Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Colonizing Space

  1. #1 Colonizing Space 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Camp Creek
    Posts
    3
    Has anyone ever wondered how colonizing space would be like. Would we first occupy outer space or land on other hospitable planets and create civilizations there?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Colonizing Space 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by scifan11
    Has anyone ever wondered how colonizing space would be like. Would we first occupy outer space or land on other hospitable planets and create civilizations there?
    maybe thats how we got here???

    there are many reasonable ideas on what we could do, if say the earth was going to become inhospitable. one is to generate, atmosphere and conditions on one of our sister planets. sending large amounts of things to generate this result.

    realistically, building a dome city on the moon, would be most likely our first success, then maybe mars.

    if you think in terms of centuries off and maybe light speed travel becomes the norm, it may be possible to find hospitable planets or moons of a planet. this involves so many things however and lets just go down to micro life that body systems, will not likely conform with. an accepted thought is, if life (even intelligent) exist elsewhere it should have gone through the evolution of that place. i would think observation or maybe communication would take up many years to become part of any other place, regardless how you imagine it.

    what is your thought?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Colonizing Space 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    there are many reasonable ideas on what we could do, if say the earth was going to become inhospitable. one is to generate, atmosphere and conditions on one of our sister planets. sending large amounts of things to generate this result.
    All of them assume we wont blow eachother up, and the world will inevitably stop being stupid and join forces to get away from the ticking time-bomb of a sun before we're obliterated by forces not our own. I'm highly pessimistic about the possibility.

    realistically, building a dome city on the moon, would be most likely our first success, then maybe mars.
    Actually I believe a dome city isn't needed. I think they're focusing on terraforming the moon (such as generating a proper atmosphere, plants, etc) instead.

    if you think in terms of centuries off and maybe light speed travel becomes the norm, it may be possible to find hospitable planets or moons of a planet.
    That assumes, again, we wont all be blown to bits by that time. I think rather than focusing on space, we should have an organization as good as NASA focusing on the corrupt governments currently on Earth. Otherwise NASA has wasted it's time. There'll be no humans left to accomplish anything.

    this involves so many things however and lets just go down to micro life that body systems, will not likely conform with. an accepted thought is, if life (even intelligent) exist elsewhere it should have gone through the evolution of that place. i would think observation or maybe communication would take up many years to become part of any other place, regardless how you imagine it.

    what is your thought?
    My thought is you need to go back to school for grammar. I can't make heads or tails of what point you're attempting to get through. I request a translation into english!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Sub surface habitation for the Moon or Mars is the first practical step, it allows access to minerals, water, and protection from solar radiation, meteor impacts. If you could live about 100KM below the surface of Mars it would give a good atmospheric pressure and warmth too. Pipe down electricity from the surface solar arrays. Maybe the ideal would be robotic missions first to dig the holes. On mars if you tunnelled a gradient of 10 degrees till you hit he surface again, the deepest part would be about 60KM, you then have "two ways out" if one end is damaged. Forget all this crap about 'teraforming' that would take hundreds of thousands of years. Everthing underground, solar powered from each end of the tunnel so power is always available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    jeromy;

    i am optimistic and think society will handle misfits. certainly your ideas are common on these forums, but then i don't have an agenda.

    think "dome" a little quicker than teraforming and that idea best suited for planets. of course that could be a process in motion, while we do other things.

    with all the virus and germs we still have problems with, another planet with life, we would have near zero tolerance to new forms. don't know about school, but i do enjoy learning new things. my limited ability to pass on an idea is not new.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Sub surface habitation for the Moon or Mars is the first practical step, it allows access to minerals, water, and protection from solar radiation, meteor impacts. If you could live about 100KM below the surface of Mars it would give a good atmospheric pressure and warmth too. Pipe down electricity from the surface solar arrays. Maybe the ideal would be robotic missions first to dig the holes. On mars if you tunnelled a gradient of 10 degrees till you hit he surface again, the deepest part would be about 60KM, you then have "two ways out" if one end is damaged. Forget all this crap about 'teraforming' that would take hundreds of thousands of years. Everthing underground, solar powered from each end of the tunnel so power is always available.
    not sure time period on terraforming. certainly its not something that can be done in 200 years but as we progress the idea time line shrinks.

    underground habitation is certainly more protective, but with exception of meteors, some feel counter productive and other problems can be reduced. a dome's construction would be subject to meteor impact, the same as anything else in open space, times size and plenty of smaller domes with in would be equal to bomb shelters. maybe this would work, for awhile while more elaborate underground facilities are built, or a combination of both would be both constructive and safe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    There's been a lot of work done in the underground habitation, Mars is constanlty losing it's atmosphere, it has no real magnetosphere to stop this, to generate a magnetosphere would take more power to run for a year, than the entire power ever generated by man so far. THe idea is to get underground as quickly as possible, the steps involved are already underway, detailed mapping of the surface, radar mappping of the sub-surface, The next step is likely to be placing a set of seismometers on the surface then 'crashing' some heavy weights at high speed into the surface, to allow the structure of the planet to be understood. It is considered the 'medium term' solution.

    Colonisation of the moon is likely to take place at the pole, one of which is always bathed in sunlight, and where there may be some water Ice. Again since the moon is mostly geologically inactive, seismic studies will be one of the first steps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Forget all this crap about 'teraforming' that would take hundreds of thousands of years.
    Incorrect. changing the planets surface, given the proper technology, could take at most 100 years. But good luck getting the funding and proper technology! However I'm assuming the planet is the moon. Not something larger like mars. Especially because, given the proper plant life, it wouldn't be too long before the air was breathable to some extent.

    The "underground" idea has some worth, but it's a quick'n'dirty temporary way to do it. Inevitably it'd be more beneficial in the long run to change the entire planets surface. I agree with your statements, but for a living area the surface is sort of the most comfortable bet.

    Not to mention for facilities you wouldn't have to dig it out, transport building material some distance underground, etc. There are many pro's and con's to each method. But in the end, changing the planet is still a best bet long-term.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    jeromy;
    I refuse to reply until you can spell my username properly. Here's a hint: It's right in sight. In fact it's attached to each post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Incorrect. changing the planets surface, given the proper technology, could take at most 100 years.
    For you to say 100 years at most you must have an idea of the technology that will be used.

    I say it's bollocks, you've been watching the Star trek movies and believe they are real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    I don't see how you could sustain an atmosphere on the moon. There isn't enough gravity to "hold" it in place, and no magnetosphere to prevent solar winds from just stripping it off.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    ANd if you wanted it to be around earth's atmospheric density at ground level on a rock with only some 1/5th gravity it'd need to about 500 miles thick...

    All you gotta do is melt 5.1*10^14 tons of silicon rocks in a vacuum and apply an eletric arc to it to free the oxygen, by the time you done all that ther's no moon left anyway...


    As I said, it's crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Incorrect. changing the planets surface, given the proper technology, could take at most 100 years.
    For you to say 100 years at most you must have an idea of the technology that will be used.

    I say it's bollocks, you've been watching the Star trek movies and believe they are real.
    Actually, I dislike star trek.

    Regardless, estimating the continual climb of technology I'd say that the proper technology will present itself within the next 50 years. afterwards it'd probably take 100 years to at least *start* transforming the surface of the moon. However that's an optimistic value at best. To be pessimistic, humans will still be as pathetic 200 years down the road.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Jeremyhfht;
    How much do you assume what that would cost 9000billion dollars to get all the (extremely big) tools up on the moon.

    Its nothing what we have ever built and would be much to costly.
    To transform the whole landscape of the moon would cost atleast 20 000billion dollars.

    and there is another problem, this project would waste all of the earths oilreserves.

    but the most important point of it all is that we dont need it and dont
    benefit from this (exept more space for mankind to inhabit).

    -no water
    -no fuel
    -nothing useful

    We would spend 200billion dollars to go to mars and dig 100km into is surface, it is way less than redoing the moon. then we could use this as a space deport (less gravety).

    A way more interresting place to go instead of mars is europa (the moon) because of possible fuel and water of somesort.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    How much do you assume what that would cost 9000billion dollars to get all the (extremely big) tools up on the moon.
    I'm speaking in terms of technological advancement and hopeful economy development. It should be a lot cheaper if humanity doesn't suck as much as I think it does.

    Its nothing what we have ever built and would be much to costly.
    To transform the whole landscape of the moon would cost atleast 20 000billion dollars.
    Incorrect. The original tools required to be sent to the moon, to even start the small proccess (such as breathable air) would probably cost half of that. Maintinence and operation, however, is another matter. But I'm talking in terms of todays technology, a few years down the line it'll probably be more efficient.

    and there is another problem, this project would waste all of the earths oilreserves.
    *WTF*? Someone knows jack about space missions. Or how it would be conducted to begin with. The only oil-use would be original take-off and landing, assuming it wouldn't be built on the international space-station (depending on size).

    but the most important point of it all is that we dont need it and dont
    benefit from this (exept more space for mankind to inhabit).
    NASA disagrees. Not only will the moon be a gateway to future space missions, resources under the ground (the moon is heavily composed of minerals. Space-ships could literally be built on it), etc.

    -no water
    -no fuel
    -nothing useful
    Mars has water. Plus, there is no proof there isn't water under the moons surface. many of the planets in our solar system contain water, and it wouldn't be surprising if there was on the moon.

    as for fuel, fuel doesn't rely on oil you nimrod. In fact it'd be best to find a fully *alternative* means to oil for all types of travel. Which we're in the proccess of doing least everything sorta collapses. Your point is mute.

    I said that mars is composed of a lot of minerals and elements. That's sort of *highly useful*. Not to mention the living space it'd give.

    We would spend 200billion dollars to go to mars and dig 100km into is surface, it is way less than redoing the moon. then we could use this as a space deport (less gravety).
    Er...that's NASA's plan for the moon. HINT: The moon has less gravity than mars. And raw materials are easily located.

    And where the deuce are you getting those dollar figures? Current plans for a moon-base are estimated far under that. In fact I believe that exceeds NASA's budget by three fold or more.

    A way more interresting place to go instead of mars is europa (the moon) because of possible fuel and water of somesort.
    I give the frack up. Mars has a lot of water, and again we need to *get off the fuel*. alternative sources or bust. That's how civilization is going.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    terraforming, the best i can find is not possible or practical for the moon.
    above or below ground and dome covered, a community seems most probable and the most logical use would be to launching point to other places.

    mars, is given the most attention since it has all the requirements in physical structure and most elements required already are present. the system to terraform seems to be in the introduction of elements to construct an atmosphere and the (somehow) disposing of the large carbon quantities and leaving the oxygen of the co2, now 95% of the atmosphere. i found the possibility of redirecting a helium based asteroid into a collision course with mars most interesting.

    in two or three of the papers, the ideas would take from 900 years up wards and any beginning point is based on technology development.
    since some hands on equipment would be required, dome structures are suggested.

    as for cost; most anything required involves other subjects of interest. Most already planned into distant future flights any way. additional cost could be from private industry with motive or interest in the results.

    most of you already know; but there are potential plans for a space elevator. w/o going into detail, this amounts to placing a receptacle in space that orbits one spot on earth. somehow connected to that spot by cable. i would think the cable weight would make it hard to keep the orbit, but there must be a plan. this would give an ability to get large quantities of materials into space, eliminating the need to transport via a shuttle and that cost or use of fuels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Nothing like a superheated elevator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    most of you already know; but there are potential plans for a space elevator. w/o going into detail, this amounts to placing a receptacle in space that orbits one spot on earth. somehow connected to that spot by cable. i would think the cable weight would make it hard to keep the orbit, but there must be a plan. this would give an ability to get large quantities of materials into space, eliminating the need to transport via a shuttle and that cost or use of fuels.
    LMAO, I have heard the Jehovah's Witness's are going to loan them a watchtower to get startted!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    OK people; didn't say i thought much of the "space elevator", but it does present some interesting ideas. to start with, no need for speed to escape gravity. at MPH, the cargo is there in 12 hours. a descending weight would counter the ascending and equalize gravity at about the right times.
    it would take very little power to transfer on to where needed. short of power at the receptor, i have trouble with load capacity (ie practical). the weather factor, would seem improbable and i suppose thats why they think the north pole area, favorable, or maybe if it fell there would be little problem with collateral damage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    This 'space elevator' from an engineering point of view is simply crap.

    If you want to put something into a stationary orbit, then it needs to be 22,000 miles high. Ask an architect how wide the base would have to be and he will tell you (with today's best technology) 3,000 miles wide. The guide is 7:1 (height to base for stability)who is going to give up 9 million square miles of territory?. Continental drift, phases of the moon and sun would cause so much stress and weakening it would fall over, as soon as you get above 30,000 feet all your builders would need space suits, shall I go on?

    On the Counter balance? remember at the top the 'counterbalance would be 'weightless'.

    Space elevator is fiction where it will stay (probably forever).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Its nothing what we have ever built and would be much to costly.
    To transform the whole landscape of the moon would cost atleast 20 000billion dollars.
    Incorrect. The original tools required to be sent to the moon, to even start the small proccess (such as breathable air) would probably cost half of that. Maintinence and operation, however, is another matter. But I'm talking in terms of todays technology, a few years down the line it'll probably be more efficient.
    numbers may be wrong. still 10 000billion dollars isn't payed uot of ones poket

    and there is another problem, this project would waste all of the earths oilreserves.
    *WTF*? Someone knows jack about space missions. Or how it would be conducted to begin with. The only oil-use would be original take-off and landing, assuming it wouldn't be built on the international space-station (depending on size).
    40 years itll be gone and by then we have the technology to go up there, but then we will not have any fuel.

    but the most important point of it all is that we dont need it and dont
    benefit from this (exept more space for mankind to inhabit).
    NASA disagrees. Not only will the moon be a gateway to future space missions, resources under the ground (the moon is heavily composed of minerals. Space-ships could literally be built on it), etc.
    relative to the costs to get that stuff upthere, no.

    -no water
    -no fuel
    -nothing useful
    Mars has water. Plus, there is no proof there isn't water under the moons surface. many of the planets in our solar system contain water, and it wouldn't be surprising if there was on the moon.
    this was just ment for the moon.


    as for fuel, fuel doesn't rely on oil you nimrod. In fact it'd be best to find a fully *alternative* means to oil for all types of travel. Which we're in the proccess of doing least everything sorta collapses. Your point is mute.
    I said that mars is composed of a lot of minerals and elements. That's sort of *highly useful*. Not to mention the living space it'd give.
    I never sayed this to be wrong nor did I miss understand you

    We would spend 200billion dollars to go to mars and dig 100km into is surface, it is way less than redoing the moon. then we could use this as a space deport (less gravety).
    Er...that's NASA's plan for the moon. HINT: The moon has less gravity than mars. And raw materials are easily located.
    relative to you're moon changing/decorating price this is much cheaper to dig a hole into mars. ofcourse the moon should be done first.

    And where the deuce are you getting those dollar figures? Current plans for a moon-base are estimated far under that. In fact I believe that exceeds NASA's budget by three fold or more.

    A way more interresting place to go instead of mars is europa (the moon) because of possible fuel and water of somesort.
    I give the frack up. Mars has a lot of water, and again we need to *get off the fuel*. alternative sources or bust. That's how civilization is going.
    [/quote]

    yes i know that mars has water, But europa is also a target of nasa, because of its earthlike features (for example: landscape).
    I never sayed that mars was the wrong target.

    you keep on turnig things around, first you say that the moon is the place to go and then when i say "europa..." you come along with mars. If you are doing this to agrivate me I ask you to leave it be or leave this forum.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    This 'space elevator' from an engineering point of view is simply crap.

    If you want to put something into a stationary orbit, then it needs to be 22,000 miles high. Ask an architect how wide the base would have to be and he will tell you (with today's best technology) 3,000 miles wide. The guide is 7:1 (height to base for stability)who is going to give up 9 million square miles of territory?. Continental drift, phases of the moon and sun would cause so much stress and weakening it would fall over, as soon as you get above 30,000 feet all your builders would need space suits, shall I go on?

    On the Counter balance? remember at the top the 'counterbalance would be 'weightless'.

    Space elevator is fiction where it will stay (probably forever).
    no; no need to go further. if orbit stability requires 22k mile orbit, whole thing is out.

    think the plan called for dropping cables from the receptacle and basically no firm base. kind of flexible tie downs at bottom and no enclosure for the unit. the counter balance was my idea, since the weight coming down would act on the cargo going up. this weight would be at a point in descent before cargo is released to counter the weight of the cargo going up. there may be a plan to keep the thing in orbit in one spot (thrusters), but since this is not from my imagination, rather not argue in favor....at this time. since you are inferring some structure and they are not, would think they could.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    i think it would be cool if some aliens showed up one day to teach us how to colonize the moon. we could live in harmony with aliens on the moon. I wonder what they'd eat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    They'd eat humans. Naturally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    well that's not good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    I think it was Dyson who came up with the idea of turning large iron-nickle asteroids into habitable colonies.

    You drill a tunnel through the long axis of the asteroid and fill the cavity with water. Seal the shaft and spin the asteroid around the axis and position large mirrors to bath it in sunlight. As the water heats up and expands, it makes the asteroid puff up lika a kernal of popcorn. You're left with a hollow metal ovoid with gravity on it's inner surface(due to the spin). Bring in soil and more water and you can set up a self-sustaining ecosystem and you mine other asteroids for metal and organic compounds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    Sounds more like a celestial washing machine! :wink:

    Was that the Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Was that the Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame?
    For the sake of any future colonists, lets hope not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Mek
    Mek is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Jeremyhfht;


    A way more interresting place to go instead of mars is europa (the moon) because of possible fuel and water of somesort.

    Um, All scientists , and wannabes should read 50 sci fi anthologys minimum.
    The only reason to go to europa, is a great one, to sample the lovely archaea that I think are there.
    There was an absolutely fantastic show on pbs ONCE> called Space , the quest for life. I might be reading into this and what Ive heard the guys at JPL say concerning mars, but I feel the scientific communtity is close to announcing that life is extra terrestrial, and in essence , everywhere.

    The radiation on europa would make the radiation on the moon seem like a walk in the park.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    This 'space elevator' from an engineering point of view is simply crap.
    Headline news: Megabrain Suffers Major Failure of Imagination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If you want to put something into a stationary orbit, then it needs to be 22,000 miles high. Ask an architect how wide the base would have to be and he will tell you (with today's best technology) 3,000 miles wide.
    Completely wrong. You don't understand the mechanics of the situation.
    [i]In a 1998 report, NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology, researchers noted that "maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth.[/i]
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a space elevator be in orbit around the Earth, and the part of the structure that touches the Earth would only anchor the elevator, not support it's weight. The greatest risk to an elevator would come from space junk hitting it, not forces applying torque on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    This 'space elevator' from an engineering point of view is simply crap.
    Headline news: Megabrain Suffers Major Failure of Imagination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If you want to put something into a stationary orbit, then it needs to be 22,000 miles high. Ask an architect how wide the base would have to be and he will tell you (with today's best technology) 3,000 miles wide.
    Completely wrong. You don't understand the mechanics of the situation.
    [i]In a 1998 report, NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology, researchers noted that "maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth.[/i]
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
    From your link.
    According to Smitherman, construction is not feasible today but it could be toward the end of the 21st century. "First we'll develop the technology,"

    I suggest you actually read what it says and not what you think it says.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a space elevator be in orbit around the Earth, and the part of the structure that touches the Earth would only anchor the elevator, not support it's weight. The greatest risk to an elevator would come from space junk hitting it, not forces applying torque on it.
    no, not if at a certain distance. we currently have telecommunication and other observing satellites at this distance and there positions are maintained at one point in space. think i have heard 22k miles before.

    in theory the cable would hang over the same spot but some flexibility will be maintained. space junk would be no more a problem than it already is. the moving cargo would have something like 1 in 10k of being hit with something but partial damage only and the cable should deflect (circular) such junk.

    22k miles is a long way and after re-reading some papers, seems to be in the planning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    the elevaor wont work, ...yet. The ropes lenght has to be so long that, if it where out of iorn/mettal/ect. it would rip or grush under its own weight.

    I once watched a tv show where they wanted to make a kind of huge rope, out of (i forget) but theire only problem is that it is just a few millimeters big, at the time. If they complete this technology it is highly possible that an elevator will be built.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    the elevaor wont work, ...yet. The ropes lenght has to be so long that, if it where out of iorn/mettal/ect. it would rip or grush under its own weight.

    I once watched a tv show where they wanted to make a kind of huge rope, out of (i forget) but theire only problem is that it is just a few millimeters big, at the time. If they complete this technology it is highly possible that an elevator will be built.
    According to Ophiolite all you really need is imagination, no need to worry about the materials, construction methods, or the physics of it.... 8)

    Mio,

    Don't worry about the weight of the 'rope/tube' or whatever, just use your imagination and bingo, they'll come up with antigravity paint! [which also has the property of deflecting meteors up to earth size.] :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Carbon nanotubes offer a possible material for the construction of a space elevator. The best idea would be to set up a fabricaton facility in orbit and send up the raw materials to be used in construction. While this isn't practical at the moment, it probably will be in several decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Carbon nanotubes offer a possible material for the construction of a space elevator. The best idea would be to set up a fabricaton facility in orbit and send up the raw materials to be used in construction. While this isn't practical at the moment, it probably will be in several decades.
    i can understand the weight of the cable from 22k miles to 50 miles above earth would be no problem, even today. nano, could produce light weight materials but there will be some weight to the last anchor point but short of some self standing item the weight should pull the receptacle down since it really has no apparent means to react to a weight from what is in gravities pull. I can visualize a second unit, just outside gravity using thrusters to maintain orbit and a counter weight system to reduce gravity affects. pulling a good size load to it and then transferring to a main unit
    pulley and movement the remaining 21,950 miles.

    cost/effective would say it would cost about the same as sending up cargo the way we do today, at least for a very long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    30
    We can try to create a ship that goes at the speed off light but I believe we will never accomplish this. We can conolize our planets but I believe we will never make it to the nearest solar system.we might be able to colonize sister planets but we will never reach another solar system because we would have to travel at the spee of light. Right now, the goverment isn't really funding space research. Unless we create a spaceship faster then the speed of light, it will be not possible(if you travel at the speed of light, then you will "fast foward time"). If we were to colonize the nearest solar system, it would take 1,999 years to reach it with a ship that doesn't go at the speed of light or 40% above it(I belive its 40%).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Time Master
    We can try to create a ship that goes at the speed off light but I believe we will never accomplish this. We can conolize our planets but I believe we will never make it to the nearest solar system.we might be able to colonize sister planets but we will never reach another solar system because we would have to travel at the spee of light. Right now, the goverment isn't really funding space research. Unless we create a spaceship faster then the speed of light, it will be not possible(if you travel at the speed of light, then you will "fast foward time"). If we were to colonize the nearest solar system, it would take 1,999 years to reach it with a ship that doesn't go at the speed of light or 40% above it(I belive its 40%).
    most would agree, speed of light is not achievable. i disagree and feel many times this. when...is the question.

    the US government is spending a good deal on research and development, the amount given NASA is also very good, but the cost of NASA to operate
    has risen, their objectives decreased. China, Japan, Russia and some European Nations are becoming more aggressive as well as many private industries.

    manned flights to solar systems in our galaxy are a long way off if for no other reason that some would literally devote their lives to it. even well past the speed of light. the first flight will be unmanned and be loaded with gear to observe and transmit observations.

    terraforming is a dream devised to lessen fear mankind could be wiped out but has provided some research such as Biosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •