RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,756
Posts: 5,216,418
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 844
Newest member: kasmuruis

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 21 2013, 04:18 PM   #91
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov
Plus all other humans who stayed in space for prolonged periods.
Sorry, I see nothing there that supports what you're saying or contradicts what I said. In fact, I'll see you and raise you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight...health_effects:

Spaceflight osteopenia is a serious problem, and it places a significant burden of proof on anyone asserting that people conceived, developed, born, and raised in space will be able to withstand acceleration, especially that of one or more gees.

We won't really know until people are conceived, developed, and born in weightless environments, but science fiction authors such as Niven, and others, write that such people can never return to Earth.
There are no people born and raised in space.
The closest are astronauts/cosmonauts/etc.
In 0 g one suffers principally bone and muscle loss. That doesn't cause one to drop dead in space; nor does it prevent one from withstanding the g stresses of reentry.
The bone/muscle mass is recuperated on earth in ~6 months.

As such - all available evidence is that humans can survive 0 g and acceleration in 0 g.

People born in 0 g can't return to earth? Maybe, maybe not; no proof either way.
But they are likely to be able to live in 0 g and to withstand g forces there.

The problem of how to build bridges has been solved, yet they still fall down. Wear and tear always creates problems.

Spacecraft with rotating sections will entail their own sets of problems, such as how to avoid catastrophic destruction of the spacecraft, if a section should get hit by space debris.
You are moving the goalposts:
I said creating artificial gravity via centrifugal force is a solved problem.
NOT that making this technology (or any technology) infallible is a solved problem.
I moved no goalposts. I simply pointed out that there is a gulf between solving a problem on paper and solving one in practice. The problem is not completely solved until it is solved in practice.

As yet, we have no space stations or spacecraft with centrifugal gravity.

Until such time as those things exist, we cannot boast that it is an already solved problem. You can't speak of things that have never existed in the past tense.
So, you agree that centrifugal gravity is a reality.
You just don't agree that we can build in practice a rotating structure - despite the fact that we have all the tools needed AKA there are no problems beyond actually crossing the ts?
If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 05:47 PM   #92
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

The physics of building a craft with centrifugal-induced artificial gravity is solved. The engineering is not, and calling the engineering merely "crossing the ts" is an incredible understatement.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 05:49 PM   #93
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

I said rotating structure/habitat, not craft (which implies propulsion).
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 06:17 PM   #94
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Well, it couldn't hurt.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 07:44 PM   #95
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
I said rotating structure/habitat, not craft (which implies propulsion).
I stand corrected. Yet my point that dismissing the engineering as merely "crossing the ts" stands.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 11:29 PM   #96
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

We landed men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. We know how to build manned spaceships. That does not make spaceflight a "non-problem". Look at Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 13, if you think otherwise.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 01:37 AM   #97
ZapBrannigan
Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

If we're voting, I'm with the guys who say that actually building a habitable, space-going structure with rotation for gravity will be a huge engineering challenge and there's no guarantee it could be done at all.

The rotating container is a simple concept, but the closer you get to actual hardware that can support human life, the harder it becomes to assemble.

NASA would sell the idea to Congress with reasonable-sounding cost and schedule estimates. Five years and a hundred billion dollars, they'd promise. Then, once NASA had its funding, the schedule would start to slip and the cost would balloon. Twenty years and half a trillion dollars later, Congress would pretty much know they'd been had.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 08:48 AM   #98
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
I said rotating structure/habitat, not craft (which implies propulsion).
I stand corrected. Yet my point that dismissing the engineering as merely "crossing the ts" stands.
My point stands as well:
"If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin."

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
We landed men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. We know how to build manned spaceships. That does not make spaceflight a "non-problem". Look at Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 13, if you think otherwise.
We built hugely expensive and not very safe ships that could at most get people to the moon.
We never solved the problem of spaceflight - not even close.

As for your comparison between centrifugal gravity and spaceships:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is a non-problem, not building spaceships.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 08:51 AM   #99
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
I said rotating structure/habitat, not craft (which implies propulsion).
I stand corrected. Yet my point that dismissing the engineering as merely "crossing the ts" stands.
My point stands as well:
"If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin."

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
We landed men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. We know how to build manned spaceships. That does not make spaceflight a "non-problem". Look at Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 13, if you think otherwise.
We built hugely expensive and not very safe ships that could at most get people to the moon.
We never solved the problem of spaceflight - not even close.

As for your comparison between centrifugal gravity and spaceships:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is a non-problem, not building spaceships.
Ah! So building spaceships is a problem, but building spaceships to do things they've never done before is a non-problem. Got it!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 08:54 AM   #100
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post

I stand corrected. Yet my point that dismissing the engineering as merely "crossing the ts" stands.
My point stands as well:
"If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin."

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
We landed men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. We know how to build manned spaceships. That does not make spaceflight a "non-problem". Look at Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 13, if you think otherwise.
We built hugely expensive and not very safe ships that could at most get people to the moon.
We never solved the problem of spaceflight - not even close.

As for your comparison between centrifugal gravity and spaceships:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is a non-problem, not building spaceships.
Ah! So building spaceships is a problem, but building spaceships to do things they've never done before is a non-problem. Got it!
Again with moving the goalposts:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is the same as building spaceships for you? Really?
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 09:00 AM   #101
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post

My point stands as well:
"If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin."



We built hugely expensive and not very safe ships that could at most get people to the moon.
We never solved the problem of spaceflight - not even close.

As for your comparison between centrifugal gravity and spaceships:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is a non-problem, not building spaceships.
Ah! So building spaceships is a problem, but building spaceships to do things they've never done before is a non-problem. Got it!
Again with moving the goalposts:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is the same as building spaceships for you? Really?
Nope, I never said that. All I said, in the post that kicked off this sidebar, was that doing that on a practical spacecraft is not a "non-problem", as you'd called it.

Not all problems are equally problematic, obviously.

But in practical spaceflight, when mass is a premium, nothing is trivial. When mass is a premium, everything's a problem.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 12:16 AM   #102
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Abrams's movies are already essentially a reboot.
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 06:34 PM   #103
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Not really. BSG (the new one) is incredibly depressing, there's very little humor in it and even though we own the box set, I have yet to rewatch it because it's such a downer. Star Trek was never like that, and I wouldn't want it to be.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 07:02 PM   #104
Misfit Toy
Caped Trek Mod
 
Misfit Toy's Avatar
 
Location: Transporter buffer
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
Did anyone in the 1700s predict an iPhone? Television? Internet? DVD? Space shuttle? Hubble telescope? Automobile? Electron microscope? Electric can opener?
I did.

__________________
Woof.
Misfit Toy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 11:14 PM   #105
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?

Abrams Trek is a reboot but it's not a BSG-style reboot.

Closer to a Nolan-style reboot.
JirinPanthosa is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.