NASA found potentially habitable planet. [Archive]

TomDunne

05-04-2007, 10:19 AM

Lee, I don't think there's any chance at all that FTL spaceflight happens for centuries. Really, we haven't developed any new technologies for transportation in living memory; all modern spacecraft are still use solid fuel combustion for propulsion, very low-tech. I think TGZ's post might be closer to the final result, finding a way to manipulate space that simply doesn't require strapping a giant rocket to your butt.

Peris

05-04-2007, 10:28 AM

Well due to relativity effects at near lightspeed, you could get there alot faster than 20 years, for the traveller atleast /images/graemlins/smile.gif. And with current technology! Still not something we'll ever see happening in our lifetimes though.

MoP

05-04-2007, 10:43 AM

Time for the habitation space cruise ship...

Cool find though. Also recently they discovered a whole load more ice under the surface of Mars. We'll probably head there next... for a holiday.

AstroZombie

05-04-2007, 10:55 AM

Sweet! We will have a brand new planet to destroy after we are done with this one! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

moose

05-04-2007, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its ok verm, were getting closer and closer to realizing why move from one place to another when you can displace your self there and not use any time. Todays quantum physics hurt the head...

Now we just need to find one with a good star.

[/ QUOTE ]

Event Horizon!! arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Thegodzero

05-04-2007, 11:16 AM

That movie has the best line ever in a horror movie. after watching the video of all the people being killed he turns and is like rite lets get the fuck out of here.

Mars is next, looks like we might even be able to get it kinda like earth in 250 years. If we get past the whole what about the microbes phase.

bounchfx

05-04-2007, 11:31 AM

lol, we are never going to go lightspeed, nothing, except light, unless we find ways to break physics like crazy.

there's not enough energy in the universe for that to happen.

rawkstar

05-04-2007, 12:26 PM

invader zim germ episode

Rick Stirling

05-04-2007, 12:29 PM

NASA? Says ESO everywhere else.

TomDunne

05-04-2007, 01:32 PM

NASA is just hosting this link, the OP is mistaken. We self-righteous American imperialst pigdogs do that sometimes /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

conte

05-04-2007, 01:33 PM

Rick, Nasa/Eso- does that really matter? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

TomDunne

05-04-2007, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol, we are never going to go lightspeed, nothing, except light, unless we find ways to break physics like crazy.

there's not enough energy in the universe for that to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you really laugh out loud when you read this thread?

Anyway, I think the issues of light speed travel are apparent to pretty much everyone with an interest in the topic. Even forgetting the technical issues, it'd be a pretty impractical means of travel - if the road from here to there isn't perfectly clear when you depart, you're in trouble, 'cause you can't grab the wheel and swerve around a passing space antelope at 186,000 miles per second.

I find it interesting that nearly all science-fiction in popular media uses some alternate method of travel. Star Trek warps spacetime, Star Wars has hyperspace, Battlestar Galactica makes FTL spacefold jumps, Stargate pokes wormholes in spacetime, etc. Trying to move at extraordinary sublight velocities has pretty much been abandoned in both practical science and entertainment.

HonkyPunch

05-04-2007, 01:55 PM

We could just send a space ship full of babies there, and by the time they get there, they'd be 21. And the whole time their in "Stasis" We would play tapes with knowledge, educational stuff, etc.

bounchfx

05-04-2007, 02:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol, we are never going to go lightspeed, nothing, except light, unless we find ways to break physics like crazy.

there's not enough energy in the universe for that to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you really laugh out loud when you read this thread?

I find it interesting that nearly all science-fiction in popular media uses some alternate method of travel. Star Trek warps spacetime, Star Wars has hyperspace, Battlestar Galactica makes FTL spacefold jumps, Stargate pokes wormholes in spacetime, etc. Trying to move at extraordinary sublight velocities has pretty much been abandoned in both practical science and entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, that's right. I lol'd.

Hmm, I coulda swore Han said "we are making the jump to light speed" in star wars at one point or another.

blankslatejoe

05-04-2007, 04:40 PM

light is too slow with the distances we're talking here.

Anyone remember that tick episode where they go the speed of lint?

"Okay look, when you finished your laundry what's the first thing you see in your pockets"
"Uhh...lint balls..?"
"exactly, now how did it get there?"
"I don't know."
"IT'S THAT FAST!"

AstroZombie

05-04-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We could just send a space ship full of babies there, and by the time they get there, they'd be 21. And the whole time their in "Stasis" We would play tapes with knowledge, educational stuff, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

they're = they are
their = possession

anyhow, did we invent "stasis" at some point and I was not informed? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Joseph Silverman

05-04-2007, 08:53 PM

More importantly -- how would they learn/build any physical skills or competence? Stasis all of your life, with some baby Einstein videos? Not exactly ideal for our new inhabitable planet landing teams.

Marshal Banana

05-04-2007, 08:57 PM

If we were able to get to the planet, we would probably die because of unknown diseases to which we have no immunity.

Neo_God

05-04-2007, 09:13 PM

I'd laugh if it already had a mass civilization on it and they are looking at our planet as if it was a fresh one for them to colonize.

hawken

05-05-2007, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Really, we haven't developed any new technologies for transportation in living memory

[/ QUOTE ]

you must have been born just after they released that satelite with the ion drive. Or maybe the one with the Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster

theres also many drawing board types of propulsion like magsail and variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR) that use new ideas and are theoretically possible, for powering spaceships.

hawken

05-05-2007, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly -- how would they learn/build any physical skills or competence? Stasis all of your life, with some baby Einstein videos? Not exactly ideal for our new inhabitable planet landing teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you never watched "demolition man"?!

conte

05-05-2007, 02:22 AM

Neo_god, bwahahahahahaha

wille

05-05-2007, 02:39 PM

one out of two things will happen with this

1.We find out that the planet in question is actually Golgafrincham and that it was never eaten by a big space goat. The proof of Golgafrincham actually excisting would explain alot about how the world works today.

2.The little scientist guy with the telescope will go "hey man..there is a little scientist guy down there looking in a big telescope, haha he looks like me...hey waaait a second"

TomDunne

05-05-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really, we haven't developed any new technologies for transportation in living memory

[/ QUOTE ]

you must have been born just after they released that satelite with the ion drive. Or maybe the one with the Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster

[/ QUOTE ]

I had been thinking I was born shortly before you were an unbearable smartass, but that's been like forever and I know I'm not that old. Explain to me how those vehicles escaped earth gravity. If you say anything other than solid or liquid-fueled combustion rocket engines, please go ahead and punch yourself in the face. I'd do it myself, but the range of my ion drive personal transport won't make it all the way to Japan.

Jesse Moody

05-05-2007, 03:29 PM

haha always a good debate comes up in these threads that get turned into i'll fly all the way around the world and shove my foot up your ass....

i think we should spend more money on space exploration. they say they worry about death and loss of astronaut lives and what to do with a sick crewmember that isn't pulling their weight or one that has died. Hmmm toss their ass out the hatch just like Ripley did that that fucking queen alien thats what.

You are exploring space there is going to be some risk invovled. Do you think Christopher Columbus gave a damn about his sick crew members? No he put those bastards back to work. "You can die when we reach the new world." Well "You can die when we reach the new planet." Case settled.

Damn people and their humanitarian sides. People die. Get on with it.

MightyPea

05-06-2007, 04:22 AM

It's potentially inhabitable, but there's been no proof of water yet. Or the actual size of the planet, right?
Then there's the very real chance of it being uninhabitable because of temperature (freezing/evaporating water).
Also, what about sunstorms etc. at that proximity? I've heard that our sun is more stable than the norm, and their star's a lot less bright, but still...

Mind you, i don't know a lot about this, so feel free to correct me. That's why i posted in the first place.

hawken

05-06-2007, 08:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really, we haven't developed any new technologies for transportation in living memory

[/ QUOTE ]

you must have been born just after they released that satelite with the ion drive. Or maybe the one with the Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster

[/ QUOTE ]

I had been thinking I was born shortly before you were an unbearable smartass, but that's been like forever and I know I'm not that old. Explain to me how those vehicles escaped earth gravity. If you say anything other than solid or liquid-fueled combustion rocket engines, please go ahead and punch yourself in the face. I'd do it myself, but the range of my ion drive personal transport won't make it all the way to Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

sour

grapes

eat them and weep

most of what we throw into space are satelites, the things that send them there are not actually space craft. Granted, the shuttle doesn't use anything but brute force solid fuel, but the majority of the junk up there is powered by things invented after you were born, I'm sure.

If we were to meet it would be to both our demise, as the fabric of time and space would probably tear it's self apart .

Emil Mujanovic

05-06-2007, 04:23 PM

I think verm's point isn't that there aren't other propulsion systems out there, I think its that there aren't any others that will allow for us to leave to Earth as efficiently as liquid fuel combustion rocket engines.
I have read up on the whole solar sails propulsion, which can get get to immense speeds. But it takes quite a while to pick up speed. So once again, it won't get any spacecraft off Earth and into space.
I think we are way off from any serious space exploration, which is a shame.

-caseyjones

rooster

05-06-2007, 04:29 PM

but who cares how you get into space.. its the journey to the other planet thats the problem

TomDunne

05-06-2007, 05:14 PM

It's all related, Rooster. Say we leisurely ferry all of our materials into space and build an ship in orbit, and it uses some fancy supardupar warp drive to make it to Planet X in a few months. Now what? If we are going to land on the planet (and that seems to be rather the point), we're going to need some colossal amounts of rocket fuel handy when we get there to blast our space ship back into orbit and return home.

With current tech, including prototype TIE Fighter engines or whatever else Hawken read about in this month's Popular Science, we *still* need some sort of explosive substance to get off the ground. Either the supardupar warp drive ship has it's own refinery aboard and is able to process raw materials at the destination to make fuel -OR- we send other craft loaded with fuel and land them on the planet in advance of the exploration vehicle. If you don't have fuel to get off the ground, it's a one-way trip and NASA's not going to have much luck selling anyone on the idea of a suicide mission.

In case anyone is thinking about the lunar exploration modules used in the Apollo missions, remember that those craft were the size of a large closet and that the moon's gravity is just 1/6th as strong as the Earth's. If Planet X has gravity like the Earth, you need something equivalent to a massive Saturn V rocket to get an Apollo-sized three man capsule back in orbit.

TomDunne

05-06-2007, 05:18 PM

On a related topic, I've long thought that the scientific advancement that would most radically alter life on our planet is anti-gravity. Everything from airplanes that have no chance of crashing to ultra light cars that get super-efficient gas mileage, to airborne cities, to low-cost orbital travel and manufacturing... I've always wondered why gravity isn't a bigger field of study.

Emil Mujanovic

05-06-2007, 08:04 PM

verm <3

-caseyjones

hawken

05-06-2007, 11:28 PM

now yer talking Verm, anti gravity would solve all our problems concerning travel in general... no more plane crashes! bring it on!

Also we could lug huge amounts of stuff into orbit.

My friend once suggested to me that gravity is totally miss-understood and proceeded to tell me the following theory (which I thought was utter shite at the time);

Gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling one, traveling in waves. We are in fact pushed into the earth because of it's mass, not the other way around.

If you think about it, gravity could be explained quite well as pressure from space. He went on to suggest that maybe interplanetary space travel could take advantage of this, as open space would seemingly have no to little gravitational force, thus speeding you up.

Gravity really is the least understood force on earth, apparently it's the weakest force too. All other forces in the universe are described in waves, except for gravity, which is commonly believed to come from a parallel universe in the science community (true!). Even Einstein had trouble with gravity, there must be good reason for him not considering it as a wave force like everything else, I wonder what though?

Once we break out of that old way of thinking and consider gravity as a wave based force, who knows what could happen? Anti gravity is all about shielding the force of it's self, but all we seem capable of is polarizing it.

MightyPea

05-07-2007, 01:14 AM

It's estimated to have roughly double the gravity that earth has, isn't it?
This having been calculated by the gravity it exerts on it's surrounding star(s), it's probably not very exact, but if it's even just roughly true, then Verm's point becomes a very good one.

I thought i'd just link this article, which goes into a whote lot more debt (including the name of the planet, which i wasn't able to find in the article linked to up top): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c

edit: also, the only way in which your meeting would be catastrophic (to you) is because you'd debate the colour of the sky untill you both died of hunger and exhaustion. Either of you calling the other a wise-ass seems a bit... kettle-like. or the pot, whichever you prefer.

hawken

05-07-2007, 09:46 AM

you're so last week MP

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Rhinokey

05-07-2007, 10:46 AM

as for sending babys there it was my understanding that they would get there in 21 years IF we traveled at light speed. so thats no real way to avoid the issue. Verm i see no need to come back when you are there, you would be sent to inhabit the planet. not just a vacation

Joao Sapiro

05-07-2007, 11:04 AM

also isnt there something that when you travel at lightspeed if you go against a simple dust particle it can bust a hole of the size os a billiard ball ?

im very thrilled about this !

offtopic : but still we can save our environment, people with money just refuse ( water moved car for example ). We dig our own grave.

Peris

05-07-2007, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
as for sending babys there it was my understanding that they would get there in 21 years IF we traveled at light speed. so thats no real way to avoid the issue. Verm i see no need to come back when you are there, you would be sent to inhabit the planet. not just a vacation

[/ QUOTE ]

if they traveled at light speed, they would be there instantly /images/graemlins/smile.gif. For earth observers it would appear they dont age during those 21 years. If you travel near lightspeed, you could probably get there in what appears as just a few years or even less.

TomDunne

05-07-2007, 11:08 AM

You just exile all of those highly trained astronauts, scientists, engineers, doctors and whomever else to life on another planet because that's their job? Maybe that's how they do it on Planet Vulcan, but I think that convincing the Earth's best and brightest to permanently abandon their loved ones for frontier life on some unseen alien world would be a hard sell.

It's funny to think that Christopher Columbus, Meriwether Lewis & William Clark, Neil Armstrong and so many other fabled explorers were simply on "vacation."

Hawken, it's clear that anti-gravity is the one force that can unite all mankind in peace and harmony. Wanna share an ice cream? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

rooster

05-07-2007, 11:09 AM

the water fuelled car is just a pipe dream afaik /images/graemlins/frown.gif. needs lots of electricity which still comes from good ol burning fossil fuels or nuclear power

JKMakowka

05-07-2007, 11:54 AM

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

Faster than light travel maybe only a few years away from now???

sonic

05-07-2007, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i think we should spend more money on space exploration. they say they worry about death and loss of astronaut lives and what to do with a sick crewmember that isn't pulling their weight or one that has died. Hmmm toss their ass out the hatch just like Ripley did that that fucking queen alien thats what.

You are exploring space there is going to be some risk invovled. Do you think Christopher Columbus gave a damn about his sick crew members? No he put those bastards back to work. "You can die when we reach the new world." Well "You can die when we reach the new planet." Case settled.

Damn people and their humanitarian sides. People die. Get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you married? What an immature thing to say! If it were your wife, kids, parents, grandparents, brothers, etc going on this mission to a new planet you wouldn't say "fuck it, who gives a shit if they die."

JKMakowka

05-07-2007, 01:32 PM

Kids and wife are a completely different story, but if your brother would decide that he wants to climb the mout everest would you stop him? Or would you say that it was his own sane decision to take the risks involved with it?
The same should be true for space exploration. If someone wants a one-way trip to Mars in order to colonize it, why not (unless it is a complete suicide mission of course)?

conte

05-07-2007, 03:14 PM

we should start working on Teleporting system, like was in doom. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

dur23

05-07-2007, 03:14 PM

I saw this stuff last week and got all excited on the inside. I started digging around the ol' netsky and somehow (internetying fashion) happened across a whole bunch of conspiracies concerning Tesla and his discoveries that were never released to the public. I stumbled upon some video of two science nerds, sitting in one hell of badly designed set, talking about how Tesla had invented all this crazy anti-gravity stuff.

Sometimes i really wish i wasn't "protected" for my "own good".

TomDunne

05-07-2007, 03:25 PM

Man, this is a weird tangent. Say that NASA has figured out a way to jump from here to there in a reasonable amount of time but has the return-trip issue. Why would the US government consider funding this? You take a gojillion dollars of super new technology, dozens or hundreds of your smartest and most capable citizens and *bam* you send them into the void and get absolutely nothing in return. You don't get the explorers back, you don't get cargo holds full of dilithium crystals back, and you don't even get the material cost of the ship back. What you get is some pictures beamed back by the crew, something you can just as easily do with an unmanned craft.

The reason no one goes to the moon anymore is that there is no incentive. The reason no one has landed on Mars yet is that there is also no incentive. What could motivate our government to willfully maroon a bunch of folks on Planet X? If no one is coming back to talk about it on Oprah or pass around tribbles and space rocks, why bother?

blankslatejoe

05-07-2007, 03:37 PM

dur23-- yeah,conspiracy theories aside, tesla's experiments WERE all over the place. He's easily one of the most underappreciated scientists ever.

I remember reading a few essays about his experiments involving electro-magnetics. Apparently the gov't siezed a ton of his notes/records after his death, and now they've 'disapeared' even though they're still cross referenced elsewheres. That probably helped the conspiracy theorists link him to everything from death rays to EMPs to the Tunguska incident. Pretty science fictiony.

conte

05-07-2007, 03:37 PM

Vermilion, you think Armstrong was on the moon?

TomDunne

05-07-2007, 04:13 PM

Yep, I think the moon landing was real. The whole Project Apollo involved too many people for it to be faked and covered up for 40 years.

ppenguin

05-07-2007, 04:35 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
Pretty fun watch and quite obvious the moon landing was real.

Emil Mujanovic

05-07-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

Faster than light travel maybe only a few years away from now???

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that link dude, really interesting read. Though its annoying reading about theories such as this, because chances are they'll never be realised in our lifetime.

-caseyjones