ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Why start trek and other space base shows and UFO will be fairytale

nec207

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 05 2011, 4:26 pm

First there is nothing in the laws of Physics saying space travel is impossible.There is the law that say faster than light travel is impossible. And well know one I say again know one knows if wormholes ,warpdrive ,hyperspace so on is real or not as know one as seen it or detected it .....If it is real it will allow a loop hole of going faster than the speed of light with out really not going faster than the speed of light.


And despite claims of UFO that is other major topic.


But there are reasons why theoretical physicist claim UFO's and start trek and other space base shows are scfi and will always be scfi.


1.space cost  is major problem so major that the US,USSR and China can only go up 3 or 4 times a year !!!


2.No craft can stop in mid air like in the movies or claims of a UFO has no knowen propulsion we know of can do that


3.SSTO is a vehicle that reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware, expending only propellants,SSTO vehicle has one major problem: it needs to lift its entire structure into orbit. To reach orbit with a useful payload, the rocket requires careful and extensive engineering to save weight. This is much harder to design and engineer. A staged rocket greatly reduces the total mass that flies all the way into space; the rocket is continually shedding fuel tanks and engines that are now dead weight.


For the most part SSTO is still in its infancy it is very small and crude looking. A typical middle class American home is like 5 times bigger !!


4.Unlike UFO's and in the movies going up into space or coming down is a one way ticket to the craft is refueled.


For the most part only less than 1% of the riches people will have he money to go in space and that is if the private sector can pull it off.... Going to a space station or going in a space craft will not be a luxury home where space will be a major problem .Try a typical RV in size with 3 or 4 people.


Many theoretical physicist claim that for the most part going space will be too costly and less than 1% may only be able to go in space in the next 50 years or so.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Sep. 06 2011, 7:31 am

I posted something similar some time ago:


http://www.cracked.com/article_18547_6-reasons-space-travel-will-always-suck.html


http://www.cracked.com/article_19158_the-6-weirdest-dangers-space-travel.html


A quick listing of the realities of space travel (see the articlesfor explanations) with current and "froseeable" technnology:


1. Kirkian free love a no go.


2. Comfortable ships, nope.


3. No flipping gravity and no artificial gravity.


4. Windows and AWESOME space visuals, nope.


5. Every damn thing is FAR away, even if we could travel FTL.


6. If something goes wrong, kiss your butt goodbye. From slowing down to just avoiding impacts with small objects, it's dangerous.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Lazernugget

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 5:44 pm

1. So? If we advance enough we could overcome this easily. Cost isn't necessarily the hard part.


2. Not yet, but if we had highly complex thrusters or warp technology it wouldn't be that hard.


3. Pfft. I'm designing an antimatter rocket (No, not warp speed) that a guy at NASA wants to see, so I've done my research. With transporter technology, easy. Ever think of building a rocket in low earth orbit? (LEO) Well, think of it now. If NASA builds any antimatter rocket they will most likely launch it from space.


4. Keep extra fuel. -__-


A few more pointers. Better Grammar and spelling (No offense). SSTOs aren't that far away either, we're getting very close to the point where that's totally possible. Aliens may not be proved for a while, but if they've existed long enough, they could be years ahead of out technology. Even though we may not communicate, did you ever think they may have sent a probe like Voyager that could reach us? 


 


BTW, I don't think we'll go faster than light, but technically if we understand gravity better we could bend space, making things closer, making us travel places quicker, but not technically "Faster".


http://bigthink.com/ideas/24863


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJZXDEUOao0

rbren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 8:08 am

I've always thought of 'warp drive' as altered space/time as oposed to velocity. If you warp space then time = velocity is then nominal.


The key point in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is that if we avoid self-destruction with societal advances and technological advances there are no limits and the expansion of humanity out into the cosmos would enevitably be the "final frontier". It is the most optomistic view of humanity and easily doubtful but this optimism has inspired viewers to become astronauts,etc.  Is your glass half full or half empty?

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 09 2011, 7:08 am

Quote: rbren @ Sep. 08 2011, 8:08 am

>

>I've always thought of 'warp drive' as altered space/time as oposed to velocity. If you warp space then time = velocity is then nominal.

>


That's pretty much how it is described -- in basic terms, through the folded-paper analogy.


I honestly don't believe that humanity knows enough science right now to determine the boundaries of possibility.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

K_tigress

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3761

Report this Sep. 10 2011, 1:31 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Sep. 09 2011, 7:08 am

Quote: rbren @ Sep. 08 2011, 8:08 am

>

>

>I've always thought of 'warp drive' as altered space/time as oposed to velocity. If you warp space then time = velocity is then nominal.

>

That's pretty much how it is described -- in basic terms, through the folded-paper analogy.

I honestly don't believe that humanity knows enough science right now to determine the boundaries of possibility.


 


My thoughts exactly.


He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it. -Douglas Adams (1952-2001)

nec207

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 11 2011, 6:52 pm

Could laser propulsion or microwave propulsion be the next big thing like the combustion engine?



When the technology gets better could laser propulsion or microwave propulsion be the next big thing like the combustion engine ?


 What are the engineering problems making this scfi .


May be in 50 years from now or 100 years from now when the technology gets better NASA will be using laser propulsion or microwave propulsion .


 

nec207

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 14 2011, 1:57 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Laser propulsion has very little physical drawbacks (none, I know.)

>The problem is political. Aim for a star 100 light years away, and 20 years later on Earth they can't afford to keep the beam running. You were planning to accelerate fopr 50 years, before kicking in the deccelerator and coming to rest with your target. Now you're travelling half the speed you planned, and don't have enough fuel or oxygen to survive the trip. Then you're stuffed...

>And you still need fuel to slow down.

>


 


No I'm talking about taking people or cargo into space using laser propulsion or microwave propulsion .I think you misunderstood and thought I was talking about using laser propulsion or microwave propulsion  in space only and not for taking people or cargo into space .


 

Six of Nine

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Sep. 15 2011, 4:42 pm

Quote: nec207 @ Sep. 11 2011, 6:52 pm

>

>Could laser propulsion or microwave propulsion be the next big thing like the combustion engine?

>
When the technology gets better could laser propulsion or microwave propulsion be the next big thing like the combustion engine ?

> What are the engineering problems making this scfi .

>May be in 50 years from now or 100 years from now when the technology gets better NASA will be using laser propulsion or microwave propulsion .

>


You do know that most of us arent scientist and/or dont work for NASA.


I think this is an "if" thread, I would hope so.


As a wise man once wrote, : "Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever".

PContinuum

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 37

Report this Sep. 16 2011, 6:51 pm

I think one of NASA's core missions should have been to significanly shrink the cost of access to space.  Take the shuttle program, I read it cost $500 million to launch the shuttle into space.   $500 million or $10,000 per pound is a very high cost.    Thats a lot of money that is just wasted IMO that could have been used for exploration or other real science programs.


 


Multiple decades ago NASA should have setup an X-Prize type challenge where it would award $50 billion to the first group that develops a way to launch people, cargo, probes, etc into space at extremely low cost.  

nec207

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 17 2011, 2:00 pm

The big problem why space exploration is not taking of like the combustion engine or first  flight the Wright brothers  is cost and the same why only 3 countries the US, China and Russia can put people into space.The apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation proposed by president Bush to get people back to the moon and have a moon base got scrapped  do to cost.And going to Mars would be very very costly like no one has ever seen.


All the cool x- programs that NASA was doing with conjunction with the Air force in the 80's and 90's  and among the VentureStar X-33  got canceled do to lack of money to continue research.


No one really knows if any of the x- programs or x-33 would bring space cost down .It may bring it down some what , but still no where to take of like the combustion engine or first  flight the Wright brothers  .


Has chemical propulsion does not allow for that.


 


The proposed plan by president Obama to send people to a asteroid by 2025 and mars by 2030 would be like no one has seen in history the cost would be nothing like NASA has ever done.


It is highly unlikely anyone in government would vote on this bill do to the US major recession and high debt.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Sep. 18 2011, 8:25 am

They used to say the world was flat and you would fall of the edge.


They used to say man could not fly.


They used to say the sound barrier could not be broken.


They used to say we could not breach our own atmosphere.


It's just a matter of time and effort before your post is added to that list.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

chucktrekA

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 35

Report this Sep. 18 2011, 9:19 pm

I agree with Lazernugget.  Remember, in the trek  universe money "doesn't exist".  And most starships are built and launched from space.


I will remain optimistic until i die, humans will travel the stars.


oh and theories are just that, theories, until proven or disproven.


So I believe FTL is/will be Possible.

nec207

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 44

Report this Sep. 19 2011, 4:26 pm

it does not matter if the technology if it is 30 plus years old or 80
plus years old or if it is to reinvent the wheel or not.The main problem why
space exploration is not taking of like the combustion engine or first flight
the Wright brothers is cost and the same why only 3 countries the US, China and
Russia can put people into space.

The apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation proposed by
president Bush to get people back to the moon and have a moon base got scrapped
do to cost.And going to Mars would be very very costly like no one has ever
seen.



All the cool x- programs that NASA was doing with conjunction with the Air force
in the 80's and 90's and among the VentureStar X-33 got canceled do to lack of
money to continue research.No one really knows if any of the x- programs or x-33
would bring space cost down .It may bring it down some what , but still no where
to take of like the combustion engine or first flight the Wright brothers .Has
chemical propulsion does not allow for that.

The proposed plan by president Obama to send people to a asteroid by 2025 and
mars by 2030 would be like no one has seen in history the cost would be nothing
like NASA has ever done.It is highly unlikely anyone in government would vote on
this bill do to the US major recession and high debt if the SLS is the same or
more costly than the apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation
proposed by president Bush that all got slash to to cost.


===========================================================================


 


Well people say taking people or cargo into space using laser propulsion or microwave propulsion that would need gigawatts of power and no one knows if it will work.


 

PContinuum

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 37

Report this Sep. 19 2011, 9:07 pm

In my opinion we should be funding a program researching faster than light propulsion just to get scientist thinking about it and perhaps developing a way to do it.   We as a species should always reach for the stars and do what is difficult or we will end up being mediocre. 


 


However, as i mentioned in my previous post I would focus on getting the access cost to space down dramatically.   This should be NASAs core mission. 

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum