Outpost Universe Forums

Off Topic => General Interest => Debate => Topic started by: Betaray on January 19, 2004, 12:03:00 PM

Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 19, 2004, 12:03:00 PM
lets see how people who play a game where we have fusion satrships and cold fusion vote on this
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: OP2Patriot on January 19, 2004, 12:15:06 PM
I think this should best go in the debate forum.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 19, 2004, 12:19:23 PM
but thats about making paper out of little ethyopion kids
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: it2000us on January 19, 2004, 12:25:16 PM
We should colonize the whole galaxy and more so that we could be the super human rase the dominant one and everyone will bow before us. MUhahahahaha
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 19, 2004, 12:26:29 PM
that works
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: plymoth45 on January 19, 2004, 02:21:26 PM
well, we gotta come up with that sort of ship before any of that now don't we.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 19, 2004, 02:47:34 PM
yea, buts its good to have long term goals
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on January 20, 2004, 10:25:30 AM
An Ion Motor + A Fusion Plant + A Solar Pump + One big hull and we're ready to go... Hmm... We also need an agricultural section for food etc etc...
Step 1: Ion Motor
Technology exists we just need a enhanced big version of it
---------------------------------------
Smaller engine
Ion propulsion systems are less powerful than conventional chemical rockets but can run for ten times as long using the same mass of propellant. This makes it possible to reach a target with a much smaller engine, reducing overall launch costs dramatically.
SMART 1 is miniscule compared to many spacecraft. It weighs 367 kilograms and measures one metre on all sides, although its solar panels will unfurl to measure 14 metres across.
----------------------------------------

Step 2: Fusion Plant
The first (prototype) fusion power plant is ready to be constructed...
----------------------------------------
16:41 15 January 04
The debate over whether to build the world's biggest nuclear fusion facility in France or Japan is going critical. The European Union says it could pull out of the international project and build its own, if the project goes to Japan. But the US has firmly backed Japan as its preferred site.
The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project aims to lay the groundwork for the eventual use of nuclear fusion as an inexhaustible and environmentally friendly energy source. The French and Japanese sites are the only contenders left from a list that also included sites in Canada and Spain.
The project would heat atoms derived from seawater to millions of degrees, creating a plasma of charged particles. Magnetic fields would contain the plasma and spur the atomic nuclei to fuse. This would generate heat that, if the project worked, would sustain the reaction for about half an hour and release five times the amount of energy that was initially put in.
----------------------------------------

Solar Pump
I guess the solar pump isnt necessary as we would have a fusion plant...
We would however need a fuel shark (op2) in order to gather hydrogen from planet atmospheres...
----------------------------------------
Earth-based solar pumps can't collect enough energy to turn sunlight into laser beams because clouds and moisture get in the way of the Sun's rays. A space laser wouldn't encounter these problems, and the Japanese team say their system will have a fairly respectable efficiency of around 30 per cent. Some energy will be lost in the conversion from sunlight to laser light, and also as the laser beam travels back to Earth, if it travels through cloudy moist skies. But the researchers say they will position the collection station away from cloudy or polluted areas.
----------------------------------------

Only a couple of facts  :P
I hope i can buy a space pleasure cruise ticket to the moon when im old  :)  
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 22, 2004, 07:27:14 PM
lol, not to brag but I have designs that are much more advanced than those, and could reach distant stars in the order of months instead of decades (it could probly do it in days, but the accelaration would kill the crew)
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Luweeg64 on January 22, 2004, 07:59:13 PM
AND don't forget the duct tape.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: xfir on January 22, 2004, 08:04:44 PM
Actaully, as it stands now, we can reach Mars in approximately six months.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Luweeg64 on January 22, 2004, 08:06:46 PM
LOL, eveyone voted Both....hey X, who you voting for in 2004?
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: xfir on January 22, 2004, 08:14:55 PM
I dunno. I usually go Republican.. then again, this will be my first time to vote.

Now, back to topic please.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 22, 2004, 08:16:30 PM
the reason I made this poll is to see how the forums stand on Bush's plan to go to the moon and mars, and the way were voting here, we better vote bush if we want to see it carried out
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Luweeg64 on January 22, 2004, 08:18:29 PM
EXACTLY....:GRIN AT GARRETT: Dean......LOL....who would vote for Dean!!! DEMOCRAT!!!
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on January 22, 2004, 08:24:03 PM
what I dont get is why do the democrats want to just live their presidency in domestic matters, if you want to be remembered when you die, you have to do somthing other than that, just like everyone knows about queen isabella because she funded the voyage for Columbus, but does anyone remember the queens that came before or after her? the democrats, by dedacating their lives to domestic programs, have doomd their life to obsurity, while people that dare to explore will be remembered, people will know who president kennedy was 100 years from now, but I doubt anyone will know much about clinton, other than he was presadent and he was impeached

why am I preaching, you guys are on my side lol
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Maveric on February 21, 2004, 11:45:31 PM
ack. im the only one who voted to only go to the moon. :blink:

Anyways, my reason is that we shouldn't send some 6 or so people to a planet that's 6 months away where as we could send the same # of people to our moon (which is how long of a travel? less then 6 months, to be sure...) the 6 month travel may be a death-sentance if something goes wrong either half-way there or on the surface of mars. Atleast on the moon help would arive quicker then it would going to mars ("Help is on the way... Can you hold out for 6 months?")

As well, if we try to do 2 things at once we'll end up over-extending ourselves and possibly mucking BOTH missions up. If you're split 2 ways, how do you expect to get anything done in the normal amount of time? EX: If it takes 1 year (this is a EXAMPLE) to setup people to go to the moon and only the moon, if you want to go to both the moon and mars it'd take more then 2 years; your attention is split 2 ways, and thus you can only get half the work done on any project at any one time.

As well, we dont know how the human body will react in a less-then-earth-gravity enviroment for long periods of time and then get onto a planet with near-earth-gravity... As soon as they step out they break their legs or something and it'd take [inster # here] amount of months to rescue them.


We go to the moon, setup a research station, bring up ~50 people and see what happens over the next few months, maybe a year or two. Once that's done our tech will have advanced enough to make the journey to mars certainly quicker then 6 months and will have learnt enough on the effect of off-earth exploration to counter-act it. And if everyone on the moon goes insane and kills eachother, then we know what not to do. :rolleyes:  
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: ZeusBD on March 04, 2004, 03:34:39 PM
I think that we should go to both. The moon again just because we can, and we can put that into the rest of the world's faces about how easy it is for us, and then Mars because if we don't, someone else will. Plus, it could possibly support life one day. I think that it is worth the risk. You must understand that the first people to go the moon had to face much of the same danger, but they volunteered and went.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Sirbomber on May 09, 2004, 07:25:41 AM
I believe that we should attempt to colonize the moon before we go to Mars. If we successfuly colonize the moon, then we should attempt to colonize Mars.

Maveric:
Quote
As well, we dont know how the human body will react in a less-then-earth-gravity enviroment for long periods of time and then get onto a planet with near-earth-gravity... As soon as they step out they break their legs or something and it'd take [inster # here] amount of months to rescue them.

There have already been tests on how humans react to long periods of time in zero-gravity.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Phantom on May 10, 2004, 10:20:01 AM
I say we go to both, I mean why not? We have the rescorces to go to the moon again.

And a safer way to go to Mars instead of making one long mission would be to construct several relay stations for refueling/repairs etc.

Sure it would cost a ton of money, but cut the welfare program, and there you have it!
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Kramy on May 10, 2004, 11:28:15 AM
Hey, can someone point out any flaws in this idea?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big thick cone made from very hard substance. Rear is open.
Inside is a huge solar array and an ion drive.

Thick cone protects solar arrays and ion drive from space debris.

Cone possibly made from that bouncy liquid metal, to help refract debris.

"Cone starship" must be heading directly away from sun to recieve energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on May 10, 2004, 02:09:14 PM
Yes, An ion drive needs more then electricity. The electricity is used only to "charge" another matter such as Xenon gas...

Other then that there's no fundamental flaws, it wouldn't be a pretty ship and it could probably be made much better but it should work.
Also, as the solar array is in the back it can only travel away from the sun as you said but that is in a way very limited.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: BlackBox on May 10, 2004, 02:35:20 PM
Have you ever heard of solar sails? Those are ships that create a magnetic field, similar to the Earth's magnetosphere, and cosmic radiation would hit it, pushing it away. (It would also protect the people inside from the radiation since it would simply bounce off)
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on May 10, 2004, 02:38:54 PM
I dont know what kind of solar sails you're thinking of but the "solar sail" currently being researched by US & Europe that is going to have a (another, as the first one failed to unfold) test flight in a year or two is built on the principle that photon packages both act as energy and a "matter" which literally bounces of the repellant mirror.

They are dependent on the sun and not "cosmic radiation"

I wrote a 15 page essay on it and various space technologies... (among other why i knew about the MPD & MHD in the air unit thread)
http://www.bonetweb.com/Zircon/art/3d.html (http://www.bonetweb.com/Zircon/art/3d.html)

The entire deal with solar sails are unsure though because the original theory stated that the solarsail would reflect photons at a slight lower enrgy value which in turn creates propulsion, however if there is a 100% reflective surface (which would be very very difficult to create) the photons would reflect without losing energy and thus no thrust...

And without a very reflective surface it would amass little heat but in very quick waves which in turn would destroy the vessel  :yawn: Then there's also the problems with the strong interference made by the sun, and in order to gain enough propulsion so that it wouldn't take a century to reach the moon it would have to get pretty close to the sun and loop it a few times gaining momentum...
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: BlackBox on May 10, 2004, 06:42:25 PM
It's not just photons that make it move, it's any particles that bounce off the magnetosphere of the ship.

And cosmic radiation comes from stars -- which yes it would be powered by the sun.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on May 11, 2004, 01:43:08 AM
Background radiation is too small, it would take a lot of time to move even the smallest amount, beta (electrons) particles are nearly the same.

The only other thing i'd  imagine being able to move something is a very strong beam of alpha (helium nuclei) particles...

And where would would the magnetosphere come from as a solar sail is in simple terms just a really big mirror?

Background radiation also comes from nebulas, dying black holes etc etc...

Even when you're close to the sun and the sheer amount of photons that is being projected against the sail the acceleration is unnervingly low... But fortunate as it is the acceleration constantly builds up ^_^

If you visit http://solarsail.org/ (http://solarsail.org/) and then visit the science section it should explain atleast the kind of solar sail im talking about...
-----------

That reminds me, the Conestoga had several notes about the magnetic dispersion field meant to protect those inside, gigantic coils generated those fields though...
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Ezekel on June 27, 2004, 09:44:18 AM
solarwind ^^ love that game


mrr, why must the cone be pointed away from the sun?
solar sails can be used like boat sails, the advantage being though that the "wind" will be coming from a constant direction
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on July 18, 2004, 06:21:34 PM
have you herd of mini black holes? they theroticly the size of a proton and have a gravity well not much bigger

now I have thought, if you could atrifually make those mini black holes, possibly by having 2 protons decay from an energy state (a thery of mine) if would form a black hole that has very little mass, but is infonatly dence

now if you could form those blackholes into a series of rings that have trillions of blackholes a square micrometer, than their combined gravity wells would make the ring have a donut shaped gravity field

if you would be able to have a ship genarate those rings in frount of itself, and it would fly through the center, it would experience a linier slingshot effect simmiler to going around a star, after a series of these it could theroticly approach the speed of light (it wouldnt be able to reach it however, because the energy beam genarating the rings would be traveling at the speed of light

even if the thery that mass becomes infonate as speed increases is true, it would have minimal effect on this system, because the heavyr it is, the more the gravitional field effects it, and the better the system works

it would gather the protons needed by colecting them from intersteller plasma via a mag scoop (simmiler to a mag sail that you guys have been talking about, but instead this is an intake for intersteller hydrogen)

of corse the best thing about this system, would be that it would be able to be stationary, the ship I described had the system internal because it would need it to slow down as well (I doubt that a mag sail would be an effective intyersteller brake at those speeds)

but once the ship is there, it would be able to build a stationary system consisting of physical rings supporting the blackholes, wich would be much larger because of their permenent nature (the rings of the ship would only last a few millionths of a second due to hawking radiation, although some small blackholes may combine to make bigger ones that would leave a trail)

those rings would allow a ship to acheave almost infonate speeds (therareticly) depending on the size of the black holes, and the amount of stages of rings

a ship would simply fly into the ring system, and it would be accelarated, it would cruse untill it reached a simmiler ring system at the destanation that would slow it back down

of corse, lower power rings would be perfact for inter soler system commerse, it would take the round trip time from Earth to Saturn from 1.5 years with fusion, to mabe hours or days

of corse, the rings would require more than just power, they would require physical matter to constantly feed the blackholes to keep the gravity field stable, but the profit potentual that the fast traveling system would make, would be much greater than the upkeep costs

I came up with that idea in about 5 min while taking a shower about 6 months ago lol
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on July 21, 2004, 05:48:07 PM
sry for the double post, but I just laid down my most advanced idea, and noone is going to comment on it?
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on July 21, 2004, 06:25:02 PM
Code: [Select]
now I have thought, if you could atrifually make those mini black holes, possibly by having 2 protons decay from an energy state (a thery of mine) if would form a black hole that has very little mass, but is infonatly dence

I have no idea if this is possible or what the effects would be if it happened...

Quote
now if you could form those blackholes into a series of rings that have trillions of blackholes a square micrometer, than their combined gravity wells would make the ring have a donut shaped gravity field

if you would be able to have a ship genarate those rings in frount of itself, and it would fly through the center, it would experience a linier slingshot effect simmiler to going around a star, after a series of these it could theroticly approach the speed of light (it wouldnt be able to reach it however, because the energy beam genarating the rings would be traveling at the speed of light

Kinda like the star trek warp engine moving the starship one small bit very many times.

Quote
even if the thery that mass becomes infonate as speed increases is true, it would have minimal effect on this system, because the heavyr it is, the more the gravitional field effects it, and the better the system works

*feels out of the loop* The mass of an object doesn't mean anything when it comes to gravity or am i simply thinking of the wrong thing, you know a 1 kg ball compared to a 10 kg ball will fall equally fast except for the air resistance.

Quote
but once the ship is there, it would be able to build a stationary system consisting of physical rings supporting the blackholes, wich would be much larger because of their permenent nature (the rings of the ship would only last a few millionths of a second due to hawking radiation, although some small blackholes may combine to make bigger ones that would leave a trail)

You say due to hawking radiation, thermal hawking radiation is created by black holes collapsing. The miniature holes would collapse because of their instable nature and in turn create hawking radiation right?

The rest looks fine and it is an interesting theory however i have no idea if it would work in reality or if it is even plausible. A few steps out of my league...

Question: What is going to keep the rings in place? The miniature rings and the bigger physical ones are probably going to subjected to different forces as well as the ship. :op2:  
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on July 22, 2004, 01:18:46 PM
there is a thery about those micro blackholes, im just assumeing the thery is true (im assuming alot, but if it works, man it would kick ass!!!)

yes, think of a gauss cannon, with the round magnets and the projectile moving inside those magnets, now turn those magnets into rings of blackholes and that is basicly my idea

the valocity of the pull of gravity is the same, but the force of the pull is different, wich is why they have different weights in the first place, if the ships mass increases the pull of the gravitional field would increase to offset the increase in mass, and thus its accelaration would be unafftected

well hawking radiation is Professor Steven Hawking's thery of why the universe isnt full of blackholes, small ones loose mass in a form of radiation he calls Hawking radiation, again its another thery

for the rings genarated by the ship, they would only exist for a few millionths of a second, wich would be enough to have a ship pass through if the ship is going 10% of the speed of light or more (slower than that it would use a Fusion engine to get to 10% lightspeed, achelly that would be the longest part of the trip, ass well the rings could only decelarate the ship to around 10% lightspeed, but then it could just deploy a magsail to slow it down)

thus because the mini blackholes decay so rapidly, their movement would be minamal, the permenent rings ont eh other hand would need active guidence systems to keep the blackholes in perfact alingment, thats why there would be a physical ring around them, that ring would be equipd with high power lasers, and matter injecters to feed the blackholes, and to keep them in the right spot
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Zircon on July 22, 2004, 05:22:03 PM
Quote
well hawking radiation is Professor Steven Hawking's thery of why the universe isnt full of blackholes, small ones loose mass in a form of radiation he calls Hawking radiation, again its another thery

I know, he also changed his theory recently. Information about matter sucked into a black hole isn't destroyed, it is only mangled. So that you can still see what it has eaten.

I said
Quote
You say due to hawking radiation, thermal hawking radiation is created by black holes collapsing. The miniature holes would collapse because of their instable nature and in turn create hawking radiation right?
becuse you turned it around "(the rings of the ship would only last a few millionths of a second due to hawking radiation, although some small blackholes may combine to make bigger ones that would leave a trail)"

It doesn't collapse "due to" hawking radiation, it creates it.
Title: should we go to back to the moon,
Post by: Betaray on July 22, 2004, 05:42:22 PM
well eathor way the effect is the same, the mini blackholes would evaporate so to speak, and thus would not leave a trail

but, with all those blackholes so close to eachother, even if they last only a few millionths of a second some may combine to form more massive blackholes that would evaporate slower, they would last mabe only a few seconds, to as long as a few days, and thus would produce a trail of small blackholes

that was my origional though as too why using this type of system wouldnt work well with regular back and forth commerse, and thus thought of the ring system

come to think of it, that ring system seems familiar, i think I saw it on a late nite cartoon, but I cant remember what one