than having to be constantly refilled
wat
You'd still have to carry (and refill) the materials used to make the fuel. Conservation of mass kind of bites you on the ass here.
Unless I completely misunderstood what you're trying to say.
I can see how that was misunderstood. Essentially, instead of having actual fuel creating propulsion, you have an energy based system which is perpetually generated (that is to say, creates as much as it uses on it's own rather than having an outside source [say for lack of a better example, gasoline] being used). Since this is the future I am talking about, I leave open for any possibilities.
To simplify the above, a generator that generates it's own **** to generate it while providing **** to generate the engines. This takes away the need to carry fuel, or to mine for it
And yes, I know only speculation and theories will determine how this would be possible to obtain.
-
Thermodynamics doesn't really like your idea, sorry to say. :P
-
Three Laws of Thermodynamics, for laymen:
1: You cannot win.
2: You cannot break even.
3: You cannot get out of the game.
-
carbon is a non-metal, lol.
we need to be able to manufacture very long nanotubes. these would then be woven into larger fibers, and those fibers woven into even thicker fibers, and so on as with cable manufacture. these would need to be embedded in some kind of binding material. carbon fiber materials use epoxy but im not sure if that would work for this application. also i think right now we can only grow nanotubes a few mm at a time. i have serious doubts of being able to actually build a space elevator though. and when it has a high enough technological readiness level, that the need for the tether would have gone to cheaper launch platforms and off planet manufacturing.
good luck getting nanotube fibers to line up with each other so they can link together.
What we'd need is something that can be easily produced within the ship, rather than having to be constantly refilled
wat
You'd still have to carry (and refill) the materials used to make the fuel. Conservation of mass kind of bites you on the ass here.
Unless I completely misunderstood what you're trying to say.
I can see how that was misunderstood. Essentially, instead of having actual fuel creating propulsion, you have an energy based system which is perpetually generated (that is to say, creates as much as it uses on it's own rather than having an outside source [say for lack of a better example, gasoline] being used). Since this is the future I am talking about, I leave open for any possibilities.
To simplify the above, a generator that generates it's own **** to generate it while providing **** to generate the engines. This takes away the need to carry fuel, or to mine for it
And yes, I know only speculation and theories will determine how this would be possible to obtain.
you mean like a breeder reactor, then?
-snip-
wat about that space fountain thang then? that was a good read, btw. I do like information. As long as it's not history..... or grammar.
Three Laws of Thermodynamics, for laymen:
1: You cannot win.
2: You cannot break even.
3: You cannot get out of the game.
So I guess ITER is pointless?
-
So I guess ITER is pointless?
Please learn to read. The answer you quoted was in response to this:
To simplify the above, a generator that generates it's own **** to generate it while providing **** to generate the engines. This takes away the need to carry fuel, or to mine for it
If you do not know why this doesn't work, I would suggest you read up on the idea of the perpetuum mobile.
ITER, on the other hand, is a design for a fusion reactor. One that very definitely follows all the laws of thermodynamics. Because in this universe, you kinda have to.
-
So I guess ITER is pointless?
Please learn to read. The answer you quoted was in response to this:
To simplify the above, a generator that generates it's own **** to generate it while providing **** to generate the engines. This takes away the need to carry fuel, or to mine for it
If you do not know why this doesn't work, I would suggest you read up on the idea of the perpetuum mobile.
ITER, on the other hand, is a design for a fusion reactor. One that very definitely follows all the laws of thermodynamics. Because in this universe, you kinda have to.
because matter cannot be created or destroyed, generators cannot generate their own ****. I guess that's what you're getting at?
unless you could somehow harness the principle that particles spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum.
-
because matter cannot be created or destroyed
:banghead:
Let me introduce you to a friend of mine. He's called E = mc^2. Matter can be created, and destroyed (for values of "created" that involve being converted from energy, and values of "destroyed" that involve being converted into energy).
Then let us examine the laws of thermodynamics. Basically, they state that it is impossible for a machine to create enough energy to both power itself and other machines without an external fuel source.
Regarding vacuum energy, the jury's still out on that one. The main problem being that nobody knows how to extract it.
-
you mean like a breeder reactor, then?
A breeder reactor functions by converting non-fissile isotopes to fissile ones. You still need the non-fissile isotopes to begin with.
-
you mean like a breeder reactor, then?
a breeder reactor just makes more efficient use of the nuclear fuel by "breeding" other useful isotopes (even transmuting other elements) from the fuel which in turn can be burned or extracted and re-processed into other fuels. current light water rectors only use up a fraction of the material and this is removed and put into long term storage. the fuel is still highly radioactive because we didnt use up all the energy in the material. this does not break thermodynamics. its like gasolene, 75% of its energy is lost as waste heat so you only get a fraction of the energy out of it. in the same way as you only get a fraction of the energy out of the nuclear material and whats left is a hot but useless fuel rod assembly.
-
because matter cannot be created or destroyed
:banghead:
Let me introduce you to a friend of mine. He's called E = mc^2. Matter can be created, and destroyed (for values of "created" that involve being converted from energy, and values of "destroyed" that involve being converted into energy).
Then let us examine the laws of thermodynamics. Basically, they state that it is impossible for a machine to create enough energy to both power itself and other machines without an external fuel source.
Regarding vacuum energy, the jury's still out on that one. The main problem being that nobody knows how to extract it.
Well I was always told that matter cannot be created or destroyed and then I was told that energy cannot be created or destroyed and then I was told matter and energy are interchangeable. You're affirming that last one.
In the fifties I bet no one knew how to contain antimatter either. But we've made great strides (Optical tweezers). In time I'm sure we'll figure that one out as well. But could it be done on a large enough scale to even be useful?
Ok maybe antimatter is a bad example but you get what I'm saying.
you mean like a breeder reactor, then?
a breeder reactor just makes more efficient use of the nuclear fuel by "breeding" other useful isotopes (even transmuting other elements) from the fuel which in turn can be burned or extracted and re-processed into other fuels. current light water rectors only use up a fraction of the material and this is removed and put into long term storage. the fuel is still highly radioactive because we didnt use up all the energy in the material. this does not break thermodynamics. its like gasolene, 75% of its energy is lost as waste heat so you only get a fraction of the energy out of it. in the same way as you only get a fraction of the energy out of the nuclear material and whats left is a hot but useless fuel rod assembly.
You missed my point. It extends the life of your fuel.
-
You missed my point. It extends the life of your fuel.
you dont have no point.
-
In the fifties I bet no one knew how to contain antimatter either. But we've made great strides (Optical tweezers). In time I'm sure we'll figure that one out as well. But could it be done on a large enough scale to even be useful?
Correction: The problem of antimatter containment never existed. We knew how to do it for a very long problem, the issue is that we can't generate enough of the stuff to be worth containing in the first place. Also, you are really really wrong. The Penning trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap), which is used to capture and hold charged antimatter, was developed in the 50s. Although the first one was built in '59, the research it was based on came earlier. The current record for continuous antimatter containment (for antihydrogen) is about 1 kilosecond (or roughly 17 Minutes), for less than 300 atoms, btw.
And optical tweezers? I'm sorry, but what do they have to do with accessing vacuum energy? Using them as an analogy is like somebody in the fifties saying "We can breach the sound barrier, I am sure we will be able to travel at near lightspeed by the year 2000".
-
In the fifties I bet no one knew how to contain antimatter either. But we've made great strides (Optical tweezers). In time I'm sure we'll figure that one out as well. But could it be done on a large enough scale to even be useful?
Correction: The problem of antimatter containment never existed. We knew how to do it for a very long problem, the issue is that we can't generate enough of the stuff to be worth containing in the first place. Also, you are really really wrong. The Penning trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap), which is used to capture and hold charged antimatter, was developed in the 50s. Although the first one was built in '59, the research it was based on came earlier. The current record for continuous antimatter containment (for antihydrogen) is about 1 kilosecond (or roughly 17 Minutes), for less than 300 atoms, btw.
And optical tweezers? I'm sorry, but what do they have to do with accessing vacuum energy? Using them as an analogy is like somebody in the fifties saying "We can breach the sound barrier, I am sure we will be able to travel at near lightspeed by the year 2000".
Optical tweezers are a way to contain antimatter, E. They have nothing to do with accessing vacuum energy. And at the end I said it probably wasn't a very good analogy. I was just trying to make an example. And I failed. I'm sure you could think of dozens off the top of your head.
Now for one of my long unanswered questions:
E, why is your country so overwhelmingly anti-nuclear?
EDIT: OK, I got one. For the longest time, alchemists sought to change lead into gold. But now, scientists can do this in nuclear reactors (it might be expensive, inefficient, AND pointless, but it can be done.)
-
Thermodynamics doesn't really like your idea, sorry to say. :P
I know
Hence why I don't live in a world where it exists! Ha! Take that factual science!
you dont have no point.
DOUBLE NEGATIVE
-
Now for one of my long unanswered questions:
E, why is your country so overwhelmingly anti-nuclear?
FlamingCobra, why do you ask offtopic questions?
EDIT: OK, I got one. For the longest time, alchemists sought to change lead into gold. But now, scientists can do this in nuclear reactors (it might be expensive, inefficient, AND pointless, but it can be done.)
AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
ROFL
Creating Gold in a nuclear reactor? Please explain to us how you get from Uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium) or Plutonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium) to Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold) via the power of nuclear decay. Then explain why this isn't done industrially (Gold being an incredibly useful metal to have in conductors).
EDIT: Ah, seems like you CAN create Gold. By bombarding Platinum or Mercury with Neutrons, which produces minuscule amounts of gold. So yeah. Pointless.
-
-snip-
EDIT: OK, I got one. For the longest time, alchemists sought to change lead into gold. But now, scientists can do this in nuclear reactors (it might be expensive, inefficient, AND pointless, but it can be done.)
AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
ROFL
Creating Gold in a nuclear reactor? Please explain to us how you get from Uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium) or Plutonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium) to Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold) via the power of nuclear decay. Then explain why this isn't done industrially (Gold being an incredibly useful metal to have in conductors).
EDIT: Ah, seems like you CAN create Gold. By bombarding Platinum or Mercury with Neutrons, which produces minuscule amounts of gold. So yeah. Pointless.
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg)
You totally missed my point.
1. I like to use ADHD as an excuse. Not too off-topic though, since I was talking about nuclear reactors.
2. I was reading up on the Casimir effect and I was wondering if its ability to create a negative-mass region could be applied to the space elevator.
-
1. I like to use ADHD as an excuse. Not too off-topic though, since I was talking about nuclear reactors.
There is no excuse for not at least trying to uphold forum etiquette. If you want a discussion on german nuclear politics (Which, you will note, is a topic remarkably devoid of physics, which this thread seems to be about), make a new thread.
I was reading up on the Casimir effect and I was wondering if its ability to create a negative-mass region could be applied to the space elevator.
The Casimir effect, like all quantum phenomena, is only of interest when working in nanometer scales. The applications for macroscopic objects (like your beloved space elevator) are likely to be nonexistant.
That said, I can be and probably am wrong abut this. Why don't you sit down and study quantum dynamics? In depth, I mean. Not in the "I read wikipedia on the subject" sense. Note that advanced math is required.
-
Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards
-
Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards
Get out of this thread.
-
Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards
Get out of this thread.
D:
Foine
-
1. I like to use ADHD as an excuse. Not too off-topic though, since I was talking about nuclear reactors.
There is no excuse for not at least trying to uphold forum etiquette. If you want a discussion on german nuclear politics (Which, you will note, is a topic remarkably devoid of physics, which this thread seems to be about), make a new thread.
I was reading up on the Casimir effect and I was wondering if its ability to create a negative-mass region could be applied to the space elevator.
The Casimir effect, like all quantum phenomena, is only of interest when working in nanometer scales. The applications for macroscopic objects (like your beloved space elevator) are likely to be nonexistant.
That said, I can be and probably am wrong abut this. Why don't you sit down and study quantum dynamics? In depth, I mean. Not in the "I read wikipedia on the subject" sense. Note that advanced math is required.
1. :drevil: Isn't any excuse better than none at all?
2.1 My understanding was you pretty much dismissed this concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram) as well as its parent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver). The space fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain) seems kind of unstable; the launch loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop) sounds scary as hell; and I can't even comprehend the orbital ring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring), how it looks, how it works, or what it does. So I've moved on to the space elevator.
2.2 In engineering, the first step is to identify the problem. The second step is to consider all possible solutions. Nothing is ruled out at this point. Brainstorming, if you will. I was wondering if such a negative-mass region could be a possible solution.
-
The problem, dear FlamingCobra, is that neither you nor anyone here can effectively brainstorm on these issues because we do not know enough to make good guesses.
As for the designs you posted there, i have not dismissed them because I was unaware of them. Now that I am, I am going to dismiss both the fountain and the launch loop because they require continuous energy input in order to stay stable; this makes them only practical if you have a LOT of stuff you want to move into LEO. Not to mention disastrous in cases where the power gets switched off. As for StarTram and Mass drivers (And honestly, StarTram is just an extraordinarily well-behaved, non-WMD version of a giant mass driver), they are practical, as long as you can find the room for them. And the power plants to support them. And the traffic volume to make them economical. And the support staff necessary.
Finally, the orbital ring may be the most promising of these, however it too is dependant on having the need for a mass surface-to-orbit transit system. In other words, unless you have something in space to go to, building one of these systems is a hard sell.
1. Isn't any excuse better than none at all?
No. Even if you have an excuse for being a dick, it doesn't change the fact that you are acting like a dick.
2.2 In engineering, the first step is to identify the problem. The second step is to consider all possible solutions. Nothing is ruled out at this point. Brainstorming, if you will. I was wondering if such a negative-mass region could be a possible solution.
Except for one little thing. You are not an engineer. You do not have the theoretical and practical background to effectively brainstorm on this subject. You have the information easily available to the layman, but I am pretty certain that you do not have the training necessary to actually evaluate them. Neither do I, by the way.
-
The problem, dear FlamingCobra, is that neither you nor anyone here can effectively brainstorm on these issues because we do not know enough to make good guesses.
As for the designs you posted there, i have not dismissed them because I was unaware of them. Now that I am, I am going to dismiss both the fountain and the launch loop because they require continuous energy input in order to stay stable; this makes them only practical if you have a LOT of stuff you want to move into LEO. Not to mention disastrous in cases where the power gets switched off. As for StarTram and Mass drivers (And honestly, StarTram is just an extraordinarily well-behaved, non-WMD version of a giant mass driver), they are practical, as long as you can find the room for them. And the power plants to support them. And the traffic volume to make them economical. And the support staff necessary.
Finally, the orbital ring may be the most promising of these, however it too is dependant on having the need for a mass surface-to-orbit transit system. In other words, unless you have something in space to go to, building one of these systems is a hard sell.
-snip-
1. That's why materials science is looking like a better major every single day.
2. YEAAAHH I always though constant inputs of energy to a launch system was a bad idea.
3. So, um, what use do we have for the Nevada desert and Siberia, again? Oh, and the UAE is building manmade islands off the coast of their country for tourism purposes, so I figure we can make land if we need to. I believe the nevada desert does have an ecosystem, so environmentalist groups might get their panties in a bind if we built one there. Siberia, not so much. If we build a manmade island, we won't be "destroying the existing ecosystem" because there won't be one.
4. The thing that is beyond my understanding is that because the StarTram is nothing more than a more elegant mass driver I figure it should have the same problems with switching and power handling limits (http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Nowicki/SPBI1SI.HTM) as conventional mass drivers. BUT startram uses maglev technology whereas conventional mass drivers operate on the principle of a coilgun. So I don't know if that fixes the issue.
5. BIG PROBLEM: If the demand for spacelaunches were higher, the incentive to build better launch systems would be greater. However, since there aren't any really good launch systems in place right now, space launches cost a fortune. Consequently, the demand is low. And I figure this is why the government subsidizes rocket launches.
Cheaper price = higher demand = increase chance of developments
If this is all "no ****, Cobra" information, then I'm sorry I posted. I just felt the need to speak my mind.
-
The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.
For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html
-
Thermodynamics doesn't really like your idea, sorry to say. :P
I know
Hence why I don't live in a world where it exists! Ha! Take that factual science!
you dont have no point.
DOUBLE NEGATIVE
LEARN TO SPEAK REDNECK!!!
-
The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.
For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html
So... kind of like my idea of using natural gas to bridge the gap while we make our transition to nuclear?
-
The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.
For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html
So... kind of like my idea of using natural gas to bridge the gap while we make our transition to nuclear?
are you even in the right thread?
-
Yes. E was saying cheap SSTO vehicles could provide a stepping stone to "more elaborate LEO facilities." I was comparing it to my proposal of using natural gas to fill in the gap for power generation while we phase out coal and go nuclear.
-
your ideas suck, stop thinking, do some illegal drugs, kill as many braincells as you possibly can, you would be doing them a favor.
you know what? **** it. its getting old. im tired of the out of context nonsense, trying to bring every one of your childish notions to bare on whatever topic may come up. you make every interesting topic unreadable. and this one has turned to drivel. thread locked!