Travelling To The Next Star

[sojourner]

Guys, I'm calling bullshit. These threads are a joke.

That's what you believe because you are incapable of thinking outside the box.
I've explained the benefits of my idea and how it surpasses building a mere ship, I've even explained what's required to get it out of orbit. I have proven this idea is capable of being accomplished.

You are ignoring everything I have said. A generational ship is limited in scope, can sustain only a certain number of people and would have no additional resources to tap into and would be susceptible to cosmic forces.

A Moon Colony being sent to another star has the following benefits:

1. Protection from radiation and comet/asteroid impacts.
2. Enough water for an enormous continually growing population.
3. Enough space to expand the colony.
4. Enough surface area to build telescopes and other deep space research equipment.
5. Enough resources to expand the colony, build new things and fix old things.
6. Enough resources to allow the colony once it arrives at it's destination to transfer materials and equipment to more easily colonise a planet or other Moon.
7. The Moon is so large compared to a mere ship it could store enough equipment, food and whatever else you can think of for the lengthy journey as well as vast lengths of hydroponics bays.
8. Enough space to store fuel, fuel converters, nuclear material and whatever else needs storing.
9. Enough space to build multiple factory and manufacturing complexes.

10. Requires that we only need develop propulsion technology to a level allowing the movement of planetary bodies.

11. Assumes that (10) will occur before other technologies develop that mitigate the idea in the first place.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

10. Requires that we only need develop propulsion technology to a level allowing the movement of planetary bodies.

11. Assumes that (10) will occur before other technologies develop that mitigate the idea in the first place.

As far as I can see we will never develop propulsion that will get us quickly to the next star system, we will require a generational ship that will be on a LONG journey and the best kind would be a Moon colony.
I'm not proposing we knock the Moon out of orbit quickly, I propose this as a long term investment. It will take a long time to get the Moon out of orbit and the whole while it's being moved further and further out of orbit we can also develop the colony infrastructure and facilities.

So we don't do one thing then the other, we kill two birds with one stone and develop the colony as we de-orbit it.

 

[O'Dib]

There you have it fellas, let's get on this!

 

[Alpha_Geek]

...and you still haven't answered the question regarding your statement that you wouldn't post pie in the sky stuff any longer.

 

[O'Dib]

If there can be sky pie, I want in on that too!

 

[Zachary Smith]

10. Requires that we only need develop propulsion technology to a level allowing the movement of planetary bodies.

11. Assumes that (10) will occur before other technologies develop that mitigate the idea in the first place.

As far as I can see we will never develop propulsion that will get us quickly to the next star system, we will require a generational ship that will be on a LONG journey and the best kind would be a Moon colony.
I'm not proposing we knock the Moon out of orbit quickly, I propose this as a long term investment. It will take a long time to get the Moon out of orbit and the whole while it's being moved further and further out of orbit we can also develop the colony infrastructure and facilities.

So we don't do one thing then the other, we kill two birds with one stone and develop the colony as we de-orbit it.

You DO realize that knocking the moon out of orbit holds pretty dire consequences for the continuation of life on Earth, right?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

10. Requires that we only need develop propulsion technology to a level allowing the movement of planetary bodies.

11. Assumes that (10) will occur before other technologies develop that mitigate the idea in the first place.

As far as I can see we will never develop propulsion that will get us quickly to the next star system, we will require a generational ship that will be on a LONG journey and the best kind would be a Moon colony.
I'm not proposing we knock the Moon out of orbit quickly, I propose this as a long term investment. It will take a long time to get the Moon out of orbit and the whole while it's being moved further and further out of orbit we can also develop the colony infrastructure and facilities.

So we don't do one thing then the other, we kill two birds with one stone and develop the colony as we de-orbit it.

You DO realize that knocking the moon out of orbit holds pretty dire consequences for the continuation of life on Earth, right?

At no point in this thread do I propose knocking Earth's Moon out of orbit. When I say "the Moon" in that particular post you quoted I'm referring to whatever small moon out there in the solar system we will choose to use.
If you've read the thread then you known damn well I've been talking about small moons in the outer solar system, that much has been made blatantly clear.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

OK. You got us. It's a frakkin' awesome idea. All it needs is someone of your uncontested genius to implement it.

The stars await you, Taccy. Keep us posted on your progress, but I hope your moon doesn't depart before Jan 1, 2013 because I believe there will be something on youtube that I really want to watch.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

OK. You got us. It's a frakkin' awesome idea. All it needs is someone of your uncontested genius to implement it.

The stars await you, Taccy. Keep us posted on your progress, but I hope your moon doesn't depart before Jan 1, 2013 because I believe there will be something on youtube that I really want to watch.

You want me to invent matter/anti-matter engines? organise the colonisation of an outer solar system moon? How do you suggest I accomplish that then?

 

[Kaziarl]

You guys are forgetting. All his ideas probably work perfectly in his fourth density universe that will be coming in 2012.

Sure, there maybe be a couple things that could be of benefit, raw matter and whatnot, but if you have matter/anti-matter engines to push said chunk of lifeless rock out of orbit, you can probably do a lot better with a space ship and get there much faster. Then once you arrive, there will likely be ample supply of chunks of lifeless rock, making the dragging of the previously mentioned chunk of lifeless rock rather moot.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

but if you have matter/anti-matter engines to push said chunk of lifeless rock out of orbit, you can probably

Why do I read such sentences around here so regularly?

Always claiming "if we can do that then we can probably do this instead making the original idea moot".
There's no reason to believe that being able to build a matter/anti-matter engine to slowly push a Moon out of orbit over a long period of time would make a journey for a ship any quicker or a better option.

 

[O'Dib]

Except, you know, reason. But I forget, I actually like the moon idea. Gotta be girls doing the mooning though.

 

[Kaziarl]

No, but I'd be willing to bet if you did develop such an engine, it would push the smaller mass of a ship a heck of a lot faster. THINK tachy, it really isn't all that hard.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

No, but I'd be willing to bet if you did develop such an engine, it would push the smaller mass of a ship a heck of a lot faster. THINK tachy, it really isn't all that hard.

How much thrust would 1 pound of matter and 1 pound of anti-matter generate on a space shuttle in space? you simply cannot answer such questions.

A smaller vessel to a Moon could possibly get there somewhat faster but would not be able to store as much fuel and certainly would not have the ability to expand the colony and population along the journey. A Moon could also be accelerated faster over a period of time. By the time a generational ship on the journey ran out of the fuel the Moon could have plenty left and surpass the speed of the craft.

Speed really isn't the issue because either way the journey is a lengthy one. The issue is protection and survival on the journey, the colony and how well they can adapt and colonise another world in another star system at journeys end.

 

[Squiggy]

OK. You got us. It's a frakkin' awesome idea. All it needs is someone of your uncontested genius to implement it.

The stars await you, Taccy. Keep us posted on your progress, but I hope your moon doesn't depart before Jan 1, 2013 because I believe there will be something on youtube that I really want to watch.

You want me to invent matter/anti-matter engines? organise the colonisation of an outer solar system moon? How do you suggest I accomplish that then?

You tell us. You're the one with all the "ideas".

 

[Kaziarl]

Well, I'm no rocket scientist, nor theoretical physicist, so I can't give you specific equations. But one thing I do know is how to look things up.

From Wikipedia:

In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy. The energy per unit mass (9×1016 J/kg) is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy (compared to TNT at 4.2×106 J/kg, and formation of water at 1.56×107 J/kg), about 4 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission (about 40 MeV per 238U nucleus transmuted to Lead, or 1.5×1013 J/kg), and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible from fusion (about 6.3×1014 J/kg for the proton-proton chain). The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²), or the rough equivalent of 43 megatons of TNT. For comparison, Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, reacted an estimated yield of 50 megatons, which required the use of hundreds of kilograms of fissile material (Uranium/Plutonium).

Wow... 1kg gives that much yield. I mean... wow... 1 kg antimatter, and 1 kg matter... and it gives off more powere then the hundreds of kgs of matterial that Tsar Bomba used for approx. the same output...

Seems like you wouldn't need to carry that much fuel at all... certainly not a moon.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Regardless of propulsion method, sending a Moon has benefits that far outweigh sending a ship and I've listed them extensively.

The defence rests.

 

[O'Dib]

Yes Tachy, go take a rest now. There there.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

You want me to invent matter/anti-matter engines? organise the colonisation of an outer solar system moon? How do you suggest I accomplish that then?

It's not for me to suggest because you're the one saying it's all reasonable. Time to prove it.

Just make sure your departure date is after the beginning of 2013. You have unfinished business to tape on New Years Day.

 

[Jadzia]

Alpha Geek - you're contributions to this discussion haven't so far been positive.

Item First: You said you weren't going to post new stuff in here. What changed?

I Am Legend is perfectly entitled to post here. This kind of remark is unwelcome in Sci-Tech. We want our visitors to feel comfortable asking questions.

Got your camera ready for Jan 1, 2013?

You've made this reference more than once now. And as you know, it is reference to things of TNZ origin. Please leave TNZ at the door.

You forgot to add "In my completely unqualified opinion and by throwing all laws of physics out the window, with common sense right on its tail".

To you and to other readers: If you don't have anything positive to contribute to this discussion, or you disagree with the OP, then please refrain from injecting ridicule or otherwise hostile remarks. I don't want to see these innocent threads deteriorating into unpleasantness.