Sostyles Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Who thinks we are wasting time on the space exploration side of things, to many unmanned missions. I thought by now the governments would of started to construct a spaceship in space because then the size wouldnt be an issue because you wouldnt have to lauch it through our atmosphere. What they could do is build a massive city like ship capable of accomadating up to 500 maybe more ppl easily. Oxygen can be sustained by a huge ecosphere in the center of the ship containing all forms of plantlife which is rich in oxygen output and carbon dioxide input. Which would be grow and cared for by computerised sprinklers supplying recycled human water before the fresh supply. With this many ppl aboard and a constant supply of air the ship could venture far out in to the galaxy further than we have ever gone before!!! This may seem like a crazy, sci-fi idea but looking at how fast our technology is evolving the above idea may be the best thing to do before our technology evolves to kill us!!!! If you like my ideas please contact me on strangey_boy@o2.co.uk i always reply thank you. Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 And who is going to pay for this? You? The starving in Africa maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Among other things, one would need to confirm that the "huge ecosphere" would actually sustain the people. Biosphere II failed miserably at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepidoptera Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 well, you have fun building your ecosphere thingie. im fine with staying right here on earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 dont you think that money is a stupid thing to worry about!! The human race proposed currency during the middle ages but it just seems stupid how it is gonna prevent us for advancing in space. So what your saying is that it would cost to much.......To Who? if money is man made surely when you hand sombody a £10 note its just a piece of paper with a picture on it!! When constructing something like this money should not be an issue as it is wouldnt be much use anywhere other than this planet!! but if you say money is no option then you could contruct a ship that could take us to places we could only dream of!!! Now if i had to choose a lot of money of a trip into space i would choose space!! Richard branson spends millions every year on space research and exploration, so do NASA so do u think they would say the same as me about the money or space exploration!!! "and how exactly do you propose we get water?" The ship could have watertanks aboard storing alotof water then using distillation to purify the water after human consumption. This could be acheived by setting the appropriate environment in the ecosphere!! I see what you mean about the ecosphere failing on earth but whos to say they had done tests on which is the best plantlife to produce oxygen and the best to remove carbon dioxide. Logically it would be best to pick a species of plant which is indiginous to every region of our planet this would demonstrate a good survival rate amongst this species. Example: Furn Plants and Long grass, algae would be a good species to keep in the ecosphere as it supplies the majority of the earths oxgyen. I hope i have help portrait my idea better thank you Keep reading!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Plants use a lot of water and so do humans. It would be hard to recycle all of it and I'm sure there's depreciation in water after being recycled through organisms and stuff that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Who thinks we are wasting time on the space exploration side of things' date=' to many unmanned missions. I thought by now the governments would of started to construct a spaceship in space because then the size wouldnt be an issue because you wouldnt have to lauch it through our atmosphere.[/quote'] Escaping the atmosphere isn't the issue, escaping gravity is. IMO, robotic and unmanned space flight is more scientifically significant when compared to the cost of sending humans into space when we can build a little machine that will do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I'm sure it could be done, and although I do agree with you, to some extent, on the issue of money, it's still pointless and obviously not going to be done for a long time. NASA do have to worry about the cost of their projects (as does everyone, at the moment, no matter how idealistically opposed they may be to the idea), and such a project is utterly unjustifiable at the moment for many reasons. For a start, where do you propose such a city ship would go? It's all very well to say that it... could venture far out in to the galaxy further than we have ever gone before!!![...and...] could take us to places we could only dream of!!! ...but this is extremely impractical without a specific destination in mind. And even with a specific destination, it would be far more efficient to colonize it gradually than all at once with such a needlessly extravagant project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BhavinB Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Assuming you can somehow sustain so many people, there are a few issues that you can't ignore. a) You can't build this on earth, it would have to be assembled in space. And as of now, doing such is beyond us. b) The ability to get such a massive enclosure to move and maneuver (and slow down) at appreciable speeds is also beyond us. c) Money may be a man-made thing, but human hours are not. Money in its basic form represents human effort and time. Although there are economic factors to somethings cost, basically it comes down to how much time someone spent on something and how much they value their time. You can't ignore this basic fact of existance. So...as Severian said, who is going to 'pay' for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Look at the International Space Station. Years and years, billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of launches, millions of man hours, and what do we have to show for it? A leaky, half-built flying can that can support a few people for a few months. We're not anywhere close to being capable to building the sort of thing you describe, but that's not to say it won't eventually happen. Incidentally, much larger space-based construction projects should be possible as soon as we get a working space elevator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 A space elevator doesn't seem cost effiecient. By the time we can make it I bet we could get launches much cheaper also. I don't really know much about them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 size wouldnt be an issue Look up "inertia". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Some things that make your idea totally unfeasible: Economics Production Techniques General technology Knowledge of ecosystems Political will Purpose All these things are not in your favour. Even there was enough money for such an incredible costly venture (and there isn't, not even close), we couldn't build it anyway. A self sustaining enclosed ecosystem continues to elude us, as well as other somewhat more minor technical hurdles that we have yet to overcome. And finally, why? It is very difficult to justify these kind of enourmous projects unless you have a good reason to do so. With unmanned probes you can spend a (compartively) small amount of money and greatly increase our understanding of the universe. Manned missions are thus far way too inefficient to really do much that a few probes can't do better and cheaper. (Also, for these reasons and other I still dont believe that man will be landing on mars any time soon, despite with the Bush Administration says) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 A space elevator doesn't seem cost effiecient. By the time we can make it I bet we could get launches much cheaper also. I don't really know much about them though. At least in theory it should be far cheaper than any kind of rocket-based launch, and the technology is nearly within our grasp. Check these out: http://www.liftport.com/ http://www.spaceelevator.com/ http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Maybe we havent got the technology or the will at the moment to construct my dream ship but in recent news the north polar cap has melted faster than we ever thought possible and soon will be beyond repair! The sea will rise 7-8 metres and the global temperature will rise slowly which will increase the melting process at the poles. So soon we may need to construct something like my ship in order to survive because with climate change we are talking more violent hurricanes, storms and tornados not to mention earthquakes resulting in mass volcano eruptions which could force a whole new atmosphereic change from an oxygen rich air supply to a carbon dioxide wastland. Earth could become so chaotic that we could not adapt to survive on its surface or oceans. So yeah i think we may need it very soon and i blame america they produce 40% of the worlds pollution and are refusing to cut down and sign the treaty to promise pollution cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The infamous scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 You cant argue with Statistics, "America Is addicted to oil" Your president's very words and the biggest irony is hes one of the biggest oil barons out of Texas!! lol America produces 40% pollution u cant argue with that No scapegoat needed u buried yourself!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I would like to point out that individule states are bringing in their own carbon controlling laws, it is just the federa govenment who still go around saying things like "well there's not enough evidence humans are having any effect" And how does a climate change cause earthquakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 The individual states should come together and decide amongst themselves who to follow youselves or a crazy president!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Or, alternatively, we could identify the risks technology poses and work to avoid them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 You cant argue with Statistics' date=' "America Is addicted to oil" Your president's very words and the biggest irony is hes one of the biggest oil barons out of Texas!! lol America produces 40% pollution u cant argue with that No scapegoat needed u buried yourself!![/quote'] Blame who you must. I'm sure fingerpointing is very productive. Show me a country not addicted to oil and I'll show you a dead one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 France? They have so many nuclear power stations they actually export electricity. (They still use oil in their cars though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I think nearly every country uses and needs oil except maybe some of the poorer third world countires. Take this away and all would be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 But it wouldnt be to bad if your country would sign the treaty to cut carbon emissions! but it wont and thx severian i was gonna point out france also britain produces 2% of the pollution because we use wind turbines, and tidal power along with others such as solar power so america has no excuses there are other power sources but they refuse them all for oil!! Im not making it up check the news sites for the pollution statistics!!! Juststuit!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 You really like those exclamation marks, don't yah? BTW, if some sort of catastrophic climate change did happen, I highly doubt leaving earth would even be considered an option. It would be far better to invest technology to cope with earth's new atmosphere rather then to create a mini self-contained earth that can travel through the vacuum of space. And if leaving earth was considered, we would colonize another planet, not go interstellar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now