Curious layman

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Some stories say they teleported an electron. This one says photon. Regardless, it was the state of the particle that was teleported, not the particle itself.

That's very confusing. How can you teleport the state and not the particle, is that even teleportation?

Are they using hyperbole to make it sound more exciting?

14 hours ago, Janus said:

While Venus is closer in terms of travel time, it is actually slightly harder to get to in terms of the delta v needed for a ship to get there, and that's not counting the extra needed to enter and leave orbit around a planet significantly more massive than Mars.  In addition,  solar radiation is ~90% stronger at Venus than is at Earth.  One of the issues spacecraft have to deal with is how to get rid of excess heat. You may have heard that space is cold, but it is not, it has no temp at all.  What it is, is a good insulator, as the only way to lose heat is through radiation. A spacecraft sent to Venus would have to be able to shed a lot more heat.  Landing would be out of the question, and you would be stuck orbiting above the clouds of a world that it a good description of Hell on the surface.   I'm not to sure how good psychologically speaking that would be for the astronauts, nor any safer.

Maybe if Venus had turned out to be like some of our earlier imaginings, basically a sister planet to Earth, but just warmer, it would have made a better target for manned Missions, but as it is, it's not as alluring.

I was thinking of just a flyby of Venus, not actually landing. Didn't think about the difficulty of heat loss in space and the extra gravity compared to Mars. Always thought the extra solar radiation would be a plus. Solar flares would be a bigger problem as well I imagine.

Id still rather visit an airship above Venus than a base on Mars though. What a shame the Russians stopped going to Venus. Just think of the robotics and advanced materials they would have if they'd kept sending landers.

On 7/13/2019 at 9:37 PM, koti said:

Could you recommend a book store/place where I could find good books/papers on physics for my new Kindle for our 2 week mediterranean vacation? Also if anyone has a tip on a good scifi/dystopia/utopia book I’d be grateful. 

The Road by Cormack McCarthy. Post-Apocalyptic, Not too long, simply written, absolutely brilliant.

Ok these replies are great but I didn't explain myself properly, what I was trying to do was get an image in my head of how much energy it would be. It's like when people compare something to Olympic sized swimming pools, or Hiroshima bombs, it makes it's easier for everyday people to understand. I can get a good scale of the space shuttle in my head, that's why I chose that. The antimatter and location of ship was irrelevant, The explosion bit was because you can tell me all the numbers you want, but the truth is they don't really help me, I need an image.

13 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

My guesstimation is that it would take about 22 tons of matter + 22 tons of antimatter at the halfway-to-moon distance to make some serous damage on earth. This is based on total irradiation energy equivalent to the energy released in 1000 megaton explosion... 1000 megaton seem quite a lot, but when distributed over the whole earth's disc, I don't think it would be deadly (but I guess some significant damage will be done).

The Space Shuttle had considerably more mass than this, so its explosion (supposing half matter half antimatter composition) would cause serous damage on Earth surface. Possibly global-scale fires.

(It would not event touch the solar system - the sun converts 4 million tons of mater into radiation every second)

This helps a lot. Thank you.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

What do you learn in the trip to Venus that can't be learned in going to the moon or on the ISS? The part about increased distance is probably the part that's best understood, since it's basically Newton's first law of motion. You don't have to do anything to keep going in a straight line. We've sent probes to other planets, so the mechanics are known. If it's simply mission duration, you can investigate that without leaving the earth-moon gravity well.

"Why not?" is not an answer. Why waste the trip and land on a tiny moon with almost no gravity? What supplies are going to be there that aren't on Mars? How much smaller a step is this? You're going to go at least 55 million km and and then stop 10,000 km from Mars?

 

I'm thinking about the psychology/experience of the astronauts and mission control. being so far from earth, I've heard it could be a big problem psychologically. Keep going further and further out each time would be best I think. As Venus is closer, it would be best (and I assume safer) for a first extra long mission. Then a longer one to Mars. Then one around Mars but land on Phobos, you get the experience of going out that far and landing, but it will be safer because a lot of the equipment would have been tried and tested on Moon, this would be invaluable experience for mission control. Then, when we  land on Mars it's much more likely to be successful because of the experience we gained.

All this crap about landing on Mars in the 2030s seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Too rushed. 2050s would be better, and more realistic.

And also, I prefer Venus to Mars. Never been excited by Mars personally.

Venus is a lot closer to mars, so as a first step to long distance space travel it would be better. We'll allready have the tech to go the moon so why not land on Phobos first, maybe get fuel also. I'm thinking if we take longer, and do it in smaller steps it will be easier to achieve, and more likely also. Maybe cheaper too, as the private sector will be a lot bigger.

my feelings are that NASA should be focused on living long term in space and the moon(s) and sending probes/robots to planets, not people. Pointless waste of money (at the moment anyway). Mars should be just another stepping stone, not a one off mega project that's so expensive it's unlikely to be repeated for decades.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Such as: you aren't going to get all of the details right for the design of a multi-generational spacecraft on the first try. A mars colony would identify some of the issues. And a moon colony would identify problems with a Mars colony design, in a circumstance that would entail much less risk to the inhabitants.

We went to the moon in 1969, not 1961, for similar reasons.

This is why I think going to mars straight away is not only a bad idea but doomed to failure. Talk about a giant leap...

instead we should go to moon, orbit Venus, orbit Mars, land on Mars moon Phobos, then land on Mars. 

15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I suggest the urge to find new territory - a primitive urge - underlies the sense of attraction people have for other stars and other worlds, but given the multi-generational nature of the goal, that is really not going to be sufficient to expect whole populations to repeatedly make economic sacrifices for something they will not see. That urge to up stakes and hit the road when things get tough in search of some place better is too vague and non-specific as a motivation, and is not (I think) sufficient for circumstances where you have the ability to make the 'someplace better' yourself, even if from such dismal and difficult raw material as asteroids and comets. Having worked hard and made some comfort and security - if you have successfully built someplace better and the way forward involves sacrificing that hard won security and comfort for starting all over again - that commitment to the far off end goal will be hard to keep going.

 

At some point in the future the sun will die so we'll have no choice to leave (please correct me if I'm wrong).

but all the evidence to me seems to suggest that if we do get to another star, we'll be so advanced at living in space we won't need to colonise any planets.

this is why I think we need to put ourselves there instead. Sort of really advanced biological 3D printing, make us so that we are able to live in the local environment, but then could that still be considered human? Would the advanced AI you would need be like God? Or would we be like God?

Maybe best to use our knowledge to try and kick start life on other planets instead. 

Incidentally the STS is one of my favourite feats of engineering. Incredible.

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

But space-shuttle size is 56.1 meters (not 34 meters long). What is "34 Mtr long" if not mass of antimatter (or antimatter+matter together)? It could mean 34 metric long tons ("34 Mtr long").

Got it from this. Still not 34 though.

Israel didn't learn anything from the war? I'd say Israelis attitude to security and terrorism counters that, Google Mossad. if it's a reference to Israel acting in a similar way to the Nazis then do you have any evidence of concentration camps, forced labour, Human experiments, Ethnic cleansing?

Whether it can be done or not remains to be seen, but I've no doubt that us Humans will try. Human nature.

we'll  definitely need to change ourselves though. If we were smaller we would need less food, less air... people who are dwarfs or midgets still have the same brain capacity, after all were only the size we are because of of lifestyles/cultures, for instance Asian people are generally smaller than westerners. We don't need to be this big do we.

why not make ourselves only 3 foot tall. sounds stupid but I think it would help a little!

18 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

I'd like to see some initial guinea pig missions further out. I'm sure what's the best way to go about that but definitely needs to get done.

Hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later, especially with the new focus on the moon. But now Trumps changed his mind about the moon I don't know. 

Trump seems to just like the idea of being the person responsible for putting someone on mars (in his eyes), His plan seems to be based to much around his ego for it to be successful to me. That's why he keeps changing his mind.

He's just slowing down the inevitable  though. I definitely believe we're on the start of a new revolution in technology and Engineering (quantum computing, nano tech, fusion, Graphene, space tourism etc).

I find all this interest by governments and all the research into space travel really exciting personally. I can't wait for manned missions in the Orion spacecraft past the moon to start. Then we can start to get more up to date information.

• Seven Brief Lessons  On Physics   -  Carlo Rovelli

very thin, only 79 pages, but seems good overview for understanding the basics.

• Unmasking Europa. -  Richard Greenberg

1 hour ago, swansont said:

"They" do? 

Do "they" do a calculation to show this?

Again, is there a calculation? (This is the third recent thread on interstellar travel where people seem to be allergic to any kind of rigorous analysis)

 

But it's nowhere near the energy available in the whole galaxy. You're not quite to the point if requiring half the ship to be antimatter, but that isn't far off, and for a more reasonable set of assumptions might be the case. (This assumes that you aren't getting propulsion form a source that isn't on board)

 

 

I really appreciate people like you replying me Swansont (and everyone else) but please remember, i work in factory, I have no idea how to do rigorous analysis on physics. Even Wikipedia is mostly incomprehensible. 

Note: this site has motivated me to rejoin the library again after years, so hopefully that will start to  change

The same amount of energy as in the galaxy was a reference to the Alcubierre drive, but Wikipedia says they think they've brought it down now.

Also, I thinks it's next to impossible for interstellar travel, this was something I thought was another reason why.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

But space-shuttle size is 56.1 meters (not 34 meters long). What is "34 Mtr long" if not mass of antimatter (or antimatter+matter together)? It could mean 34 metric long tons ("34 Mtr long").

Your right. That's me not doing research. Another lesson for me.

that was just a reference to the size of the ship I was thinking about, my point being that even the energy required to get this to the nearest star (if all of it onboard) would be so massive it would be too dangerous to even think about.

All news must be independent from advertising, un biased, and non profit.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think there is enough information to answer this. The amount of fuel isn't determined by the distance, but (roughly) by how quickly you want to get there; ie. how long you are accelerating for.

 

I was thinking about when they talk about getting to the next star and stopping, at say about 10% c.

they say- you would need every part of your ship filled with anti matter, 

also ive heard that the amount of energy required would be more then is in the galaxy

surely then, even if you could theoretically do this, there would be absolutely no chance of you being allowed too. I mean that's a massive amount of energy all in one place, if it's equivalent to the amount of energy in the galaxy, wouldn't it just wipe out the solar system if it exploded?

Just say I had enough anti-matter to get the US space shuttle (34 Mtr long), to the nearest star. 

If the shuttle was half way between the earth and the moon and was hit by something and exploded, would the explosion be big enough to wipe out the earth? What about the solar system? Would you be able to see it light years away?

I'm with Bufofrog and Swansont, there's a big difference between the edge of the solar system and the nearest star. I've also seen (somewhere on you tube) that the nearest star/planet that could actually be of any use to us is about 120 light years away.

i only think its only impossible trying to get us there, how we are now. Were too specialised for our environment. Too complex. I think it's more of a biological problem. 

I thinks it's about whether we can create life that can survive that long.

I hope Zapatos and Moontanman are right though. 

I wouldn't say intelligent people will be more likely to do drugs, there was the mathematician Paul Erdos, but scientists are hardly known for being drug users. 

Im thinking you might be thinking of celebrities and musicians? That's more to do with lifestyle than intelligence.

as for ravers, I know loads of ravers, there just everyday people I'm afraid, and the reason they do drugs is that it's fun and cheap, Simple as that.

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdos 

the part about drug use is in the personality section, the second paragraph.

23 hours ago, Electricblue9969 said:

Hi, Will Brain-Computer interfaces allow us to achieve full dive VR? E.g. neuralink. 

There's a thread in computer science - will VR ever replace reality - which has answers similar to what I think your looking for. 

Without being rude, it's not one of the better threads though.

an even better one in computer science is - will we get brain computer interfaces by 2037 - both of these are on the first page.

9 minutes ago, The Shadow said:

It is a shame we could not intercept this object before it left our solar system. Perhaps, some day, we will have a craft or probe capable of catching up to it. Then we can collect needed data for it's composition. 

I am aware there was much optimism of it being alien created. It appears our limited observation ability yielded no overwhelming evidence for that conclusion though:(

We should ask Elon if we can borrow his car, and just drive there! Couldn't we just get its composition from telescopes like they do with planets?

Starting to think getting people to the nearest star is completely impossible. Maybe better to just send small probes that can assemble into something bigger. Use bio-tech to make us there instead, with artificial wombs and stuff.

I was thinking about this in work, I really hope so.

my idea was to use it for people in a vegative state, the people who can still hear and think. Connect the VR to there eyes and family members could link up in a VR room. How amazing would that be? Or even better a hologram! They could use the neurolink to communicate.

There's  a TV series called Altered Carbon that has the same thing. They stole their tech from aliens though. I personally think it's when not if. Maybe in the next Century or two. Understanding the brain will be the biggest problem, maybe even more difficult than the theory of everything in my opinion.

There's a film called  Grave of the Fireflies I really need to watch

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_Fireflies.

The quote above from Swansont is from the "is time travel possible?" thread, in the general philosophy section by the thinkertank.