How many children will you have? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

How many children will you have?

This page's ID: 31031

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	Likely, no. Possible, perhaps. If likely and possible, probable within the lifetime of your children? An emphatic and resounding no. We aren't likely to see a base on the moon within your lifetime. As for research - it's all I do, constantly, and with a passion. I've had wonderful discussions with some very interesting people on the subject - many of them far more qualified than me to make assumptions about space travel - and the conclusion of real scientists in the field is that we [b]will[/b] do it... but nobody alive today is going to get a sniff of it. No drawing on the board is anywhere near complete enough to be viable. In fact, they may as well be drawn in crayon for all they're worth to the space race right now. 'Atomic propulsion'? This isn't Star Trek, so what's the atomic engine driving? Without the advent of some astounding 'warp' technology, you could have all the energy you like, but you would still need a reactive mass to provide motion - and current nuclear technology doesn't come close to being appropriate. Ion drives already exist... but they provide barely grams of force, to be used over extended periods in order to gently influence the flight path of an extra-terrestrial device. An anti-matter propulsion engine isn't so far fetched, and at the moment, is the most viable project worthy of further research... but as it stands, the extraordinary technology required to contain and control the appropriate reactions doesn't exist. Even if it did, the reactions would be so 'dirty' that they'd irradiate the engine, the space craft, and any hapless crew aboard. Smaller anti-matter motors have been proposed using particles that minimise the radiation produced. These still theoretically produce unacceptable levels of radiation, but at least the possibilities are being explored. The fuel for an anti-matter engine is already being produced. In order to provide what's needed for a single trip to the nearest star, we require several decades and billions and billions of $$$s. It's probably the most expensive process known to man, and a solid contender for most time-consuming. Even if we had the propulsion technology and the required amount of fuel for a journey into space, these are few among many concerns. What will the crew eat? They could bring a few thousand tons of food with them, I suppose... um, no. Grow it en-route? Not as feasible as sci-fi movies would have you believe. We could put them all to sleep so they eat less, I suppose. Still not viable - no technology or drug exists that can induce or maintain 'hyper sleep' (to coin a favourite sci-fi phrase). What about radiation levels? A few feet of unobtainium should do it, I guess - I mean, we've got the technology to travel hundreds of light years carrying countless tons of food and fuel, so what's a little cosmic wind to our intrepid crew? A few feet of zero-mass, indestructible unobtainium should be more than capable of protecting our crew from the ravages of an extra-solar environment. I like the comparison to early settlers/pioneers, but unlike those early travelers, our space crew can't drink water from a wild stream and cook some buffalo meat on a nice warm fire. They will be floating in a tin can, surrounded by hostile vacuum, bombarded by radiation, and supplied with only what they were able to carry at launch, or grow from thin air. To be realistic and practical, it is vaguely possible that we'll see some living thing shot into Mars orbit within our lifetimes. That is, it's vaguely possible, but utterly improbable. [quote]...who knows what will be actually possible in the next 20 years...[/quote] I seem to recall something similar being said around the time of the original moon landings. We were supposed to be settling Mars by the 1990s. Orbiting Earth is not outer space. Landing on the moon (or even Mars) is not reaching the stars. When Buzz got out of bed and went for piss for the last time before his legendary journey, he had already completed a greater portion of his journey to the moon than a crew reaching the outer limits of our solar system has completed of its journey to the nearest star. That's actually a vast understatement, too. If we put a man on Mars (not just in orbit) and return him alive within my lifetime, and you're still around to receive payment, I shall publicly eat my favourite black felt fedora and issue a statement of apology for my ignorance. It will still be to interstellar travel what a spit-ball is to landing on the moon though. I'm not deliberately treading on your dreams, WS - I too have high hopes for man's endeavours in the field of space travel, but I'm just being realistic. Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu